"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

So now Obama has recommended emergency loans to GM, Ford and Chysler and
is also pushing for a $50B bailout package to tide them over for a while.
Here's a quoted passage from the article:

Government Motors.

Once they start sucking, they will all want a teat and suck hard. Canada
has some experience with it. It is such a relief when they go out of
business or get bought out for 5 cents on the dollar.

"If the plan were to offer no strong guarantees against layoffs it would
likely draw fire from unions. But Obama advisers have been persuaded that
the impact on current workers and retirees would be staggering if the
companies went into bankruptcy."

I don't mean to sound calious. But how come they didn't think about this
some 10, 200 or 30 years ago while they ran down the company that was once
the worlds biggest company?

A little late now. GM and Chrysler are so far in debt they can't afford to
lay people off an pay severance.

Kind of like the wolf that just ate the chicken complaining of no chickens.

Here's what I don't understand.

To the best of my knowledge, only 12 percent of the total American
workforce is Union. Obviously the number of union auto workers is a much
smaller percentage.

So, Obama thinks that the taxpayers should cough up $50B to save the jobs
of a relatively small percentage of the workforce?

What about the millions of people working in non-union small businesses?
They are being affected by the economic slowdown as much as the auto
industry's union workers. Are they going to get a dedicated and specific
bailout as well to keep the companies they work for in business?

Quite easy to understand, pigs are at the trough and want non-union workers
to pay like a tax to keep union workers and bad managmeent in place. In
fact, every mismanged company and city ou there is lined up to take our
money via the government cofferes.

Those unfortunate enough to get laid off due to work slow downs typically
apply for unemployment benefits and try to find a new job. Why do the
employees of GM, Ford and Chrysler deserve more consideration?

They don't, but they make lots of noise.

Does the person elsewhere in the economy get special consideration?

Is this part of the "share the wealth" plan?

Eisboch

Share the wealth. Yep, from our pockets to theirs without sane reason other
than socialist greed. Socialism is a great ideal, as long as someone else
pays for it.

If a politician had any guts they would tell these parasites to screw off.
You made your bed now live with it or go out of business. The free money
government till is closed.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 13, 8:54 pm, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
So now Obama has recommended emergency loans to GM, Ford and Chysler
and is also pushing for a $50B bailout package to tide them over for a
while. Here's a quoted passage from the article:

"If the plan were to offer no strong guarantees against layoffs it
would likely draw fire from unions. But Obama advisers have been
persuaded that the impact on current workers and retirees would be
staggering if the companies went into bankruptcy."

Here's what I don't understand.

To the best of my knowledge, only 12 percent of the total American
workforce is Union. Obviously the number of union auto workers is a
much smaller percentage.

So, Obama thinks that the taxpayers should cough up $50B to save the
jobs of a relatively small percentage of the workforce?

What about the millions of people working in non-union small
businesses? They are being affected by the economic slowdown as much
as the auto industry's union workers. Are they going to get a
dedicated and specific bailout as well to keep the companies they work
for in business?

Those unfortunate enough to get laid off due to work slow downs
typically apply for unemployment benefits and try to find a new job.
Why do the employees of GM, Ford and Chrysler deserve more
consideration?

Is this part of the "share the wealth" plan?

Eisboch

Whoooooooosh.

Unions, a just a powerful special interest group. Better funded than and
listened to more often than most of the K street lobbying firms.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Union protection is just glorified welfare for those who don't want to
work. of people like Harry who wouldn't know how. Working for a union,
on the working end of the table, I saw it all the time. The union
going to bat for lazy bitches who wreren't worth 2 dollars an hour.
And before our resident asshole says anything, I was the smallest guy
in the shop of over 350 men, and never had a week where I was not in
the top ten percent of production. BTW, the union hated guys like me,
used to come to some of us and "ask" us to slow down to spare the bums
having to do a days work, for a days pay...
-------

That is a common union theme. Work to the lowest possible common loser.

When starting out working I was in a union. The union rep came right up to
me and asked "You like having your job?". I agreed. He then said make that
4 box cars a shift not 8. Idiots, I could empty 12 if I pushed it, 8
safely, 4 made for very long shifts with nothing to do for 4 hours as I
never figured out how to make the fork lift run that slow.

Not my only hit with the union. I was walking by a machine that was just
about to destroy itself with no operator in sight. So I clipped the
emergency stop. Save the company a bundle week down time to repair it as I
caught it early and easy to repair. The union tried to fire me as it
"wasn't your job", company management thanked me and kept me on. The union
rep was on my ass until I quit but management passed them off.

Glad I left too. They are all now unemployed losers. Have been for over a
decade being caught in the last recession. Of those working today, working
poor. Was I glad to get out of that mentality and dysfunctional environment
early.

Now the lazy greedy *******s want our wallets.