So union members deserve to have their pensions made whole but nonunion have their pensions terminated. Is this payback to the unions for political backing the Ds?
We will probably be invited to the Monday meeting at tomorrows meeting.
Next day
Quote:
We got uninvited
I don't see anywhere in those emails that is a smoking gun about the Treasury making the decisions, and the complete exclusion of PGCC.
Beside a gotcha moment, why would Republicans care? I am sure this has everything to do with the Romney ads in states like Ohio.
My feelings about this thread:
Let's get this straight -- the very person who argued for the US auto industry to go bankrupt, something that would have caused more than a million jobs lost and utter economic devastation in the midwest, is now trying to attack the President on how it was handled?
Back in 2009 when the government sacrificed GM and Chrysler bondholders just so labor unions (read voters) can be made whole, the media, for various reasons, decided not to pursue the decision-making process that left some workers with their pensions wiped out, while others were made whole and suffered no losses (with a comparable lack of investigation being conducted as to the decisions that shuttered some Chrysler dealers, but left others operating, a topic Zero Hedge had some say over). In fact, as the Daily Caller reminds us "The White House and Treasury Department have consistently maintained that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) independently made the decision to terminate the 20,000 non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan...Former Treasury official Matthew Feldman and former White House auto czar Ron Bloom, both key members of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the GM bailout, have testified under oath that the PBGC, not the administration, led the effort to terminate the non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan." Turns out they lied... Under oath.
Quote:
"Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of 20,000 salaried retirees at the Delphi auto parts manufacturing company. The move, made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan, appears to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions."
A little foreshadowing to the day when the Treasury won't be able to cover you Social Security checks...
__________________
"All you have to do is to tell them (the people) they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
Why does anyone think that any auto company going bankrupt would have led to them shutting down? Surely you have heard of United Airlines going bankrupt and still flying. The difference would be that secured creditors would get paid first. You see, Obama saved nothing but millions for union bosses and their flock of unsecured parasites.
__________________
As Breesus said while hovering over the latest vanquished foe..." I am life, I am death, I will steal your final breath"
So union members deserve to have their pensions made whole but nonunion have their pensions terminated. Is this payback to the unions for political backing the Ds?
non-union members don't have the leverage that comes with collective bargaining so they are at a disadvantage and its easier for them to get screwed over. You're making a strong case for the importance of worker unions, and simultaneously expressing outrage at spending cuts in government. Welcome to the dark side.
non-union members don't have the power of collective bargaining so they are at a disadvantage and its easier for them to get screwed over. You're making a strong case for the importance of worker unions, and simultaneously expressing outrage at spending cuts in government. Welcome to the dark side.
Except, historically, the justification for unions has been that the evil private company would screw the workers (not a government pushed screw-job of workers)...in this case, what you're arguing in favor of is nothing short government supported extortion: "You will join the union, or else; you saw what happened to the pensions of non-unionized GM workers, this will happen to you too."
The Dark Side, indeed.
Just as an fyi...this has nothing to do with collective bargaining. You are throwing out a complete red-herring.
Except, historically, the justification for unions has been that the evil private company would screw the workers (not a government pushed screw-job of workers)...in this case, what you're arguing in favor of is nothing short government supported extortion: "You will join the union, or else; you saw what happened to the pensions of non-unionized GM workers, this will happen to you too."
The Dark Side, indeed.
Just as an fyi...this has nothing to do with collective bargaining. You are throwing out a complete red-herring.
Honestly... you don't think that is much easier for employers (public or private) to cut pensions of non-union employees as opposed to dealing with a union? really?
Why does anyone think that any auto company going bankrupt would have led to them shutting down? Surely you have heard of United Airlines going bankrupt and still flying. The difference would be that secured creditors would get paid first. You see, Obama saved nothing but millions for union bosses and their flock of unsecured parasites.
What? Real Housewives of Gamorah is on.....not listening.......
I mean, for starters- was there a meeting, what was discussed at the meeting, who was at the meeting?
These emails do not show anything. Not even something that might warrant an investigation.
If one is looking to hold the bar at a proof-positive, irrefutable evidence, type of level; then sure, I agree with you...If, however, you look at what occurred, union workers kept their pensions in tact while non-union workers got screwed; and then walk the dog back and try to figure out who was responsible, these emails are a part of that puzzle.
If your argument is that we haven't found the one Perry Mason moment in the case, yet, then yes, I agree with you. But this is less of an ah-ha moment; it is simply an outer layer of the onion beginning to get peeled back.
But, as you know JE, I argued that this whole situation surrounding the GM and Chrysler bailouts was corrupt when it happened in 2009, I've said it from the moment the deal was announced. Corruption by high level government officials can be hidden for periods of time, generally until the opposition party gains additional measures of power. At this point, who do you really expect would be investigating this? Holder's Justice Department?
But if the President wins a second term, and the R's regain the Senate, I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few investigations delving into matters of national corruption. It's a reasonable possibility.
Linear Mode
