Thank you for making this information available to those of us who don’t know the intricacies of the story.
If this is truly the case, it would make sense that Lisa should be drawing a different cartoon, showing the workers (“makers”) being shafted by the bondholders (“takers”). The workers should be able to keep the money they were promised. Investors do not have any guarantees that their investments will pay off, and sometimes the investments don’t. That’s what happens when you gamble.
It makes no sense to me that workers should have to bail out gamblers because of their bad fortune.
But….since the workers are union, that evidently takes them out of the realm of “makers”.
So, Ms. Benson seems to be saying that a judge should violate the state constitution so that gamblers can recoup their losses, paid for by working civilians. Do I have this right?
Thank you for making this information available to those of us who don’t know the intricacies of the story.
If this is truly the case, it would make sense that Lisa should be drawing a different cartoon, showing the workers (“makers”) being shafted by the bondholders (“takers”). The workers should be able to keep the money they were promised. Investors do not have any guarantees that their investments will pay off, and sometimes the investments don’t. That’s what happens when you gamble.
It makes no sense to me that workers should have to bail out gamblers because of their bad fortune.
But….since the workers are union, that evidently takes them out of the realm of “makers”.
So, Ms. Benson seems to be saying that a judge should violate the state constitution so that gamblers can recoup their losses, paid for by working civilians. Do I have this right?