So is this the end of our economy as it previously stood?

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: jpeyton

One of Chrysler's lenders, JPMorganChase, noted in court that the holders of 92 percent of the automaker's debt had agreed to the restructuring...

So greater than 9/10 of Chrysler's lenders agreed to the restructuring plan, but the OP doesn't care because...?

What I find absolutely hilarious is that Indiana (one of the 8% who didn't approve) spent $2 million in legal fees to avoid $6 million in losses. Nominate that one for FAILblog.

cough *politics* cough

Just like the guber down in SC

The Goober got spanked buy his state supreme court.

Originally posted by: Mani
The few dissatisfied bondholders actually fared better than they would have in a liquidation. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a wild rant.

Yup. This.


And the idea that the resolution of this matter will have a negative impact on the trading of investment-grade corporate bonds is goofy at best plus with so much capital on the sidelines it's pure folly to think that temptation won't lead to further junk speculation.

 

[Hacp]

I think this would have a bigger effect on municipal bonds rather than cooperate bonds. Most corporations don't have unions with pensions while most government workers are unionized. To the few corporations that do have unions, well they are totally screwed. I predict that they will have a hard time raising debt and will slowly dissolve, which isn't such a bad thing if the unions dissolve with them.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: MrMatt
I'm not flame baiting here ...

Yes, you are.

The overwhelming majority of secured creditors approved the plan.

The plaintiff, the Indiana Pension fund, held bond(s) with a face value of $42.5 million (of a total $6 billion or 7/10ths of 1 percent).

They paid $18 million for the bonds.

They will receive $12 million.

Wow, I didn't realize a majority was all that was needed to trump contract law.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
What I find shocking is that there are really people out there who will side with Obama (insert any other President name here as well) no matter what he does. I just can't fathom the idea of always agreeing with someone else unless it's because I'm afraid to look inside and see why it is that I must always agree. What a boring life that must be.

So there you have it. Mister Smarty Pants thinks that anyone who agrees with Obama's actions re Chrysler has some kind of fundamental character flaw.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
What I find shocking is that there are really people out there who will side with Obama (insert any other President name here as well) no matter what he does. I just can't fathom the idea of always agreeing with someone else unless it's because I'm afraid to look inside and see why it is that I must always agree. What a boring life that must be.

The real issue is the right - how blindly loyal some were to some of the worst public figures we've seen in a long time. Terrible like Reagan/Bush 41 and 43/Cheney/Gingrich, but really sucmmy ones too like Tom DeLay and James Inhoefe. Tom DeLay puts tinpot tyrants in banana reublics to shame, but had the support to become the 'hammer' in the House.

That's the problem; the people yo describe are mythical, AT posters who give unconditional support to Obama right or wrong. In fact this came up recently where I pointed out similar statements about many members were wrong, and only one poster was suggested as fitting the description. I disagree that even that one poster fits it, but evenif he did, that's one poster.

So, you appear to have a misguided understanding of the posters here both on the left AND on the right in that youdon't see how you are better describing thr right here.

Oops... blackberry posting ftw.

 

[irwincur]

Remember if you don't give the unions anything they might not return to work.

That would have been the best case.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
What I find shocking is that there are really people out there who will side with Obama (insert any other President name here as well) no matter what he does. I just can't fathom the idea of always agreeing with someone else unless it's because I'm afraid to look inside and see why it is that I must always agree. What a boring life that must be.

The real issue is the right - how blindly loyal some were to some of the worst public figures we've seen in a long time. Terrible like Reagan/Bush 41 and 43/Cheney/Gingrich, but really sucmmy ones too like Tom DeLay and James Inhoefe. Tom DeLay puts tinpot tyrants in banana reublics to shame, but had the support to become the 'hammer' in the House.

That's the problem; the people yo describe are mythical, AT posters who give unconditional support to Obama right or wrong. In fact this came up recently where I pointed out similar statements about many members were wrong, and only one poster was suggested as fitting the description. I disagree that even that one poster fits it, but evenif he did, that's one poster.

So, you appear to have a misguided understanding of the posters here both on the left AND on the right in that youdon't see how you are better describing thr right here.

Actually its a reference to only one poster who I've never seen disagree with anything on that side of the fence. I guess its just hard for someone like me who is against big government spending on pretty much anything, but side with the vast majority of the socially liberal agenda (gay rights/abortion/etc.) To understand how a new issue can pop up and people are suddenly for/against it merely because that's what their party is for.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
What I find shocking is that there are really people out there who will side with Obama (insert any other President name here as well) no matter what he does. I just can't fathom the idea of always agreeing with someone else unless it's because I'm afraid to look inside and see why it is that I must always agree. What a boring life that must be.

So there you have it. Mister Smarty Pants thinks that anyone who agrees with Obama's actions re Chrysler has some kind of fundamental character flaw.

Read more closely and perhaps you will understand. Take off the blinders. Stop following your party just because you think you are supposed to. That post wasn't even about Chrysler nor was it directed at Obama supporters specifically. Some of you guys(both extremes) are all so defensive it amazes me that you can even function outside of these forums.

 

[techs]

MrMatt
698 posts.

Come on, who are you really?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: MrMatt
I'm not flame baiting here ...

Yes, you are.

The overwhelming majority of secured creditors approved the plan.

The plaintiff, the Indiana Pension fund, held bond(s) with a face value of $42.5 million (of a total $6 billion or 7/10ths of 1 percent).

They paid $18 million for the bonds.

They will receive $12 million.

Wow, I didn't realize a majority was all that was needed to trump contract law.

Contract law ?