Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:21:20 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Sat, 9 May 2009 15:01:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Not all investment firms are crooked. Like them or not, they deserve
consideration based on contract law. These guys were secured investors, by
law.

Just wait until these leftie morons figure out that their 401s and
pension funds are part of these equity stake holders and they lose
another 70% on their investments.

It an't gonna be Bush's fault then.

Obama is out of touch and out of control. And it's gonna bite him in
the ass - sooner rather than later.

I was listening to one of the Fox "financial" shows this morning.
You know, the Wall Street whizzes. They used to begin their shows
with lead-ins like "Will the Unions Destroy America?" or "Will the
Democrat Congress Destroy America?"
That's when the Dow was 14,000.
Guess their questions were prescient.
Now it's something like "Is it Too Late To Stop Socialism?"

Anyway, these guys and gals are usually in lockstep about what's good
for America. Kill unions. Don't raise min wage. Those with no
health care deserve none. Shipping jobs overseas is good for America.
Dems are bad. You know, the usual. Just making sense. For America.
The only disagreements are about what stock to buy. But that's all
good-humored. After all, we're all rich.
Then one of them - the "moderator" - says there are record 401k
withdrawals, despite the folks getting hit for the 10% early penalty.
A clip of Obama making a campaign speech and saying he wants that
penalty stopped for withdrawals up $10,000 is played.
I remembered that speech and figured these guys would pan it, and they
did at the time. Looks to be a broken promise by Obama.
Now one them pipes up and says it's a good idea to get cash back in
the economy. All hell breaks loose, because that will take steam out
of the stock market.
It's fun seeing these people go for each others throat.
I'm enjoying the hell out of some aspects of this "recession."
That's entertainment!

--Vic

Obamanomics....
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.

Awwwww.


Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

The union pension funds that held Chrysler bonds, those evil greedy crooks?

Obamanomics....
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

I was listening to one of the Fox "financial" shows this morning.
You know, the Wall Street whizzes. They used to begin their shows
with lead-ins like "Will the Unions Destroy America?" or "Will the
Democrat Congress Destroy America?"
That's when the Dow was 14,000.
Guess their questions were prescient.
Now it's something like "Is it Too Late To Stop Socialism?"

Anyway, these guys and gals are usually in lockstep about what's good
for America. Kill unions. Don't raise min wage. Those with no
health care deserve none. Shipping jobs overseas is good for America.
Dems are bad. You know, the usual. Just making sense. For America.
The only disagreements are about what stock to buy. But that's all
good-humored. After all, we're all rich.
Then one of them - the "moderator" - says there are record 401k
withdrawals, despite the folks getting hit for the 10% early penalty.
A clip of Obama making a campaign speech and saying he wants that
penalty stopped for withdrawals up $10,000 is played.
I remembered that speech and figured these guys would pan it, and they
did at the time. Looks to be a broken promise by Obama.
Now one them pipes up and says it's a good idea to get cash back in
the economy. All hell breaks loose, because that will take steam out
of the stock market.
It's fun seeing these people go for each others throat.
I'm enjoying the hell out of some aspects of this "recession."
That's entertainment!

--Vic



One thing for sure. You can't make a valued judgment on events by watching
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lou Dobbs or any of
these clowns delivering news or commentary.
They are out for ratings. Period.

However, if you sorta stay tuned to White House announcements, incentives
and programs, you can get a pretty good sense for where this country is
heading.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders
to be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they put
themselves at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current
level of resentment against all financial institutions and the physical
threats that have been the result. There's a lynch mob mentality that
exists right now.


You mean, like crazed christian conservatives surrounding a family
planning clinic? Or texans threatening to secede?

Obamanomics....
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:19:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.
Awwwww.

Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

Eisboch

I think the "investment community" sold this country down the river in
order to feed its unsatiable greed. Millions upon millions of Americans
are suffering because of their greed and the nonfeasance of the Bush
Administration, and they are suffering far worse than the loss of just
money.

