White House Press Corp Used To Intimidate Chrysler Lenders

[waggy]

hmm thats nto good to hear. but will wait before i pass judgement on obama. but i do have to say it wouldnt suprise me. how he is in the news and bashing and calling people vil is just wrong. this nation got where it is becasue people wanted to make a buck (not just the rich midn you).

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glenn1
Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.

About fucking time after what they did to the economy.

I hope you understand that most of the jobs in this country are provided by these people.

What of it? What is your solution then?

There are 3 options that I am aware of.

1. Let them fail.
2. Bailouts - we continue to throw money at an unviable business.
3. Bankruptcy - they file, restructure their company and deal with thier creditors and they may possibly come out as a viable business and not go under.

Option 1 means they layoff everyone. Option 2 cannot sustain. Obtion 3 at least has the possibility of working.

What is your great plan that works better than bankruptcy? Please enlighten us all.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Pretty messed up. The more that comes out about this the more it sounds like these creditors were legitimately wronged. I hope they fight this and win.

I watched that press conference and couldn't believe what I was hearing coming out of Obama's mouth (actually I'm not surprised, considering I figured he was a socialist long ago). Nevertheless, when GM files next month, are we going to hear a sob story 10x as bad, since GM is so much bigger and the pension/HC $$ and # of jobs on the line are far greater??

Pffft. Bondholders are creditors, and thus are senior in the capital structure. I seriously hope the judge in the Chrysler case gives them everything they're justified. Fuck sacrifice. These creditors are first in line. They have a fiduciary duty to their investors to maximize returns or they can get sued. This isn't Venezuela and our president shouldn't be up there spouting populist bullshit that runs contrary to reality and the law. This really made me angry the other day. Never thought I say this but can we have Bill Clinton back please? At least he understood capitalism.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glenn1
Couple this treatment with the arm-bending of BoA to buy Merrill (the threat to remove Ken Lewis and the rest of the board if they didn't go through with the deal), and it effectively drives a stake through any previously announced government programs such as the "Public-Private Investment Partnership" for the banks, etc. Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.

About fucking time after what they did to the economy.

Please tell me where I can send the one-way ticket to Cuba I just bought you...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glenn1
Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.

About fucking time after what they did to the economy.

I hope you understand that most of the jobs in this country are provided by these people.

It's like during the G20 summit in London, there were all those protests against Capitalism, but when any of them were asked what they wanted in place of Capitalism, no one had any fucking clue what wanted :laugh:




As to the subject of this thread, it goes back down to the government gaining power to rewrite private contracts. The government wants the UAW employees to keep most of their retirement benefits at the expense of the evil capitalist investors... who are partially comprised of other people's retirement benefits. Nothing about that is fair. It is all about political power. One of the primary functions of Capitalism is keeping the political games away from parts of our lives where it does not belong.

If you support Obama being able to rewrite private contracts, then you also have to be in favor of the next Dubya rewriting private contracts. Not so funny now, is it...
Oh, but these are "extraordinary times"! Face it, it's always extraordinary times... The Sept. 11 attacks were extraordinary times.

Well quite a few of us still believe it`s funny!! Mainly because your examples are rediculous!! hahahaaa

 

[Thump553]

The power to void (rewrite, as you characterize it) contracts has been part of the federal statutes for Chapter 11 for well over a century. Nothing ever gave that power to the President. In the present case, the federal gov't told all the creditors that this is what we want to see in a reorganization plan for the fed govt to step in with financing/guarantees, etc. A small portion of creditors holding partially secured claims think they will do better in a contested bankruptcy, possibly even a Chapter 7 liquidation which is why we are here today.

All this talk of Obama declaring war on the capitalist class/assuming vast new powers is just hyperbole and nonsense.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that Obama controls the White House press corps-which would, of necessity, include Fox News.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Thump553
The power to void (rewrite, as you characterize it) contracts has been part of the federal statutes for Chapter 11 for well over a century. Nothing ever gave that power to the President. In the present case, the federal gov't told all the creditors that this is what we want to see in a reorganization plan for the fed govt to step in with financing/guarantees, etc. A small portion of creditors holding partially secured claims think they will do better in a contested bankruptcy, possibly even a Chapter 7 liquidation which is why we are here today.

