Absolutely disgusting
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
then the US Constituition has been shredded and the republic is dead. Also dead is our financial system - no thinking aware investor or fund will invest in corporate bonds, one of the final nails in the coffin of our financial system.
Yep. Really nothing left to debate. It is all nothing now bad a very sad joke. But, heh, its a victory for liberals and libertarians everywhere, so I suppose someone is happy about it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Or will they have more due to them being secured debt
They should receive more, much more. Obama's plan made the UAW into secured debt holders and the real ones got to go to the back of the line. They included lots of folks whose pension funds were heavily invested in the carmaker. And, to tell the truth I can't see the difference between being liquidated and being sold off to a foreign owner who doesn't want the plants, or the people - just a pared down dealer-network to sell its cars.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
But liquidation ends the life of the company where as the sale to Fiat was only some assets so that they could pull out of chapter 11 and become a viable if lighter company.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
liquidation ends the life of the company
correct, and convenienmtly follows legal precedent.
Synaptrik wrote:
where as the sale to Fiat was only some assets
all assets, for free.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Still waiting for the clarification on how, since they aren't being liquidated, this priority even comes into play.
that is the point, they should have been liquidated. the result of what was done is that a European company, Fiat, is given operational control of what still functions and the union gets a significant ownership position. stockholders get squat and bondholders get $ 0.29 on the dollar. following the 200 year precedent the company should have been liquidated and financial obligations fullfilled on a bondholder first other creditors second basis. what infuriates me is we've gone from a nation of laws and precedents to a "whatever feels good: banana republic, pretty much what happened in Europe (Germany and Italy) immediately prior to WWII.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
stockholders get squat
AFAIK Chrysler was a privately held company, there were no stockholders, at least not of publicly traded shares. Which means there were ONLY bondholders and creditors. As you say, the bondholders should have been paid full value first (since they essentially held a mortgage on the assets that were sold to Fiat), then the remaining creditors which included the Union) paid from the leftovers, if any. I too fail to see how this was anything other than theft by government. It leaves the definition of "secured creditors" completely meaningless, and will almost certainly seriously erode the value of all corporate (and city, and state) bonds and make it more difficult for all the above to raise capital.
-
But liquidation ends the life of the company where as the sale to Fiat was only some assets so that they could pull out of chapter 11 and become a viable if lighter company.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
the sale to Fiat was only some assets
Most assets and the price that Fiat paid? It told Chrysler about the technology it uses to build small cars. That would be a joke if Obama hadn't blown billions of dollars on em to make Fiat think it was worth even that. Why did Chrysler's management agree to the deal? Maybe it has something to do with Fiat announcing that the top executives would not longer be considered the employees of the company that got a bailout and are therefore subject to a bonus cap, but Fiat employees seconded to its new subsidiary. "Any such seconded officer may receive supplemental employment compensation from Fiat ... notwithstanding any 'cap' on compensation payable to such officer ... under any Law, rule or policy applicable to the Company, saith the new owners.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
stockholders get squat
AFAIK Chrysler was a privately held company, there were no stockholders, at least not of publicly traded shares. Which means there were ONLY bondholders and creditors. As you say, the bondholders should have been paid full value first (since they essentially held a mortgage on the assets that were sold to Fiat), then the remaining creditors which included the Union) paid from the leftovers, if any. I too fail to see how this was anything other than theft by government. It leaves the definition of "secured creditors" completely meaningless, and will almost certainly seriously erode the value of all corporate (and city, and state) bonds and make it more difficult for all the above to raise capital.
Rob Graham wrote:
I too fail to see how this was anything other than theft by government.
I agree and am utterly fascinated that that only a handful of "us" (where "us" equates to marginally educated US citizens) are not angry as all hell at was has been done. I just got off the phone with my brother, a junior high school history teacher for the last 33 years, and he said that this is the result of the "version" of American History that he has been allowed to teach. That version being a history sans any discussion of American values or of the meaning of hostorical events. He is permitted teach events and dates but not the underlying reasons for these events.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
the bank bailouts were a bad idea too.
How about running up a bigger deficit than all 43 of his predecessors combined?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
How about running up a bigger deficit than all 43 of his predecessors combined?
Yeah, that's a bad decision too. Even if the economy does recover, and people start lending and spending, how long is it going to take to pay down that much deficit? How much are income taxes going to have to increase? It does not make any sense to me.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
Oakman wrote:
How about running up a bigger deficit than all 43 of his predecessors combined?
Yeah, that's a bad decision too. Even if the economy does recover, and people start lending and spending, how long is it going to take to pay down that much deficit? How much are income taxes going to have to increase? It does not make any sense to me.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Even if the economy does recover, and people start lending and spending, how long is it going to take to pay down that much deficit? How much are income taxes going to have to increase? It does not make any sense to me.
Well add this to your list of questions: the interest on a ten year T-bill has gone from 2.2% to 4% in 15 months. As investors refuse to buy our debt except at more and more exorbitant rates, how long will it be before China shows up on our doorstep and demands payment?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I too fail to see how this was anything other than theft by government.
