Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,218
Well I disagree on both counts. If the union pensioners aren't going to go along with the settlement and the bankruptcy trustee says "what if we kick in an extra $175mm from the taxpayers just for you union pensioners so you get >95 cents on the dollar while everyone else gets WAY WAY less?" And then the union pensioners say "OK", they're clearly being bought off. If you don't like it because the legally prescribed bankruptcy procedure is being tampered with or because it makes them sound like leaches or whatever, that doesn't make it incorrect to say they're being bought off. And if AFP makes some phone calls and sends out some mailers to inform the taxpayers of what's being done with their money so they can make an informed decision about it, good for them.
As for the term bail out take the case of AIG - we were told that if AIG weren't bailed out that all kinds of banks, insurance companies and even countries that held those credit default swaps would suffer huge losses perhaps even go bankrupt, companies would shut down and tens of thousands of people would have lost their jobs as a direct result and hundreds of thousands more through the fallout as those bankruptcies set off a chain reaction. So even though they were creditors, they were also being bailed out.
the union pensioners differ from general creditors because they were never in position to protect their interest here. shame on greedy bankers who lent Detroit money to hand out to RE developers/casinos... they were in a position to do due diligence and weigh the risk, and should take a haircut like any other creditors who lend money imprudently.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Last edited by a moderator: