Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the liberal Kool-aid-mustachioed crowd were giddy like school girls, posting on any blog or internet forum they could find, buying into the claims of GM paying back their loan <swoon>
Glad they decided to explain what paying it all back means:
A sweetheart deal for the unions means losing their contractually promised pensions after the fact of lifetime career?
I'm curious to hear how any CEO in America is justified to be paid prior to performance, paid regardless of poor performance, and is guaranteed a pension even if they didn't commit themselves in time service. Your separate set of rules betrays you, and this spoof, as utter nonsense.
A sweetheart deal for the unions means losing their contractually promised pensions after the fact of lifetime career?
Let's look at the options that were available.
1. GM goes bankrupt. They lose their pensions and the employees lose their jobs.
2. They cut a deal, GM doesn't go bankrupt and the company they spent their "lifetime" building gets to stay in business. The current employees get to keep their jobs.
3. The government, headed by people beholden to the unions, unconstitutionally takes over the company, and at the expense of the taxpayers, pays off the unions and screws everyone else that had an investment in the company. The company no longer has motivation to produce a quality product or satisfy shareholders, since the government will continue to throw taxpayers' money at them no matter what.
Hmm.... Tough choice. I think we should have chosen the worst possible option. Oh, wait - we did.
A sweetheart deal for the unions means losing their contractually promised pensions after the fact of lifetime career?
I'm curious to hear how any CEO in America is justified to be paid prior to performance, paid regardless of poor performance, and is guaranteed a pension even if they didn't commit themselves in time service. Your separate set of rules betrays you, and this spoof, as utter nonsense.
The sweetheart deal is that the unions were given ownership at the expense of the original investors/creditors, who were royally screwed by obama.
The point is that the Treasury and GM LIED when they claimed GM had "paid back" the loan.
CEO's are employees. When they get fired for incompetence, they get golden parachutes and pensions at the expense of all (including shareholders, who have no say in compensation packages controlled by a boardroom writing their own ticket).
Double standards are double standards are double standards. NEXT!
Right. So if we're unhappy about a ridiculous situation, shouldn't someone get sane enough to say lets stop following the leader when policies are wrongfully written? Problem is both right and left are wrong. Problem is neither want to believe they are wrong and keep insisting a square peg fit in a round hole.
What does your deflection about generic CEO's and their golden parachutes have to do with the GM corrupt bankruptcy, headed by obama, and then the actual LIE GM and the Treasury told about the loan "pay back"?
So basically what you're saying is that if some CEO, somewhere, gets fired with a golden parachute, that justifies what obama did to the original investors of GM?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
