Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (213567)	1/1/2002 2:10:34 AM
From: JEB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Rich, You realize what you are saying is let the companies who have strong unions die on the vine. In response to this happening, there would be no need for the huge amount of new government employees for airport security. A smaller force would work fine. Boeing would not go anywhere but China and Mexico to have their planes made and that would mean even less union employees are needed. Are you saying you wouldn't mind seeing the unions broken up?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (213567)	1/1/2002 2:47:04 AM
From: JEB	Respond to of 769670

I realize this is the logical progressive conclusion you could reach from some of the rhetoric your party has been promoting recently. It makes sense that you would conclude that these big union shops are unnecessary and outdated. It has been stated over and over that these big airline corporations aren't profitable and you have pointed out that the executives are paid too much with no real profit to show for it. So, it makes sense to allow them to die on the vine. No welfare. So, I don't think you will find many Republicans arguing with you on the, "Let them die on the vine" point. (or Libertarians for that matter).