It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GM- Government Motors

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by stander

There is nothing much I can do here. You guys will continue to blatantly lie, the Goebels style, about GM filing for bankruptcy and Obama wrestling the case away from the bankruptcy judge to preside over the ways things get settled whereby violating each and every amandement in the Bill of Rights.


Son, you were doing fine until this misguided remark.... not sure what to say to you here, but you are seriously deluded....you were doing so well, and you had to throw out trash like this....most unfortunate, I hope you get better soon...




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


Dude, you are citing to Bloomberg News to contradict what I am saying. Did you even read the article that I cited to show you that this is ILLEGAL?

My article is also from Bloomberg News. If that source is good enough for you, then why are you just discounting my argument that this is illegal.

Here is more from the article that I cite to:



“There’s an enormous momentum in favor of the government plan,” says Jay Westbrook, who teaches bankruptcy law at the University of Texas.

It’s naïve to assume bankruptcy judges feel compelled to follow the law, says LoPucki.

He argues that bankruptcy courts across the country compete for the big cases by giving lawyers for major companies what they want.

“According to the law, this plan should not be approved,” LoPucki says.

Yet he predicts Gonzalez will do it anyway to persuade other companies (General Motors Corp. comes to mind) to pick Manhattan’s bankruptcy court over, say Detroit’s.

Already the Chrysler case is one for the books. You have the federal government sending a company into bankruptcy court, financing its reorganization, deciding who will get what, setting a strict timetable and urging a judge to blink at the law.
www.bloomberg.com...



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I just wanted to add that the People who believe in Obama like he is the second coming are SO naive. They just want to believe in the "Hope" and "Change" that this guy is spewing that they refuse to see the truth.

This guy is fulfulling his promise of change, but its not the change you expected. He isn't a change in any major way from the previous corrupt administration. He is continuing down their path towards fascism. He wants to "change" this country into something completely foreign from what we have come to expect and love.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I'll step away from the legality issue for a moment and focus on unintended consequences.

Lets say for example that the bond holders of GM are shafted in the way that has been proposed where the UAW jumps those that should have first dibs on GM in a BK. What could happen after that if it goes down like this?

Caterpillar (CAT) and John Deere (DE) are both manufacturing companies who have many employers who are UAW members. Neither of these companies are in the situation that the Detroit 3 are, but if I were a bond fund manager, hedge fund manager, or individual bond investor I would look at the GM/Chrysler situation and say "Oh hell what happens if these companies get into trouble down the road, particularly if things get worse?" By the fact that the UAW gets preferential treatment in BK as opposed to Bond holders, I would require higher coupon from any future bond offerings from these companies to compensate for the increased risk of what is happening to GM/Chrysler bondholders to happen again. The administration has shown that it will reward the UAW at the expense of the rest of the country. Any heavily unionized business should have to pay higher interest on any debt offering after what has happened to GM/Chrysler.

There will be other consequences as well.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
reply to post by stander
 


Dude, you are citing to Bloomberg News to contradict what I am saying. Did you even read the article that I cited to show you that this is ILLEGAL?

My article is also from Bloomberg News. If that source is good enough for you, then why are you just discounting my argument that this is illegal.

Here is more from the article that I cite to:



“There’s an enormous momentum in favor of the government plan,” says Jay Westbrook, who teaches bankruptcy law at the University of Texas.

It’s naïve to assume bankruptcy judges feel compelled to follow the law, says LoPucki.

He argues that bankruptcy courts across the country compete for the big cases by giving lawyers for major companies what they want.

“According to the law, this plan should not be approved,” LoPucki says.

Yet he predicts Gonzalez will do it anyway to persuade other companies (General Motors Corp. comes to mind) to pick Manhattan’s bankruptcy court over, say Detroit’s.

Already the Chrysler case is one for the books. You have the federal government sending a company into bankruptcy court, financing its reorganization, deciding who will get what, setting a strict timetable and urging a judge to blink at the law.
www.bloomberg.com...




Why are you defeating yourself so badly?

That excerpt of yours is a personal prediction. It's based on seeing things as if Obama was the bankruptcy judge, which he is not. His offer to the bondholders is UNFAIR but hardly UNLAWFUL.

I don't care what some angry loser in Texas feels like about the future -- unless there is a majority of the same opinions voiced by guys who practice bankruptcy law.