Ah, huh. Now, do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy
crooks?
Don'tcha think *they* are the ones that have provided Chrysler the financing
to keep the
doors open, the employees paid and the pension plans funded?

Those investments were secured by the assets of Chrysler.
The unions don't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 55% of the
company.
Fiat doesn't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 20% of the
company.

The ones with a legal claim to the assets get nothing.

What do you mean "legal?"
Are laws being broken?
I haven't looked at the details, but I thought this was still in
court.

Everybody is rolling over and acceding to the Dear Leader's wishes.

Even the courts are looking the other way.

Obamanomics....
 

BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:19:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to
overwhelming political pressure.
Awwwww.

Do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil, greedy crooks?

Eisboch

I think the "investment community" sold this country down the river
in order to feed its unsatiable greed. Millions upon millions of
Americans are suffering because of their greed and the nonfeasance
of the Bush Administration, and they are suffering far worse than
the loss of just money.

Ah, huh. Now, do you think the Chrysler bond holders are all evil,
greedy crooks?
Don'tcha think *they* are the ones that have provided Chrysler the
financing to keep the
doors open, the employees paid and the pension plans funded?

Those investments were secured by the assets of Chrysler.
The unions don't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 55%
of the company.
Fiat doesn't have secured asset claims, yet they are getting 20% of
the company.

The ones with a legal claim to the assets get nothing.

What do you mean "legal?"
Are laws being broken?
I haven't looked at the details, but I thought this was still in
court.

Everybody is rolling over and acceding to the Dear Leader's wishes.

Even the courts are looking the other way.


Is Obama causing you stress?

Hope so.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:32:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

Here's a different take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...html?_r=1&dlbk

This ending comment should make many here happy.

"This may come to be seen as Mr. Obama’s Nixon in China moment. Just
as it took a conservative Republican to open relations with the
largest Communist country in the world, it took a liberal Democrat to
break the U.A.W."

I do think this announcement of the UAW's death is premature.

--Vic


Consider this.

If the Fed had not provided bailout money to Chrysler (and GM) this story
would have an entirely different ending.
What we are witnessing is the government controlling the destiny of a public
corporation and screw the courts and bankruptcy laws.

More to come.

No doubt more to come, but consider this;

Major banks are failing left and right.
Hundred of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs.
The survival of the financial markets are in jeopardy.
The Dow Jones is in a precipitous dive, and trillions of dollars
of American wealth is being lost.
Home prices are in free fall and foreclosures are setting records
as more $trillions of American equity evaporates.
Suddenly, GM and Chrysler announce they can't operate
without government aid. They must shutter operations.
Perhaps millions of more American in the automotive industry and its
ancillary industries will get pink slips.
So George W. Bush and Hank Paulson bail them out.
What would you have done then?

--Vic

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 20:11:34 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

I was listening to one of the Fox "financial" shows this morning.
You know, the Wall Street whizzes. They used to begin their shows
with lead-ins like "Will the Unions Destroy America?" or "Will the
Democrat Congress Destroy America?"
That's when the Dow was 14,000.
Guess their questions were prescient.
Now it's something like "Is it Too Late To Stop Socialism?"

Anyway, these guys and gals are usually in lockstep about what's good
for America. Kill unions. Don't raise min wage. Those with no
health care deserve none. Shipping jobs overseas is good for America.
Dems are bad. You know, the usual. Just making sense. For America.
The only disagreements are about what stock to buy. But that's all
good-humored. After all, we're all rich.
Then one of them - the "moderator" - says there are record 401k
withdrawals, despite the folks getting hit for the 10% early penalty.
A clip of Obama making a campaign speech and saying he wants that
penalty stopped for withdrawals up $10,000 is played.
I remembered that speech and figured these guys would pan it, and they
did at the time. Looks to be a broken promise by Obama.
Now one them pipes up and says it's a good idea to get cash back in
the economy. All hell breaks loose, because that will take steam out
of the stock market.
It's fun seeing these people go for each others throat.
I'm enjoying the hell out of some aspects of this "recession."
That's entertainment!

