Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Blaming Chrysler and GM's woes on Obama are about as silly as blaming a fireman for soaking the carpet. Their epitaph's were written long before Obama came into office. They were written long before Obama ran for ANY office.
|
Chrysler and GM were going to go out of business. So we bailed them out so it would not be necessary for them to go into bankruptcy protection or to liquidate. So after they were given billions by Congress and Obama, they go into bankruptcy anyway? And this bankruptcy, especially for GM which was the more recent, was handled in record time with the U.S. Government getting an almost 70% share of the company. This was done solely to protect the UAW, Obama and the Democrats' powerful union ally. They could give a damn about the company except to make sure that it was not put through a bankruptcy in the traditional sense, because they would be able to break the union as part of those proceedings.
The excesses of that particular union -- unions in general certainly have a legitimate role in preventing workers rights -- have resulted in layed off workers keeping 95% of their wage so that they don't want to come back to work and a lot of other arrangements that run counter to the profitability of the company. If the company folds, the union worker gets nothing, so it is both stupid and silly for the Democrats to advocate so hard for the union worker that they hurt them.
So now, we the taxpayers are unwilling shareholders in two losing companies. If we want our money back, we should let the companies do whatever actually increases profits so they can pay us back, not force them to make cars nobody wants so they can go bankrupt again on our dime. That's the meddling by Obama and the Democrats that I object to.