Click here for article
Personally, I agree with this guy. I think the bailout was a terrible idea in the first place, and he's right, it will just open the door for more greedy corporations to "beg for government help".
FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN: YOU-PROBLEM EDITION.
-
*Went down a K hole the other night.*
I have said more than once that the *New York Post* is Rupert Murdoch’s
primary stateside lie-diffuser – more than ...
1 week ago
4 Comments:
I agree with the emotion I suppose of being against it for the bad precedent it sets. I really do think management needs to take the hit here though and not the UAW. People agree to work for less wages up front with the promise of a pension later-I think Obama said that.
I've listened to autoworker bashing for 30 years now, but rarely do I hear people making the connection to the executives and engineers who design crap and the car companies failures in the marketplace.
I also wonder what a smaller temporary bailout could do to keep people working, as a stop gap while the gov't puts in health care reforms. That could take the long term pressure off the pension costs for the companies and avoid bankruptcy with would void union contracts.
I guess I am just torn on what this could mean. I agree that the management and not the autoworkers should take the hit. It's the corporate part of it that bothers me the most.
I don't like it at all. There needs to be strict oversight of the funds that they are going to get. This Bush economy sucks.
I'm listening to Ed Schultz right now and he said something interesting. He thinks it's funny Congress was willing to prop up the fake economy (Wall Street) but in favor of allowing the real economy-auto manfacturing that employs people to whither.
This has got to be a loan with transparent terms if this is going to happen. And these effing execs have got to take the hit. The bozos that run these companies give themselves millions in pay that could have shored up their pension plans.
Post a Comment