One thing for sure. You can't make a valued judgment on events by watching
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lou Dobbs or any of
these clowns delivering news or commentary.
They are out for ratings. Period.

You mean unlike NPR, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and ABC who are just in it for
altruism?

Yeah - I can buy into that. :)

However, if you sorta stay tuned to White House announcements, incentives
and programs, you can get a pretty good sense for where this country is
heading.

Also a good point.

Then again, that means that you actually have to have the capacity for
critical thinking and that, my friend, is something not taught anymore
in our educational system.

Obamanomics....
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders to
be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they put
themselves at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current level
of resentment against all financial institutions and the physical threats
that have been the result. There's a lynch mob mentality that exists
right now.


You mean, like crazed christian conservatives surrounding a family
planning clinic? Or texans threatening to secede?


Fer cripes sake, stay on the subject will you? You do that all the time.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:06:16 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:40:53 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations

Do you have any cites for this allegation that don't trace back to
Lauria? You seem to have accepted his account, while ignoring the White
House denial, and more importantly, Perella Weinberg's denial.

"Shortly after the Obama press conference, Perella Weinberg changed
its stance and said it supported the deal."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/bankru...41888520090504

Um..it's not exactly a denial. Here's the statement.

"In considering the President's words (Please take note of that
phrase) and exercising our best investment judgment (Please take note
of that phrase), we concluded that the risks of potentially severe
capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court
far outweighed any realistic potential upside," PWP said. "

That's not a denial. PWP is a small, boutique firm that is heavily
involved in advising the FDIC on it's bank/saving and equity insurance
programs.

If you had a choice to lose $100 tax loss or lose a $10,000 no-bid
contract which would you choose?

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 20:11:34 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



One thing for sure. You can't make a valued judgment on events by watching
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lou Dobbs or any of
these clowns delivering news or commentary.
They are out for ratings. Period.

However, if you sorta stay tuned to White House announcements, incentives
and programs, you can get a pretty good sense for where this country is
heading.

I watch everything. More often then ever I'll switch from Morning Joe
or the Fox show to C-Span. Yeah, I know C-Span is riddled with
commies, but what can you do?
CNN is getting boring as hell, and Morning Joe has turned into a
little personality cult.

--Vic

Obamanomics....
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:32:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..

Here's a different take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...html?_r=1&dlbk

This ending comment should make many here happy.

"This may come to be seen as Mr. Obama’s Nixon in China moment. Just
as it took a conservative Republican to open relations with the
largest Communist country in the world, it took a liberal Democrat to
break the U.A.W."

I do think this announcement of the UAW's death is premature.

--Vic


Consider this.

If the Fed had not provided bailout money to Chrysler (and GM) this
story
would have an entirely different ending.
What we are witnessing is the government controlling the destiny of a
public
corporation and screw the courts and bankruptcy laws.

More to come.

No doubt more to come, but consider this;

Major banks are failing left and right.
Hundred of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs.
The survival of the financial markets are in jeopardy.
The Dow Jones is in a precipitous dive, and trillions of dollars
of American wealth is being lost.
Home prices are in free fall and foreclosures are setting records
as more $trillions of American equity evaporates.
Suddenly, GM and Chrysler announce they can't operate
without government aid. They must shutter operations.
Perhaps millions of more American in the automotive industry and its
ancillary industries will get pink slips.
So George W. Bush and Hank Paulson bail them out.
What would you have done then?

--Vic

Bullying a settlement isn't going to work. Who's going to give the new
Chrysler financing (other than the government).
The unions?
Chrysler was DOA and should have been allowed a decent burial.

