Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Admin to Citigroup: "No Plane for You!"(UPDATED X3) (347 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  if they are already in a contract... (0+ / 0-)

    they'll have to pay the penalties for breaking the contract. Reactionary talk, I'm OK with Obama sending a message but I don't think people are looking at the entire picture. If you understand the cost of sending the message is worth paying the extra penalties, I can go along with that.

    But I get the sense that people here are thinking that axing the contract means a savings of $50 million which is not the case, the company will lose money.

    May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

    by FLS on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:32:35 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  NOT buying the jet is obviously less expensive... (3+ / 0-)

      ...than buying the jet. Duh.

      Wounded Knee, 1890. Jallianwala Bagh, 1919. Srebrenica, 1995. Gaza, 2008.

      by expatjourno on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:47:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  selling the old jets to pay for it (0+ / 0-)

        without penalties is cheaper overall. Duh!

        May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

        by FLS on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 02:07:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As someone before already said to you... (0+ / 0-)

          Don't buy the new jet AND sell the old jets. What is the big deal here? Penalties for getting out of the contract? Oh, dear. Ohdearohdearohdearwecan'thavethat.

          "Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk." - John Conyers

          by Remain calm on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 03:41:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well then your argument about (0+ / 0-)

            saving money falls flat. If your just about making a point to the bigwigs I can understand that. But don't claim that canceling a contract saves more money, if statements by the company suggest otherwise.You can argue incurring the penalties and still selling the old jets, sure thats one option to pay for the penalties, makes a lot of sense and that I agree with.  

            I am not claiming that I totally believe the execs either, when they imply that there will be large penalties, they can be equally as dishonest was the self righteous politicians.

            My point is, say what you really mean, and don't ignore the facts.

            What you sound like you really mean is that no new jet and that you don't care about the penalties. I can respect that. but don't tell me that that by it's self recovers money lost from any penalties.

            May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

            by FLS on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 04:04:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The new jet costs money. (0+ / 0-)

          The penalties for canceling are not going to be greater than the cost of buying it. Selling the old jets and keeping the money, using whatever of that is necessary to pay any cancellation fees, is the cheapest option. Obviously.

          Wounded Knee, 1890. Jallianwala Bagh, 1919. Srebrenica, 1995. Gaza, 2008.

          by expatjourno on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:04:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site