Turkeytop wrote:Bryce wrote:Turkeytop wrote:Those he didn't have jobs for, he rewarded with generous bailouts.
You mean like the UAW?
Bailouts are certianly not capitalist or in line with the principles of a free market.
Any time a government body picks winners and loosers, who to support and who not too, it is more along the lines of socialism.
He didn't bail out UAW. He bailed out GM, Chrysler, the big banks and big insurance. Bailing out corrupt and incompetent Capitalists is not part of any Socialist agenda.
TT, what you contend isn't correct at all. The MAIN reason GM and Chrysler were "bailed out" with the deal Obama made was to save UAW jobs and contracts. If both were allowed to file bankruptcy, neither would have ceased to exist but would have emerged as new companies. Leaner and meaner. However had that happened neither would have been bound by existing UAW contracts.
Free market capitalism, as Mitt Romney suggested, to much chagrin, would have let both companies fail.
Answer this. How did bond holders, normally the first in line when their is a bankruptcy, end up with little or nothing and the UAW half of the company?
Sorry this kind of got off topic.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