All this talk of Obama declaring war on the capitalist class/assuming vast new powers is just hyperbole and nonsense.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that Obama controls the White House press corps-which would, of necessity, include Fox News.

Did you not hear BHO whine the other day about this? Basically tried to use his presser to bully them into bending over? Seems to me you need to wake up to the reality of the situation if you really can't see how people could think he's declaring war on the capitalist class(which is damn near everyone).

 

[heyheybooboo]

Gee.

A whiny bankruptcy lawyer representing hedge funds complaining to the WSJ. This is news exactly how? Let's look at a brief timeline ...

1998: Daimler pays $36 billion for Chrysler.
2006: Chrysler reports annual losses of $1.5 billion.
2007: Daimler unloads 80 percent of Chrysler to Cerberus Capital for $6 billion.
2007: On August 5, Robert Nardelli, one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time", becomes chairman and CEO of the newly privatized Chrysler.
2007: Annual losses at Chrysler most likely $1.6 billion.
2008: Losses most likely accelerate to over $500 million per quarter.

2009: Bottom Feeders start buying up Chrysler debt for $.50/dollar hoping to be "bailed out" by the gov't at the face value of the debt.

The Bottom Feeders start complaining when they are offered $.60/dollar while others are receiving $.30/dollar.

So then ... see bolded above

 

[Moonbeam]

Are they wearing brown shirts?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I'm starting to think this is all a show to appease the UAW, so Obama can say "I did everything I could for you", when in reality he know the BK judge will follow the rule of law and drop the hammmer on the UAW contracts

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I'm starting to think this is all a show to appease the UAW, so Obama can say "I did everything I could for you", when in reality he know the BK judge will follow the rule of law and drop the hammmer on the UAW contracts

Not good enough for investors to "hope" the judge will follow the rule of law when there are so many activist judges out there. Forgive us investors for being a little worried. And by the way, the president shouldn't be up there bullshitting the unions and giving them false hope or outright lying about their situation. Nor should he admit 'they're fucked' either. The right thing to do is to just shut the fvck up and never have that press conference in the first place (which is what Bush and Clinton would have both done).

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: Thump553
The power to void (rewrite, as you characterize it) contracts has been part of the federal statutes for Chapter 11 for well over a century. Nothing ever gave that power to the President. In the present case, the federal gov't told all the creditors that this is what we want to see in a reorganization plan for the fed govt to step in with financing/guarantees, etc. A small portion of creditors holding partially secured claims think they will do better in a contested bankruptcy, possibly even a Chapter 7 liquidation which is why we are here today.

All this talk of Obama declaring war on the capitalist class/assuming vast new powers is just hyperbole and nonsense.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that Obama controls the White House press corps-which would, of necessity, include Fox News.

Figuring that Obama refuses to call on Fox News, he controls the press corp. (IE, tow the adminstration party line or don't get called on to ask questions).

As to the "small portion" of creditors who were holding out. They were SECURED creditors. When everything falls out in BK court, secured creditors get paid before UNSECURED creditors. In this case, the unon was a unsecured creditor. Of course this admin has to pay back the unions and needs to make sure they get 80+ cents on the dollar for their investment.

What were seeing from Obama is him being a thug. If you don't do what his admin says, they will go after you. Its straight out of the Saul Alinsky play book - Rules for Radicals. Rule #13 - Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

You know the interesting thing is that if we stopped calling these 'bail outs' and instead called them job programs then they might actually make sense.

We give GM a few billion and in return thousands and thousands of people get to keep their jobs, remain tax payers and stay off the welfare and unemployment rolls.

I did the math during one of our earlier debates and it might actually be cheaper for the government to keep funding GM than to let them liquidate. Of course that assumes that all the jobs would be lost and none would be replaced etc etc. But it still makes for an interesting idea.

this was a concept advocated by some when gm/chrysler were first heading downhill quick

the idea was that it was cheaper to throw some money at the company to keep it running (and paying taxes, healthcare, salaries, wages) than let it go under and have to deal with unemployment benefits, welfare, as well as the systemic shocks to the economy

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: glenn1
Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.

About fucking time after what they did to the economy.

I hope you understand that most of the jobs in this country are provided by these people.

lol wat?

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

You know the interesting thing is that if we stopped calling these 'bail outs' and instead called them job programs then they might actually make sense.

We give GM a few billion and in return thousands and thousands of people get to keep their jobs, remain tax payers and stay off the welfare and unemployment rolls.

