|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 16, 2010 17:40:06 GMT -8
The GOP made an early move in the right direction. Can they be trusted to follow through or will we throw some of them out next time as well? xrl.us/bh75w4 |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 16, 2010 21:32:43 GMT -8
The GOP made an early move in the right direction. Can they be trusted to follow through or will we throw some of them out next time as well? xrl.us/bh75w4Trust them in what way? To make the rich richer and the poor poorer? Unlike the Democrats who make everyone poorer. Gotta stop the terrorists who want you dead. And gotta clamp down on crime in general. Make it easier to catch and convict murderers, etc. Both parties are flawed, but I'll take the party that is more into protecting my life and my money. (And I'm by no means rich, but the Democrats in California have me taxed like I am...) |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 17, 2010 8:43:12 GMT -8
The GOP made an early move in the right direction. Can they be trusted to follow through or will we throw some of them out next time as well? xrl.us/bh75w4Trust them in what way? To make the rich richer and the poor poorer? To bring upon us even more of a police state? They'll do their damndest, I'll tell you that. I trust them to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 17, 2010 8:57:05 GMT -8
No, no, Erik; you are mistaken. Obama and company have made plenty of people richer. Did they not give the United Auto workers a big hunk of General Motors? And some Wall Street firms have made out all right, too.
Of course, if Obama's ideas (which are half understood Left Wing cliches thrown about in college faculty lounges and late night student bull-sessions) continue long enough, then the economy may well collapse.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 17, 2010 11:40:48 GMT -8
No, no Erik, you are mistaken. Obama and company have made plenty of people richer. Did they not give the United Auto workers a big hunk of General Motors? And some Wall Street firms have made out all right, too. Of course, if Obama's ideas (which are half understood Left Wing cliches thrown about in college faculty lounges and late night student bull-sessions) continue long enough, then the economy may well collapse. AzWm You might want to do a fact check on your UAW owns GM statement. Here is some search terms for you, "GM restructuring plan". |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 17, 2010 16:21:43 GMT -8
No, no Erik, you are mistaken. Obama and company have made plenty of people richer. Did they not give the United Auto workers a big hunk of General Motors? And some Wall Street firms have made out all right, too. Of course, if Obama's ideas (which are half understood Left Wing cliches thrown about in college faculty lounges and late night student bull-sessions) continue long enough, then the economy may well collapse. AzWm You might want to do a fact check on your UAW owns GM statement. Here is some search terms for you, "GM restructuring plan". Do a search yourself. Gm stock is 17.5 percent owned by the UAW. Search on the terms "union owns 17.5 gm stock " and you will see. They also have an option to buy 2.5% more. The UAW was a huge part of the downfall of GM to begin with but are now benefiting from the public buyout. Tell me why the scumbag union should profit from this while the old GM stock and bondholders take it in the shorts? Just where do you think the stock that is being offered in the IPO is coming from? The UAW is profiting from being part of the downfall while bond holders take a bath. Now it is true that stock and bondholders should have a higher claim against the assets by US bankruptcy law, but Obama has let the UAW rape those folks in violation of law. Why do I get incensed when ever I think about what happened and why. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 18, 2010 8:45:55 GMT -8
You might want to do a fact check on your UAW owns GM statement. Here is some search terms for you, "GM restructuring plan". Do a search yourself. Gm stock is 17.5 percent owned by the UAW. Search on the terms "union owns 17.5 gm stock " and you will see. They also have an option to buy 2.5% more. The UAW was a huge part of the downfall of GM to begin with but are now benefiting from the public buyout. Tell me why the scumbag union should profit from this while the old GM stock and bondholders take it in the shorts? Just where do you think the stock that is being offered in the IPO is coming from? The UAW is profiting from being part of the downfall while bond holders take a bath. Now it is true that stock and bondholders should have a higher claim against the assets by US bankruptcy law, but Obama has let the UAW rape those folks in violation of law. Why do I get incensed when ever I think about what happened and why. In case you have forgotten. GM gave the union an ownership position in the company in exchange for the union taking over the responsibility for retiree healthcare from GM. Aside from removing this variable cost from GM's books it made the union an owner of the company. The theory is that the union would negotiate better less adversarial terms with it having a large portion of it's assets tied directly to the company. This is very much a conservative idea. But you are such a hater that it just doesn't matter to you. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 18, 2010 9:50:41 GMT -8
