OK, so there are many readers who have better things to do than enjoy Townhall Finance on Sundays.
I can't imagine that's true but, then I don't understand a world that celebrates Ralph Nader, Jerry Brown or Donald Trump- yet alone takes them seriously politically.
I guess it's true however that my Sunday readers enjoy what long-time readers call Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers. It's what we orginally called my Sunday mailbag piece until I stopped being lazy and came up with new names for it every Sunday.
I republish last Sunday's edition here so that those of you busy filling out the New York Times' crossword puzzle know there are more intriguing -and confusing- options here at a Townhall Finance on the weekend.
Jasch wrote: There's a difference between saving jobs and creating them. The GM/Chrysler bailouts simply put....just saved the companies from bankruptcy and lay-offs. - Obama is Latest Surrogate to Break with Obama
Actually the bailout did neither.
Chrysler and GM still filed for bankruptcy and workers got laid off.
Of course the only workers who got rehired were workers who were part of the UAW. All the non-UAW people were left out in the cold.
As to the bankruptcy, the government insisted on the bankruptcy because it was the easiest way to screw the secured creditors and turn over the companies to the union.
"They are rewriting law, and certainly bond markets never priced in an interpretation that you can rewrite things because it's in the best interest" of unintentional stakeholders -- taxpayers, the company's employees, and municipalities that will be affected, Kingman Penniman, president of KDP, told MarketWatch, reported Daily Finance.
The UAW got about 67 percent of Chrysler and about 17 percent of GM in the bailout of the auto industry.