god i hope he was...that just pissed me off

i haven't read any of his other posts

if it was a joke them im sorry



If I'm weird and everyone else is weird, does that make me normal?
-me

Versus Motorsports really @!#$ sucks
and so does DHL...but more

IF Chrysler would have turned down the bailout money, they wouldn't have to worry about it. I guess the government thinks at the point in time companys want to take free tax dollars they can tell them what to do, like an investor does. I don't agree with it, nor do I think any bailout was a good idea. I do not feel sorry for any of these companies getting bent over by the government, if they would have made better business decisions maybe they would not have the White House telling them what and how to do it. All these corporations should have been left to fail.

I love how he is complaining about how they are being offered .29 on the dollar, and the junior creditors are getting $10-20 billion dollars, I wonder what that breaks down to .50 on the dollar or .70 on the dollar or is it .15-.20 on the dollar. Apples to oranges, and with this spinning of the facts to make his case I would love to see the actual figures.

I am not sure how bankruptcy laws work on the corporate level but I do know that if I file on my house the contract that I had with the mortgage company becomes null and void. Does it work like that in this case? Can you have a contract that circumvents this situation that is legally binding in court? Hell I don't know maybe so. I am not a lawyer nor am I a bankruptcy judge. I would like to research the other side of the fence on this topic. In the interview the true facts are distorted to make the lawyers case, he is doing what he is paid to do.

By no means am I defending the White House's position, but I have a feeling there is allot more to this story than what a lawyer for the opposition says in a radio interview. So before we all go get our pitch forks and torches maybe we study both sides of the matter in lieu of just one.

As far as the UAW being the only group to gain from this, @!#$ em, the UAW should have got nothing. They are one of the major problems in this industry. The UAW extorts companies to pay their employees $28.00 per hour for jobs that require a skill set of a $12.00 employee. And people wonder why all the manufacturing jobs went to Mexico.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Racist? Me? I'd LOVE to see you back that one up. Now, you'll have to search the threads for my name for a while, but I'm sure you'll come up with some veiled innuendo, which will give you your "Aha!"....so have at it.

BUT, I am racist against MiddleEastern Islamic "radicals", they can all go throw rocks at Israeli tanks for all I care.....in fact, I'll buy the dvd.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:IF Chrysler would have turned down the bailout money, they wouldn't have to worry about it. I guess the government thinks at the point in time companys want to take free tax dollars they can tell them what to do, like an investor does. I don't agree with it, nor do I think any bailout was a good idea. I do not feel sorry for any of these companies getting bent over by the government, if they would have made better business decisions maybe they would not have the White House telling them what and how to do it. All these corporations should have been left to fail.

I love how he is complaining about how they are being offered .29 on the dollar, and the junior creditors are getting $10-20 billion dollars, I wonder what that breaks down to .50 on the dollar or .70 on the dollar or is it .15-.20 on the dollar. Apples to oranges, and with this spinning of the facts to make his case I would love to see the actual figures.

I am not sure how bankruptcy laws work on the corporate level but I do know that if I file on my house the contract that I had with the mortgage company becomes null and void. Does it work like that in this case? Can you have a contract that circumvents this situation that is legally binding in court? Hell I don't know maybe so. I am not a lawyer nor am I a bankruptcy judge. I would like to research the other side of the fence on this topic. In the interview the true facts are distorted to make the lawyers case, he is doing what he is paid to do.

By no means am I defending the White House's position, but I have a feeling there is allot more to this story than what a lawyer for the opposition says in a radio interview. So before we all go get our pitch forks and torches maybe we study both sides of the matter in lieu of just one.

As far as the UAW being the only group to gain from this, @!#$ em, the UAW should have got nothing. They are one of the major problems in this industry. The UAW extorts companies to pay their employees $28.00 per hour for jobs that require a skill set of a $12.00 employee. And people wonder why all the manufacturing jobs went to Mexico.

It seems we agree for the most part, but something you should know, as it lends credibility to the lawyer's position: he is a registered Democrat, and was an Obama supporter. He has now been on the receiving end of the abuse of power, and apparently has seen the light.

As far as not knowing how bankruptcy works, the simple answer that should clarify this for you is that you can have a contract as a senior creditor, which means in the event of a bankruptcy, you are entitled to be paid first, and no other creditor can be paid until you are 100% paid. This is the case here, but the senior creditor was still agreeing to take 50% of that. They were threatened into taking only 29%.

Also, this issue has nothing to do with the bailouts, for two reasons:

1. The investment firm in question was not the recipient of bailout money. They are simply a creditor of the company. And they were not forced by any legislation or other legal matters, they were threatened in a thug-like manner, by the Whitehouse. If this doesn't scare you, it should. The very office that is supposed to be upholding the Constitution, and protecting the citizens of this country, was threatening to destroy a private company, who represents the interest of thousands of individuals.

2. This was the government stepping into a bankruptcy to keep the unions in power. I firmly believe this would have happened if no bailout money was given. The entire premise they are operating on is that any company who is "too big to fail" will have government intervention if they deem it necessary.