I did the math during one of our earlier debates and it might actually be cheaper for the government to keep funding GM than to let them liquidate. Of course that assumes that all the jobs would be lost and none would be replaced etc etc. But it still makes for an interesting idea.

I never would have expected you to say that...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... and let's not forget that anyone in the country with an IRA, retirement fund, stocks or mutual funds is a member of the 'capital class'

As it says in the article a lot of these bonds are owned by retirement accounts and even other unions.

Also, anything that causes the cost of capital to go up with have a horrendous effect on the economy. I am becoming more and more convinced that the economic recession will end this year, but we will be stuck with very slow growth for the next several years as Obama and the Democrats pursue a political agenda that will act as an anchor on our economy.

growth will likely be slow anyways, due to continuing economic restructuring. There are still alot of losses to occur that will probably continue over the next 2 years

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

You know the interesting thing is that if we stopped calling these 'bail outs' and instead called them job programs then they might actually make sense.

We give GM a few billion and in return thousands and thousands of people get to keep their jobs, remain tax payers and stay off the welfare and unemployment rolls.

I did the math during one of our earlier debates and it might actually be cheaper for the government to keep funding GM than to let them liquidate. Of course that assumes that all the jobs would be lost and none would be replaced etc etc. But it still makes for an interesting idea.

I never would have expected you to say that...

prof can be a pragmatist sometimes

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

You know the interesting thing is that if we stopped calling these 'bail outs' and instead called them job programs then they might actually make sense.

We give GM a few billion and in return thousands and thousands of people get to keep their jobs, remain tax payers and stay off the welfare and unemployment rolls.

I did the math during one of our earlier debates and it might actually be cheaper for the government to keep funding GM than to let them liquidate. Of course that assumes that all the jobs would be lost and none would be replaced etc etc. But it still makes for an interesting idea.

The problem with that approach is that letting them fail may be more expensive in the short term but it fixes the problem and puts an end to the bleeding. Keeping them on the government tit only prolongs the pain and does nothing to avert the eventual colapse and guarntees that the long term cost will be much much more.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Who has kidnapped ProfJohn, and why? :Q
Did someone hack his account?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

You know the interesting thing is that if we stopped calling these 'bail outs' and instead called them job programs then they might actually make sense.

We give GM a few billion and in return thousands and thousands of people get to keep their jobs, remain tax payers and stay off the welfare and unemployment rolls.

I did the math during one of our earlier debates and it might actually be cheaper for the government to keep funding GM than to let them liquidate. Of course that assumes that all the jobs would be lost and none would be replaced etc etc. But it still makes for an interesting idea.

Without the required number of customers ready, willing and able to buy their products, all the government is doing is delaying the inevitable.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
In a radio interview with Frank Beckmann of WJR radio in Detroit (linked below), Attorney Tom Lauria explains that the White House press corp was used to intimidate lenders.


Tom Lauria:
"Let me tell you it?s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That?s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That?s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

Beckman:
"Was that Perella Weinberg?"

Lauria:
"That was Perella Weinberg."


Lauria represented senior creditors that he explained originally took on a low rate of return in exchange for greater security. Legally they were entitled to be paid first before any junior creditors like the unions. However they agreed to accept only 50% of their first lien position in order to help rehabilitation of Chrysler despite having no legal obligation to do so.

These are the people Rep John Dingell of Michigan called "rouges and vultures" (and whose investors include Yale University?s endowment, the University of Kentucky?s endowment, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and lots of retirement fund, smaller investors etc.)

Senior creditors were offered 29 cents on the dollar while junior creditors get full recovery value for their $10.6 billion retiree health-care claims. Obama's proposal also called for Treasury to forgive a $4 billion loan to the company in return for an 8% stake in the auto maker.

Lauria also decries 1) the executive office using its power to break legal agreements protected by Constitution (right to property and right to contracts) and 2) the executive branch encroaching on powers of the judicial branch.

Even if one allows for "cram downs" and such as allowed by bankruptcy law in some circumstances, it's clear Obama @ Co clubbed lenders like baby seals while hijacking value and transferring it to the unions (who paid for Obama) while also giving some control to itself.

Fascinating Radio Interview Here:
http://www.wjr.net/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525

Hi Winnar/Zendari.