But, to your comments:

Major banks are not failing. They have more money than is good for them and
the economy. In fact, bank failures were higher back in the S&L crisis.
Unemployment comes and goes for all kinds of reasons. There's reason to
believe we've turned the corner.
It will be a while yet, but I think we are in recovery mode.
The financial markets will adjust.
Wall Street will adjust. It already has begun.
Home prices have adjusted for reality and for the market. The trillions of
dollars of "equity" never existed in the first place.
GM and Chrysler have been insolvent for at least a decade or more. Same
with Ford, but they are surviving the old fashioned way.

Now, if *I* were king, I think I'd put a major focus on correcting our trade
deficits. Screw being a nice guy. We need motivation, financial and
otherwise, to encourage a rebirth of manufacturing here, not there.
Increase tariffs on imported goods. Fight fire with fire. That in itself
would go a long ways to revitalizing our manufacturing base. I'd focus on
giving our proven system the tools it needs to compete in a global economy.
Good for China if it can produce a TV for 33 cents. We can't, and we aren't
going to try. The Chinese TV is going to have to cost about what ours sell
for. Besides, the Chinese haven't figured out how to make a power supply yet
that doesn't blow up or catch fire.

We experienced a severe shock to the system due to the phony mortgage
security derivatives that a bunch of crafty but sleazy financial types
invented.
That and greed in specific cases like the criminal Bernie Madoff.

But, we'll survive. I am much more optimistic than I was a few months ago.
Obama and his policies may help ease the pain temporarily, but it will be
our free market, capitalistic system that will ensure our long term survival
and prosperity.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

CNN is getting boring as hell, and Morning Joe has turned into a
little personality cult.

--Vic


I agree regarding "Morning Joe". It used to be pretty good, but has become
goofy.

I still enjoy seeing Pat Buchanan get fired up when he's on though. He can
really be funny sometimes, without even trying. Talk about old school.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders
to be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they
put themselves at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current
level of resentment against all financial institutions and the
physical threats that have been the result. There's a lynch mob
mentality that exists right now.


You mean, like crazed christian conservatives surrounding a family
planning clinic? Or texans threatening to secede?


Fer cripes sake, stay on the subject will you? You do that all the time.

Eisboch


Oh...I thought we were discussing lynch mobs.

Obamanomics....
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders
to be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they put
themselves at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current
level of resentment against all financial institutions and the physical
threats that have been the result. There's a lynch mob mentality that
exists right now.


You mean, like crazed christian conservatives surrounding a family
planning clinic? Or texans threatening to secede?


Fer cripes sake, stay on the subject will you? You do that all the
time.

Eisboch


Oh...I thought we were discussing lynch mobs.


No. We were discussing Rule or Attwood. Which is better?

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 21:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



But, to your comments:

Major banks are not failing.

I should have said financial houses, but they are all tied together.
But you had Countrywide, Indymac, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, etc, etc.
My timing might be off on some, but my memory of what faced Bush and
Company isn't. It looked real, real, bad.

They have more money than is good for them and
the economy. In fact, bank failures were higher back in the S&L crisis.
Unemployment comes and goes for all kinds of reasons. There's reason to
believe we've turned the corner.
It will be a while yet, but I think we are in recovery mode.
The financial markets will adjust.
Wall Street will adjust. It already has begun.
Home prices have adjusted for reality and for the market. The trillions of
dollars of "equity" never existed in the first place.
GM and Chrysler have been insolvent for at least a decade or more. Same
with Ford, but they are surviving the old fashioned way.

Yeah, building in Mexico. Not that they haven't managed to stay ahead
of the game. The game that's killing us.
I see U.S Honda and Toyota as better models.

Now, if *I* were king, I think I'd put a major focus on correcting our trade
deficits. Screw being a nice guy. We need motivation, financial and
otherwise, to encourage a rebirth of manufacturing here, not there.
Increase tariffs on imported goods. Fight fire with fire. That in itself
would go a long ways to revitalizing our manufacturing base. I'd focus on
giving our proven system the tools it needs to compete in a global economy.
Good for China if it can produce a TV for 33 cents. We can't, and we aren't
going to try. The Chinese TV is going to have to cost about what ours sell
for. Besides, the Chinese haven't figured out how to make a power supply yet
that doesn't blow up or catch fire.