I agree and am utterly fascinated that that only a handful of "us" (where "us" equates to marginally educated US citizens) are not angry as all hell at was has been done. I just got off the phone with my brother, a junior high school history teacher for the last 33 years, and he said that this is the result of the "version" of American History that he has been allowed to teach. That version being a history sans any discussion of American values or of the meaning of hostorical events. He is permitted teach events and dates but not the underlying reasons for these events.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Ya gotta love unions...and the media, except for Fox, not one is making any complaint about this.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
libertarians everywhere
Why would you say that? Wouldn't Libertarians just say it's just as bad because it's not the Governments business?
I've already answered that. Libertarianism is just as much of a political point of view as is any other, liberal or conservative. When subverting the constitution suits their agenda, they happily accept it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:09 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is the responsibility of the individual to be self sufficient enough to be prepared for inevitable down turns
Easy for those who don't live hand to mouth, to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
Easy for those who don't live hand to mouth, to say.
I've lived hand to mouth, and I would rather have my freedom to fail and pay for it than to have some kind of secure standard of existence which limits my freedom.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Easy for those who don't live hand to mouth, to say.
I've lived hand to mouth, and I would rather have my freedom to fail and pay for it than to have some kind of secure standard of existence which limits my freedom.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've lived hand to mouth, and I would rather have my freedom to fail and pay for it than to have some kind of secure standard of existence which limits my freedom.
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions. This is how "liberals" "reason." Here's an amusing examination of the "reasoning" -- "Bulverism[^]" (I call it "motive-mongering").
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Even if the economy does recover, and people start lending and spending, how long is it going to take to pay down that much deficit? How much are income taxes going to have to increase? It does not make any sense to me.
Well add this to your list of questions: the interest on a ten year T-bill has gone from 2.2% to 4% in 15 months. As investors refuse to buy our debt except at more and more exorbitant rates, how long will it be before China shows up on our doorstep and demands payment?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
how long will it be before China shows up on our doorstep and demands payment?
Shout "remember the melamine" and tell them solly Chalie, we're broke and foreign debtors go to the end of the line.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Oakman wrote:
how long will it be before China shows up on our doorstep and demands payment?
Shout "remember the melamine" and tell them solly Chalie, we're broke and foreign debtors go to the end of the line.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
and tell them solly Chalie
Tim you need to figure out the difference between the Japanese and the Chinese. Get yourself a nice Asian GF and she'll explain it to you. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've lived hand to mouth, and I would rather have my freedom to fail and pay for it than to have some kind of secure standard of existence which limits my freedom.
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions. This is how "liberals" "reason." Here's an amusing examination of the "reasoning" -- "Bulverism[^]" (I call it "motive-mongering").
Ilíon wrote:
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions.
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
and tell them solly Chalie
Tim you need to figure out the difference between the Japanese and the Chinese. Get yourself a nice Asian GF and she'll explain it to you. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
figure out the difference between the Japanese and the Chinese.
Doesn't it go sideways on Chinese girls? :~
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Ilíon wrote:
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions.
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
(1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing.
Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What the damned fool is saying is that you don't -- can't! -- have reasons for your opinions.
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, he certainly has the standard 'reasons' for why anyone might disagree with the brilliance and purity of leftist ideals. Those reasons are (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. (3)fear. (4) Hate (5) Greed. You know, the typical socialist mantra that these guys call 'debate'...
But you need to understand that in this statement, true as it is, you're using the word 'reason' in the truncated sense of "cause" (that is, as the 'cause' portion of "cause-and-effect"), whereas I was using 'reason' in the primary sense of "rational justification, or conclusion" (that is, as the 'ground' portion of "ground-and-consequent").
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
(1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing.
Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Stan Shannon: (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. Gaylord: Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
You obviously don't understand, or don't care (*), what 'hypocrite' means. Stan isn't *simply* accusing you of these things. Stan isn't *reflexively* accusing you of these things (as a leftist or "liberal" tends automatically to accuse those who disagree). (*) In fact, you almost never care about facts and reasoning which run contrary to what you want to assert is true. In fact, you are quite willing to use anti-reason (for instance, illogic) to protect the false things you want to assert are true. That is why Stan says (and is justified in it) that you are ignorant and brainwashed.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Stan Shannon: (1)Ignorance. (2) brainwashing. Gaylord: Two things you've accused me of. Hypocrite.
You obviously don't understand, or don't care (*), what 'hypocrite' means. Stan isn't *simply* accusing you of these things. Stan isn't *reflexively* accusing you of these things (as a leftist or "liberal" tends automatically to accuse those who disagree). (*) In fact, you almost never care about facts and reasoning which run contrary to what you want to assert is true. In fact, you are quite willing to use anti-reason (for instance, illogic) to protect the false things you want to assert are true. That is why Stan says (and is justified in it) that you are ignorant and brainwashed.
Ilíon wrote:
Gaylord
:laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
You obviously don't understand, or don't care (*), what 'hypocrite' means. Stan isn't *simply* accusing you of these things. Stan isn't *reflexively* accusing you of these things (as a leftist or "liberal" tends automatically to accuse those who disagree). (*) In fact, you almost never care about facts and reasoning which run contrary to what you want to assert is true. In fact, you are quite willing to use anti-reason (for instance, illogic) to protect the false things you want to assert are true. That is why Stan says (and is justified in it) that you are ignorant and brainwashed.
:laugh: I guess that's why I believe in evolution, huh.