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?