I've been beating that drum for years. But it's running into a buzz
saw. You'll see. There was "buy America" language in the stimulus
package. Holy hell was raised about it, and it was dropped or
modified. And that's American TAXPAYER money!
See what Wall street says about that.
Get ready to hear the bull**** about Smoot-Hawley.

We experienced a severe shock to the system due to the phony mortgage
security derivatives that a bunch of crafty but sleazy financial types
invented.
That and greed in specific cases like the criminal Bernie Madoff.

But, we'll survive. I am much more optimistic than I was a few months ago.
Obama and his policies may help ease the pain temporarily, but it will be
our free market, capitalistic system that will ensure our long term survival
and prosperity.

Agreed. But Wall Street will call *any* restriction to "free trade"
commie. Didn't know you were a commie. Surprises me, frankly.

--Vic

Obamanomics....
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


Agreed. But Wall Street will call *any* restriction to "free trade"
commie. Didn't know you were a commie. Surprises me, frankly.

--Vic


It's the Pat Buchanan in me.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:10:52 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:19:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:




Is what's happening illegal?

If, indeed, the bond holders (who are secured creditors) were prevented
from negotiating or their proposal ignored, as their lawyer claims, a law
was broken. In a bankruptcy proceeding *all* creditors who want to be
heard, must be heard.


Who has priority and in what order from a legal standpoint?

Secured creditors are first in line. Unsecured creditors (vendors, etc) and
stockholders are last.


In order to receive the percentages you state, there must be some
value. What is being given in return?

That's just it. Virtually nothing. No consideration. Well, in a way there
is. The unions are getting
55% ownership for making previous concessions, I suppose. Fiat, to the
best of my knowledge isn't putting up a nickle. I've tried to find out
what, if anything Fiat is "paying" for their 20% stake. I can't find it. I
did find a reference that stated that they aren't putting any money up for
the stock. They are just assuming the operational and marketing roles. The
Fed owns the rest.

At one point Obama said that Fiat's position would increase if the
taxpayer's bailout money is repaid, but then he changed his tune and quietly
let it be known that the $8B that the Fed has given Chrysler so far
"probably won't be repaid".


I honestly don't know about these proceedings so I'm curious.

Bankruptcy proceedings are well established and are supposed to give fair
consideration to all parties.
This one was railroaded. It's why Obama wanted to avoid it to begin with.

Personally, as a former businessman, I felt that lacking a white knight
buyer or investor, the fairest way for all concerned parties for both
Chrysler and GM to restructure was via the Chapter 11 bankruptcy route.
It's designed to be fair. This time it wasn't.

Eisboch

Are the union concessions considered owed payroll or wages? Under BK
law, anything that's owed to the employees comes before everything,
including secured debt.

May have been part of their agreement in making the concessions.

Is Fiat putting any money in? Guarantees to assume debt?

Obamanomics....
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the
bondholders to be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at
risk; they put themselves at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current
level of resentment against all financial institutions and the
physical threats that have been the result. There's a lynch mob
mentality that exists right now.


You mean, like crazed christian conservatives surrounding a family
planning clinic? Or texans threatening to secede?


Fer cripes sake, stay on the subject will you? You do that all the
time.

Eisboch


Oh...I thought we were discussing lynch mobs.


No. We were discussing Rule or Attwood. Which is better?