There are a plenty of Republicans out there who will watch the GM bankruptcy very intently. The White House can't afford to make a mistake by exerting apparent influence on the bankruptcy court. Surely, Obama has a plan and would like to throw in a smoothie to see it through, but things are not that simple. He can fool lay taxpayers but not his Yale-educated political opponents. Obama should call Tim Geithner and work out a "rather complex financial instrument" to appease the bondholders and steer GM away from the court building. See, the difference between the UAW and the GM investors is that the UAW members make cars -- there are the indispensable tool GM needs to stay in business -- whereas investors are like that nostradamus from Texas that you quoted who believed that Joe Wrench would make great, financially competitive cars, just to be proven wrong. On the other hand, the bondholders are not that stupid to eat the cake Obama baked for them. They know the pecking order well and will hold their position hoping that Obama will call the Treasury.

F-ck them, bondholders. They are rich enough to hire skillful negotiators to present their case. That's why there was that silence right after the OP made it here.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


All I can say is that you are nuts. F the bond holders? That is a terrible position to take. It is extremely selfish and is not forward looking at all. And its not just some guy in Texas, he is just one of many law professors who agree that this is illegal.

Are you a bankruptcy law scholar that you can say so enphatically that this is unfair and not illegal?

Really, get off Obama's teet.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I've already provided the Supreme Court precedence in an earlier post that plainly states that the government's rip off of the Chrysler bondholders is in violation of their 5th amendment rights....and that if the government tries it again with GM....there will be hell to pay....Stander wanted to hear none of it...

Stander.....you were owned (by me) in that hilarious test of wits...

Your argument is becoming increasingly incoherent as you are forced to swallow the hard lesson of being so thoroughly wrong on this issue...

I understand how painful it can be when your worldview is smashed to tiny shards upon the rocks of reality...

It all comes down to this....there wouldn't be ANY of your beloved GM workers without investors and bondholders...and when that company fails....in large part BECAUSE of those GM workers (via the UAW)....the bondholders get first dibs on what's left.....and this FACT is protected by constitutional law.....GAME, SET, MATCH

You've been weighed, measured and, in this case, found wanting....



[edit on 22-5-2009 by RolandBrichter]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RolandBrichter
I've already provided the Supreme Court precedence in an earlier post that plainly states that the government's rip off of the Chrysler bondholders is in violation of their 5th amendment rights....and that if the government tries it again with GM....there will be hell to pay....Stander wanted to hear none of it...


So why the Supreme Justices didn't rule against the judgement involving Chrysler bondholders who were unhappy with the decision and appealed the case to them? Maybe the bondholders appealed in the wrong place, coz Luisiana is not Washington DC.

If you say "Supreme Court," do you mean the Supreme Court of the United States?

Here is where the accusations began:


Geoffrey Gwin, principal of the Group G Capital Partners LLC hedge funds, said that after weighing the obstacles ahead and along with the opposition they had faced before, the group's five remaining members realized that they couldn't mount an effective legal challenge.

But that doesn't mean that the deal reached before Chrysler's Chapter 11 filing _ which would exchange the automaker's total of $6.9 billion in secured debt for $2 billion _ has the group's support.

"We're still opposing this and not signing the consents, but the active fight has been more challenging," Gwin said.

Thomas Lauria, the group's lead attorney, said in a statement that the lenders he represented, and others, felt undue pressure from President Barack Obama's administration to accept the deal.

The group eventually came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough of them to "withstand the enormous pressure and machinery of the U.S. government," he said.

In addressing Chrysler's Chapter 11 filing last week, Obama said the lenders were seeking an "unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout" after Chrysler and his auto task force cleared the company's other hurdles, including the Fiat deal and a cost-cutting pact that the United Auto Workers ratified last week.


Sure enough the bondholders would like to go after my valet. Why not to join the bailout vogue? For some reason, Obama didn't call Geithner about it. I don't know why. Maybe he got tired of those investment bankers and bondholders who are not afraid to take any risk knowing that the taxpayer will bail their ass out if their business venture fails. On the other hand, the bondholders wanted all what belonged to them -- regardless of what the consequence would be. You are talking a major domino unemployement effect if 2/3 of the US auto industry goes through the tail pipe.

The bondholders don't give a sh-t about me, and I don't give a sh-t about them. Fair deal.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Good article on some insurgency in the Chrysler bankrupcy and restructuring.