You might want to do a fact check on your UAW owns GM statement. Here is some search terms for you, "GM restructuring plan". Do a search yourself. Gm stock is 17.5 percent owned by the UAW. Search on the terms "union owns 17.5 gm stock " and you will see. They also have an option to buy 2.5% more. The UAW was a huge part of the downfall of GM to begin with but are now benefiting from the public buyout. Tell me why the scumbag union should profit from this while the old GM stock and bondholders take it in the shorts? Just where do you think the stock that is being offered in the IPO is coming from? The UAW is profiting from being part of the downfall while bond holders take a bath. Now it is true that stock and bondholders should have a higher claim against the assets by US bankruptcy law, but Obama has let the UAW rape those folks in violation of law. Why do I get incensed when ever I think about what happened and why. I followed your advice and used your search terms. I found the above article. The UAW owns nothing. The 17.5% is owned by a trust fund set up to pay the health care costs of UAW retirees. A claim much superior than those of bond or stockholders. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinions, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 18, 2010 10:10:41 GMT -8
What I have always wondered is how do they get G.O.P. OUT OF "I've Got Mine So Fug You!"
Somehow the letters just do not line up.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 18, 2010 11:18:56 GMT -8
The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies were not, repeat NOT done according to standard bankruptcy law. If they had followed that procedure, bond holders would not have been put at the end of the line. In essence, they got screwed. (And defamed by Obama as well, who, ever the innocent, did not apparently realize that some of the people affected by the deal were indeed small investors, not fat cats.)
GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go through the regular bankruptcy procedure. It would have been painful, but it would also have been legal. The other side keeps saying that regular bankruptcy laws, had they been followed, would have meant liquidation of GM and Chrysler. First of all, Chrysler should have been liquidated. That company has been on life support for a long time. Also, there is historical precedent for an auto company surviving bankruptcy. That case is Studebaker, which declared bankruptcy in the 1930s yet came out stronger than ever thanks to better management. (That company continued producing cars for three more decades, by the way.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 18, 2010 13:12:20 GMT -8
Do a search yourself. Gm stock is 17.5 percent owned by the UAW. Search on the terms "union owns 17.5 gm stock " and you will see. They also have an option to buy 2.5% more. The UAW was a huge part of the downfall of GM to begin with but are now benefiting from the public buyout. Tell me why the scumbag union should profit from this while the old GM stock and bondholders take it in the shorts? Just where do you think the stock that is being offered in the IPO is coming from? The UAW is profiting from being part of the downfall while bond holders take a bath. Now it is true that stock and bondholders should have a higher claim against the assets by US bankruptcy law, but Obama has let the UAW rape those folks in violation of law. Why do I get incensed when ever I think about what happened and why. In case you have forgotten. GM gave the union an ownership position in the company in exchange for the union taking over the responsibility for retiree healthcare from GM. Aside from removing this variable cost from GM's books it made the union an owner of the company. The theory is that the union would negotiate better less adversarial terms with it having a large portion of it's assets tied directly to the company. This is very much a conservative idea. But you are such a hater that it just doesn't matter to you. You have got to be kidding me. That should have been thrown out with the other shareholders and bond holders. This is just flat wrong and in violation of US Bankruptcy Law. This is a tangent at any rate since you were proven wrong on your ownership statement, you create a smoke screen. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 18, 2010 13:20:05 GMT -8
