- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
what bothers you is that these jobs were saved....sure, some were union, and has been explained to you countless times, repeatedly, over and over, is that more than just 'union' jobs were saved, quite a few 'non union' jobs were also saved, but you would be willing to be rid of these 'non union' jobs just to get rid of those that are union....i'd explain the economic consequences of losing all those jobs, hell, i've already explained it to you several times, it is pointless to do it again. you were all for letting chrysler/gm go under , so long as it took a bunch of 'union' jobs with it, the consequences to those workers, and the many more 'non union' workers be damned. as long as it struck a blow against the unions, all would have been well in your world.
What bothers me is the fact that you believe it is the Federal Taxpayers' job to bailout out union contracts in the states. you don't seem to understand the separation of powers and the role of the state govt. in your world it is all one pot. Why don't you just send my state money directly instead of paying a bureaucrat to send it where they want?
You buy the Obama rhetoric and simply don't think. Jobs were saved, how many? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE nor does anyone know if those jobs would have been saved by the state taxpayers but it is easier for you to buy Obama rhetoric than actually think. Try to understand the role of the state and the role of the Federal Govt. They aren't the same