Eisboch


If there is resentment against financial institutions and their
managers, it is because it is deserved. Those greedy *******s tool
intolerable risks with the livelihoods, savings, futures and retirements
of millions of Americans. None of them are going to jail. None of them
are suffering like the families they ruined. I feel no compassion for them.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 21:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Now, if *I* were king, I think I'd put a major focus on correcting our trade
deficits. Screw being a nice guy. We need motivation, financial and
otherwise, to encourage a rebirth of manufacturing here, not there.
Increase tariffs on imported goods. Fight fire with fire. That in itself
would go a long ways to revitalizing our manufacturing base. I'd focus on
giving our proven system the tools it needs to compete in a global economy.
Good for China if it can produce a TV for 33 cents. We can't, and we aren't
going to try. The Chinese TV is going to have to cost about what ours sell
for. Besides, the Chinese haven't figured out how to make a power supply yet
that doesn't blow up or catch fire.

Please reconcile the above with the below...

But, we'll survive. I am much more optimistic than I was a few months ago.
Obama and his policies may help ease the pain temporarily, but it will be
our free market, capitalistic system that will ensure our long term survival
and prosperity.

I'm in agreement with your first statement above but cannot imagine it
happening under our "free market system."

American industry has been undercut by foreign competition and the
race to find the cheapest labor, no matter the locale.

Capitalism may work but free market is only a fantasy for India and
Bangladesh. It's a nightmare for the US.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 20:18:30 -0400, HK wrote:

BAR wrote:


Everybody is rolling over and acceding to the Dear Leader's wishes.

Even the courts are looking the other way.


Is Obama causing you stress?

Hope so.

"Dear Leader." That's hilarious.

The "Dear Leader" left office on the 20th of January.

Took your rights, rifled your pockets and you didn't blink.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:00:56 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:21:20 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Sat, 9 May 2009 15:01:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Not all investment firms are crooked. Like them or not, they deserve
consideration based on contract law. These guys were secured investors, by
law.

Just wait until these leftie morons figure out that their 401s and
pension funds are part of these equity stake holders and they lose
another 70% on their investments.

It an't gonna be Bush's fault then.

Obama is out of touch and out of control. And it's gonna bite him in
the ass - sooner rather than later.

I was listening to one of the Fox "financial" shows this morning.
You know, the Wall Street whizzes. They used to begin their shows
with lead-ins like "Will the Unions Destroy America?" or "Will the
Democrat Congress Destroy America?"
That's when the Dow was 14,000.
Guess their questions were prescient.
Now it's something like "Is it Too Late To Stop Socialism?"

Anyway, these guys and gals are usually in lockstep about what's good
for America. Kill unions. Don't raise min wage. Those with no
health care deserve none. Shipping jobs overseas is good for America.
Dems are bad. You know, the usual. Just making sense. For America.
The only disagreements are about what stock to buy. But that's all
good-humored. After all, we're all rich.
Then one of them - the "moderator" - says there are record 401k
withdrawals, despite the folks getting hit for the 10% early penalty.
A clip of Obama making a campaign speech and saying he wants that
penalty stopped for withdrawals up $10,000 is played.
I remembered that speech and figured these guys would pan it, and they
did at the time. Looks to be a broken promise by Obama.
Now one them pipes up and says it's a good idea to get cash back in
the economy. All hell breaks loose, because that will take steam out
of the stock market.
It's fun seeing these people go for each others throat.
I'm enjoying the hell out of some aspects of this "recession."
That's entertainment!

--Vic

Puts a smile on my face.

They all live the country club life behind some gated community.

It's the "I've got mine" set. Hope theirs goes down the drain with
everyone else's.

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 21:11:20 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

CNN is getting boring as hell, and Morning Joe has turned into a
little personality cult.

--Vic


I agree regarding "Morning Joe". It used to be pretty good, but has become
goofy.

I still enjoy seeing Pat Buchanan get fired up when he's on though. He can
really be funny sometimes, without even trying. Talk about old school.

Eisboch

He doesn't take himself too seriously. Makes me laugh often. He's
capable of being completely sensible and the next moment goes off the
deep end and then smiles when he gets busted.

Good entertainment.

Obamanomics....
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the
bondholders to be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at
risk; they put themselves at risk.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current
level of resentment against all financial institutions and the
physical threats that have been the result. There's a lynch mob
mentality that exists right now.