Do a search yourself. Gm stock is 17.5 percent owned by the UAW. Search on the terms "union owns 17.5 gm stock " and you will see. They also have an option to buy 2.5% more. The UAW was a huge part of the downfall of GM to begin with but are now benefiting from the public buyout. Tell me why the scumbag union should profit from this while the old GM stock and bondholders take it in the shorts? Just where do you think the stock that is being offered in the IPO is coming from? The UAW is profiting from being part of the downfall while bond holders take a bath. Now it is true that stock and bondholders should have a higher claim against the assets by US bankruptcy law, but Obama has let the UAW rape those folks in violation of law. Why do I get incensed when ever I think about what happened and why. I followed your advice and used your search terms. I found the above article. The UAW owns nothing. The 17.5% is owned by a trust fund set up to pay the health care costs of UAW retirees. A claim much superior than those of bond or stockholders. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinions, though. Don't let the law get in the way of your take on what is in that article. Just when does any stake in the company created for any reason make those UAW stock owners have any claim superior to bond holders. That position, however artifically shielded from the UAW, should still have gone up in smoke just as did the stake of the shareholders and bond holders. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 18, 2010 18:21:11 GMT -8
Don't let the law get in the way of your take on what is in that article. Just when does any stake in the company created for any reason make those UAW stock owners have any claim superior to bond holders. That position, however artifically shielded from the UAW, should still have gone up in smoke just as did the stake of the shareholders and bond holders. I believe the trust got the shares out of the bankruptcy, not before. Before the retirees contract had called for them to have lifetime healthcare benefits. That was an unfounded liability of around 20 billion dollars. The bankruptcy wiped that out. No lifetime healthcare anymore for retirees. Those expenses were assumed by the trust and funded by the 17.5% of GM stock, value at that time unknown. Now the trust can sell shares to pay for health benefits for retirees. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 18, 2010 18:26:50 GMT -8
The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies were not, repeat NOT done according to standard bankruptcy law. If they had followed that procedure, bond holders would not have been put at the end of the line. In essence, they got screwed. (And defamed by Obama as well, who, ever the innocent, did not apparently realize that some of the people affected by the deal were indeed small investors not fat cats.) GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go through the regular bankruptcy procedure. It would have been painful, but it would also have been legal. The other side keeps saying that regular bankruptcy laws, had they been followed, would have meant liquidation of GM and Chrysler. First of all, Chrysler should have been liquidated. That company has been on life support for a long time. Also, there is historical precedent for an auto company surviving bankruptcy. That case is Studebaker, which declared bankruptcy in the 1930s yet came out stronger than ever thanks to better management. (That company continued producing cars for three more decades, by the way.) AzWm So pleased to know that you are an expert at bankruptcy law. Or are you confusing your opinion for fact once again. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 19, 2010 10:13:46 GMT -8
The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies were not, repeat NOT done according to standard bankruptcy law. If they had followed that procedure, bond holders would not have been put at the end of the line. In essence, they got screwed. (And defamed by Obama as well, who, ever the innocent, did not apparently realize that some of the people affected by the deal were indeed small investors not fat cats.) GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go through the regular bankruptcy procedure. It would have been painful, but it would also have been legal. The other side keeps saying that regular bankruptcy laws, had they been followed, would have meant liquidation of GM and Chrysler. First of all, Chrysler should have been liquidated. That company has been on life support for a long time. Also, there is historical precedent for an auto company surviving bankruptcy. That case is Studebaker, which declared bankruptcy in the 1930s yet came out stronger than ever thanks to better management. (That company continued producing cars for three more decades, by the way.) AzWm So pleased to know that you are an expert at bankruptcy law. Or are you confusing your opinion for fact once again. One does not have to be an expert to understand that there is a legal pecking order by which creditors receive money from a corporation when it goes bankrupt. The bond holders had superior claims to that money in this case, but the Obama administration engineered a deal, almost certainly illegal. by which the bond holders had to go to the end of the line. Why is this hard to understand? It's not exactly rocket science. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 19, 2010 11:15:35 GMT -8