Indiana pension funds ask court to halt Chrysler restructuring


Three of Chrysler's secured creditors have asked a New York court to halt the carmaker's Chapter 11 restructuring on the grounds that it violates their legal rights and the government's authority under the troubled assets relief programme.

The three - all Indiana state pension funds - are among a group of 46 creditors that had appeared to back away this month from efforts to derail the process under which a "new" Chrysler would emerge from bankruptcy protection by July 1. The new entity would be owned by a union healthcare trust, the US government and Italy's Fiat.

Echoing unease at the strong-arm tactics by Washington to speed the restructuring through bankruptcy court, the funds said "the Treasury department has taken constructive possession of Chrysler and is requiring it to adopt a sale plan in bankruptcy that violates the most fundamental principles of creditor rights - that first-tier secured creditors have absolute priority".


This is definitely history being written here. Children 20 years from now will learn of the attempted facist style takeover of American business by the Obama administration, hopefully. Otherwise, that'll mean that the brownshirts and jackboots in Obama's volunteer civilian army won.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


Just because Obama said that they want an unjustified bailout does not make it true.

They are entitled under the law to their fair share. Obama is already taking your tax money and throwing it away.

Here, read this:


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler LLC will not repay U.S. taxpayers more than $7 billion in bailout money it received earlier this year and as part of its bankruptcy filing.

This revelation was buried within Chrysler's bankruptcy filings last week and confirmed by the Obama administration Tuesday. The filings included a list of business assumptions from one of the company's key financial advisors in the bankruptcy case.

Some of the main assumptions listed by Robert Manzo of Capstone Advisory Group were that the Treasury would forgive a $4 billion bridge loan given to Chrysler in the closing days of the Bush administration, a $300 million fee on that loan, and the $3.2 billion in financing approved last week by the Obama administration to fund Chrysler's operations during bankruptcy.
Source

This also applies to GM:


In addition, the government would extend a credit line to the new company and forgive the bulk of the $15.4 billion in emergency loans that the U.S. has already provided to GM, the source said.
Source

So its okay for a foriegn company like Fiat to benefit from your tax dollars being loaned and then "forgiven" to Chrysler, but an American company that lent money to Chrysler to stay afloat after Mercedes Benz dumped them get left out in the cold holding the bag?

You really need to stop blindly following Obama. He is bad news.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
reply to post by stander
 


Just because Obama said that they want an unjustified bailout does not make it true.


Just because the negotiators for the bondholders said that there were under tremendous pressure from Obama autoboys doesn't mean that it was true either. Or does your "sense of justice" tell you that you can doubt presented material, but your side of story is an undeniable?

I would like to know the details of the pressure that the Obama's task force put on the bondholders. Do you think that you are the only one who would like to see Obama impeached? Maybe you should find more on this, coz I can't. I would like to know what were the tools of persuasion Obama guys used.

I wouldn't wait for Obama telling me what to do -- I would simply sell the bonds and got what belonged to me. The problem was to whom? The marked to market value of the bond would probably make Obama's proposal a generous offer, as the other bondolders who agreed on the terms found out. Some of the Chrysler creditos accepted the deal but some didn't:


"A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout," Obama said.

"They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none," he said. "I don't stand with them."


See, Chapter 11 is not the same as Chapter 7 -- a complete liquidation of the assets where is no dispute and the bondholders get what they are entitled to.


The dissident bondholders, whose ranks have dwindled since the proceedings began, contend that either another buyer challenging Italy's Fiat /quotes/comstock/23g!f (IT:F 7.81, -0.02, -0.19%) or even a liquidation could give the stakeholders a better deal.

Federal Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur Gonzalez, however, overruled the group, which also complained that the case was moving too quickly and that the U.S. government was leaning too heavily on the process.

President Barack Obama slammed the holdouts, which includes some hedge funds, calling them "speculators" when he unveiled the proposed bankruptcy plan last week.

Gonzalez ordered that the lenders be identified midday Wednesday despite the group's request to remain anonymous in light of death threats received by some members.


See if you can trace the death threats to the White House.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
So you quote Obama to prove that you have more proof besides His self serving statements. Thats like defining something by using the word in the definition, e.g. Blue: blueish in color.


Arguing with you about Obama is like Columbus telling people the world is not flat. You hold on to your belief regardless of how much primary source information you are provided to contradict your position.

Keep HOPEing my freind, keep HOPEing.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by finemanm]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join