You mean, like crazed christian conservatives surrounding a family
planning clinic? Or texans threatening to secede?


Fer cripes sake, stay on the subject will you? You do that all the
time.

Eisboch


Oh...I thought we were discussing lynch mobs.


No. We were discussing Rule or Attwood. Which is better?

Eisboch

He'll have to Google that.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:10:52 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:19:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Is what's happening illegal?

If, indeed, the bond holders (who are secured creditors) were prevented
from negotiating or their proposal ignored, as their lawyer claims, a law
was broken. In a bankruptcy proceeding *all* creditors who want to be
heard, must be heard.


Who has priority and in what order from a legal standpoint?

Secured creditors are first in line. Unsecured creditors (vendors, etc) and
stockholders are last.


In order to receive the percentages you state, there must be some
value. What is being given in return?
That's just it. Virtually nothing. No consideration. Well, in a way there
is. The unions are getting
55% ownership for making previous concessions, I suppose. Fiat, to the
best of my knowledge isn't putting up a nickle. I've tried to find out
what, if anything Fiat is "paying" for their 20% stake. I can't find it. I
did find a reference that stated that they aren't putting any money up for
the stock. They are just assuming the operational and marketing roles. The
Fed owns the rest.

At one point Obama said that Fiat's position would increase if the
taxpayer's bailout money is repaid, but then he changed his tune and quietly
let it be known that the $8B that the Fed has given Chrysler so far
"probably won't be repaid".

I honestly don't know about these proceedings so I'm curious.

Bankruptcy proceedings are well established and are supposed to give fair
consideration to all parties.
This one was railroaded. It's why Obama wanted to avoid it to begin with.

Personally, as a former businessman, I felt that lacking a white knight
buyer or investor, the fairest way for all concerned parties for both
Chrysler and GM to restructure was via the Chapter 11 bankruptcy route.
It's designed to be fair. This time it wasn't.

Eisboch

Are the union concessions considered owed payroll or wages? Under BK
law, anything that's owed to the employees comes before everything,
including secured debt.

Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 are VERY different.

May have been part of their agreement in making the concessions.

Is Fiat putting any money in? Guarantees to assume debt?

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:


Are the union concessions considered owed payroll or wages? Under BK
law, anything that's owed to the employees comes before everything,
including secured debt.




I believe they are handled a little bit differently.

Employee wages owed and taxes are two of the few liabilities that transcend
the "corporate veil".
Officers of the corporation can be held personally liable for them in the
case of bankruptcy.
I am not 100 percent sure how it works and how they are handled when it
comes to satisfying secured creditors.

I'll give you an example. A company I worked for back in the 80's was
forced into de facto bankruptcy.
The owner had put his house up as collateral for a business loan. He
defaulted and the bank called the note. Vendors were also knocking the door
down looking for their money for past due invoices. None of us knew
anything about it until our paychecks bounced one payday. The bank had
gone to court and had all the company's accounts frozen in preparation for
an expected bankruptcy court proceeding.

I was not officially an officer of the company, but had a small stock
position and the title of "Director of Engineering". I was also relatively
young, only a few years out of the Navy, enthusiastic about the company and
naive as hell. The owner turned out to be a sleaze and knew the bank was
going to call the note (30 days notice is required by law) and he took off
to Maine on "vacation" the week it occurred. He didn't want to face the
music.

When people started coming back from trying to cash their checks and told me
they couldn't cash them, I called the VP at the bank who handled the
company's accounts. He told me, "sorry, I can't comment". Meanwhile, I
was also trying to contact the company owner, without success.

So, I called our corporate attorney. He checked into it and called me back
a half hour later.
He told me to listen carefully and do exactly as he instructed. He told
me to call a company meeting that afternoon and inform everyone that they
were laid off, effective immediately. He said anyone who wanted to continue
working needed to sign a document that he (the lawyer) prepared
acknowledging that they did so voluntarily. It was a mess. We were
working on a major project and were a few days away from receiving a
significant progress payment, which would resolve the bank issue. Some
people stayed and continued working to help get that payment.