One does not have to be an expert to understand that there is a legal pecking order by which creditors receive money from a corporation when it goes bankrupt. The bond holders had superior claims to that money in this case, but the Obama administration engineered a deal, almost certainly illegal. by which the bond holders had to go to the end of the line. Why is this hard to understand? It's not exactly rocket science. AzWm If I remember right, they went through a different section of the BK legal process. There was No violation of law, just different rules. GM's debt greatly exceeded their net worth. In a case like that the bond holders get only pennies on the dollar. That could be established BEFORE the BK filing. Any Federal money used to facilitate the restructuring process is automatically above the bond holders right to their pennies on that dollar. It was money that went in AFTER the fact and can technically be withdrawn first before settlement with the bondholders. As it was the Federal government reserved their right to the money and can take it out any time in the future that they want to. All told, it was a damn good process. Highly efficient and expedient. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 19, 2010 12:04:35 GMT -8
So pleased to know that you are an expert at bankruptcy law. Or are you confusing your opinion for fact once again. One does not have to be an expert to understand that there is a legal pecking order by which creditors receive money from a corporation when it goes bankrupt. The bond holders had superior claims to that money in this case, but the Obama administration engineered a deal, almost certainly illegal. by which the bond holders had to go to the end of the line. Why is this hard to understand? It's not exactly rocket science. AzWm Yes, there is a "pecking order". Tell us what was illegal. Otherwise, I will figure you are flapping your gums again. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 19, 2010 12:47:07 GMT -8
Don't let the law get in the way of your take on what is in that article. Just when does any stake in the company created for any reason make those UAW stock owners have any claim superior to bond holders. That position, however artificially shielded from the UAW, should still have gone up in smoke just as did the stake of the shareholders and bond holders. I believe the trust got the shares out of the bankruptcy, not before. Before the retirees contract had called for them to have lifetime health care benefits. That was an unfounded liability of around 20 billion dollars. The bankruptcy wiped that out. No lifetime health care anymore for retirees. Those expenses were assumed by the trust and funded by the 17.5% of GM stock, value at that time unknown. Now the trust can sell shares to pay for health benefits for retirees. Their position was not after bankruptcy if I read the information correctly. It should have been wipe out just as the bond holders and shareholders were wiped out. If you are correct, it would make me even more upset that they were made whole while the widows who depended on GM dividends or were clipping GM Bond coupons for their lively hood were stiffed. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 19, 2010 16:32:03 GMT -8
I believe the trust got the shares out of the bankruptcy, not before. Before the retirees contract had called for them to have lifetime health care benefits. That was an unfounded liability of around 20 billion dollars. The bankruptcy wiped that out. No lifetime health care anymore for retirees. Those expenses were assumed by the trust and funded by the 17.5% of GM stock, value at that time unknown. Now the trust can sell shares to pay for health benefits for retirees. There position was not after bankruptcy if I read the information correctly. It should have been wipe out just as the bond holders and shareholders were wiped out. If you are correct, it would make me even more upset that they were made whole while the widows who depended on GM dividends or were clipping GM Bond coupons for their lively hood were stiffed. Oh, please. Every widow and orphan should have been out of GM years ago. The demise of GM had been a long time coming. Far more speculators got wiped out than widows and orphans. Let's not make it government policy to protect speculators. Oh, wait. We already have. Damn Republicans. But, I digress.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 19, 2010 17:00:18 GMT -8
There position was not after bankruptcy if I read the information correctly. It should have been wipe out just as the bond holders and shareholders were wiped out. If you are correct, it would make me even more upset that they were made whole while the widows who depended on GM dividends or were clipping GM Bond coupons for their lively hood were stiffed. Oh, please. Every widow and orphan should have been out of GM years ago. The demise of GM had been a long time coming. Far more speculators got wiped out than widows and orphans. Let's not make it government policy to protect speculators. Oh, wait. We already have. Damn Republicans. But, I digress. That is another way of admitting that you are wrong on the facts. |
|