Long story short .... the company was eventually put into Chapter 7 and an
auction was held to sell whatever assets it had. It was fixed. Another
company came in and bid on the whole operation in a "fire sale". I remember
it well because their first bid wasn't enough to satisfy the bank note and a
recess was held while the bank VP, the company owner and the bidder went off
to an office to talk.

They came back out and the bidder opened with another, higher bid than the
one that he had previously just announced.

It was a very educational experience for me who had virtually no knowledge
of business or how situations like this were handled. I left that company
shortly after the auction, did what unemployed engineers do ....
"consult"... and then decided to start the company I founded in 1990.
The described experience was good and I learned a few lessons. The first
one was that I never used a bank for financing that type of company.

Banks are no risk operations and don't belong being involved in a high tech
type business that they don't understand. They are fine for well known
industries and products, but not for a business that they can't look up an
asset in a book and get a fair market value.

In fact, I never borrowed any money for the company. It grew slowly out of
profits, when we had any. A couple of key people were given "sweat equity"
stock for their participation and one, who joined in 1998 invested $100k
for 20% of the company stock. Two years later, when lightening in a jar
struck and I sold the company, he walked away with over $4M.

I could write a book, I swear. I had dinner one evening with the
president of one of our major vendors.
He was an MBA and had run the finance department for a Fortune 500 company
before getting tired of the rat race and bought the company that we in turn
bought equipment from. He asked me how my company was financed. When I
told him how we operated, he put his drink down and stared at me in
disbelief.

He couldn't begin to understand how it was possible. It violated everything
taught in business schools. Being a financial doofus, I explained in plain,
non-financial terms how we did it. He told me a few years later that he
had begun to adopt some of our business and financial ways of doing things.

One thing I am very proud of. We had our ups and downs but we never missed
payroll (except mine occasionally) and never screwed a vendor. Didn't have
to worry about any other creditors because I didn't have any (other than
rent, etc.) Every invoice the company ever had was paid in full.

It wasn't a big company by any measure .... the revenues grew from less than
half a million the first year to just over 17 million the year I sold it.
But it was run with more common sense than brilliance.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:09:39 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

But it was run with more common sense than brilliance.

There's nothing that says common sense isn't brilliance and in
retrospect, a lot of decisions I've made in my life that seemed
brilliant were really based on a solid foundation of common sense.

With respect to your business model, there are three national firms
headquartered here in Woodstock, Linemaster Switch, Crabtree and
Evelyn and Woodstock Line and every one of them is self-financed.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 8 May 2009 07:08:20 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 08 May 2009 08:22:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

... trickle up poverty.

That would be pretty funny if it wasn't frightfully true.

The only good part is there will be less boats on the waterways. Fewer will
afford such luxuries.

The unemployed will all go fishing. Every day will be as congested as
on weekends.

Casady

Obamanomics....
 

On May 8, 8:22*am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.

the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch

Obamanomics....
 

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.

the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch

Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.

Obamanomics....
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.

the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch

Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.

Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.

Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.

I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?

Obamanomics....
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.

Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.

I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?

I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?

I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.

Then you must have lied before.

Obamanomics....
 

On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:03:42 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?

I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.

Then you must have lied before.

I don't lie. Maybe you were brought up wrong and that's what you
expect from people.

The way I define rich and the way you define rich are likely two
different things.

I've been around rich and I'm not.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?

I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.

Sucks to be you.

Obamanomics....
 

On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?

I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.

Sucks to be you.

And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.

Obamanomics....
 

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.

And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.

Some very rich people haul **** for a living.

Obamanomics....
 

On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:54:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.

And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.

Some very rich people haul **** for a living.

They're welcome to their wealth.

Obamanomics....
 

BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich
French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.

And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.

Some very rich people haul **** for a living.

I don't. That's one of jps's wild fantasies.