Obamanomics....
 

.... trickle up poverty.

Obamanomics....
 

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.

Obamanomics....
 

"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.

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.

Didn't think of that - good point.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 08 May 2009 08:22:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

... trickle up poverty.

Trickle down = Snake Oil

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.

Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.

Obamanomics....
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
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.

Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.

Agreed. But for those that too the story of the Three Pigs seriously, we
are not hurting one bit. In fact, I look at this as an opportunity. It is
the paper tigers that are having the wind blown out with the BS. Those
sticking to fundimentals and tried and proven diciplines are laughing.

Obamanomics....
 

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

... trickle up poverty.

Trickle down = Snake Oil

For a Snake-oil saleman, Obama being on the top does pretty good to rally
the masses in their missery.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:35:36 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.

Agreed. But for those that too the story of the Three Pigs seriously, we
are not hurting one bit. In fact, I look at this as an opportunity. It is
the paper tigers that are having the wind blown out with the BS. Those
sticking to fundimentals and tried and proven diciplines are laughing.

All the way to the bank.

Obamanomics....
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:35:36 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.

Agreed. But for those that too the story of the Three Pigs seriously, we
are not hurting one bit. In fact, I look at this as an opportunity. It
is
the paper tigers that are having the wind blown out with the BS. Those
sticking to fundimentals and tried and proven diciplines are laughing.

All the way to the bank.

I don't deal much with banks, only with investment institutions that are not
involved in lending money at all. Been that way for 7 years. In fact, sold
my last bond some 5 years ago. Maybe blessed, but I saw this coming a mile
away. But did under estimate how deep it is going. Problem is, this market
is doing good and I am profitin, I suspect it is a mini-recovery that will
go south by fall.

I will predict this. Until GM & Chrysler are bankrupt and processed, until
the government gets it's cash flow possitive, there isn't a hope in hell for
the economy to get much better. A growing poor and often working class is
going to change demographics. Infaltion will hit hard too at some point.
The ride is far from over.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 8 May 2009 19:05:31 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:35:36 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
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.

Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.

Agreed. But for those that too the story of the Three Pigs seriously, we
are not hurting one bit. In fact, I look at this as an opportunity. It
is
the paper tigers that are having the wind blown out with the BS. Those
sticking to fundimentals and tried and proven diciplines are laughing.

All the way to the bank.

I don't deal much with banks, only with investment institutions that are not
involved in lending money at all. Been that way for 7 years. In fact, sold
my last bond some 5 years ago. Maybe blessed, but I saw this coming a mile
away. But did under estimate how deep it is going. Problem is, this market
is doing good and I am profitin, I suspect it is a mini-recovery that will
go south by fall.

I will predict this. Until GM & Chrysler are bankrupt and processed, until
the government gets it's cash flow possitive, there isn't a hope in hell for
the economy to get much better. A growing poor and often working class is
going to change demographics. Infaltion will hit hard too at some point.
The ride is far from over.

If you have the time, read this - takes a couple of minutes, but it's
very interesting.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3238

Notable quote from among many:

"But American "progressives" seem to be unable to learn from other
people's mistakes, even if the former KGB officer Vladimir Putin
himself is asking Obama to take a lesson from the pages of Russian
history and not exercise "excessive intervention in economic activity
and blind faith in the state's omnipotence.

"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role
absolute," (Putin)... said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "In
the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This
lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

It's pretty amazing when a former KGB agent and commisar gives sound
advice to American leadership.

Obamanomics....
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3238


The People's Cube? No wonder your mind has turned to jello.

- - -

Modern Republican Principles:

Gay-bashing, war profiteering, and torture.

Obamanomics....
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009 19:05:31 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:35:36 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
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.
Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.
Agreed. But for those that too the story of the Three Pigs seriously, we
are not hurting one bit. In fact, I look at this as an opportunity. It
is
the paper tigers that are having the wind blown out with the BS. Those
sticking to fundimentals and tried and proven diciplines are laughing.
All the way to the bank.
I don't deal much with banks, only with investment institutions that are not
involved in lending money at all. Been that way for 7 years. In fact, sold
my last bond some 5 years ago. Maybe blessed, but I saw this coming a mile
away. But did under estimate how deep it is going. Problem is, this market
is doing good and I am profitin, I suspect it is a mini-recovery that will
go south by fall.

I will predict this. Until GM & Chrysler are bankrupt and processed, until
the government gets it's cash flow possitive, there isn't a hope in hell for
the economy to get much better. A growing poor and often working class is
going to change demographics. Infaltion will hit hard too at some point.
The ride is far from over.

If you have the time, read this - takes a couple of minutes, but it's
very interesting.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3238

Notable quote from among many:

"But American "progressives" seem to be unable to learn from other
people's mistakes, even if the former KGB officer Vladimir Putin
himself is asking Obama to take a lesson from the pages of Russian
history and not exercise "excessive intervention in economic activity
and blind faith in the state's omnipotence.

"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role
absolute," (Putin)... said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "In
the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This
lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

It's pretty amazing when a former KGB agent and commisar gives sound
advice to American leadership.

Putin is a smart and wily man.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:37:23 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


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

... trickle up poverty.

Trickle down = Snake Oil

For a Snake-oil saleman, Obama being on the top does pretty good to rally
the masses in their missery.

Obama's not selling snake oil, he's selling sanity.

I don't expect you'll be a buyer.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 8 May 2009 19:05:31 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:35:36 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
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.

Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.

Agreed. But for those that too the story of the Three Pigs seriously, we
are not hurting one bit. In fact, I look at this as an opportunity. It
is
the paper tigers that are having the wind blown out with the BS. Those
sticking to fundimentals and tried and proven diciplines are laughing.

All the way to the bank.

I don't deal much with banks, only with investment institutions that are not
involved in lending money at all. Been that way for 7 years. In fact, sold
my last bond some 5 years ago. Maybe blessed, but I saw this coming a mile
away. But did under estimate how deep it is going. Problem is, this market
is doing good and I am profitin, I suspect it is a mini-recovery that will
go south by fall.

I will predict this. Until GM & Chrysler are bankrupt and processed, until
the government gets it's cash flow possitive, there isn't a hope in hell for
the economy to get much better. A growing poor and often working class is
going to change demographics. Infaltion will hit hard too at some point.
The ride is far from over.

Chrysler and GM are canaries in the mine. They're not structurally
part of the financial failure in this country, just another indicator.

Obamanomics....
 

On Fri, 08 May 2009 22:20:16 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 8 May 2009 19:05:31 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:35:36 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
m...
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.

Too many idiots living beyond their means, using the equity in their
houses to fuel fantasies. Life in the US is being reset to more
realistic standard.

Affluenza is losing ground.

Agreed. But for those that too the story of the Three Pigs seriously, we
are not hurting one bit. In fact, I look at this as an opportunity. It
is
the paper tigers that are having the wind blown out with the BS. Those
sticking to fundimentals and tried and proven diciplines are laughing.

All the way to the bank.

I don't deal much with banks, only with investment institutions that are not
involved in lending money at all. Been that way for 7 years. In fact, sold
my last bond some 5 years ago. Maybe blessed, but I saw this coming a mile
away. But did under estimate how deep it is going. Problem is, this market
is doing good and I am profitin, I suspect it is a mini-recovery that will
go south by fall.

I will predict this. Until GM & Chrysler are bankrupt and processed, until
the government gets it's cash flow possitive, there isn't a hope in hell for
the economy to get much better. A growing poor and often working class is
going to change demographics. Infaltion will hit hard too at some point.
The ride is far from over.

If you have the time, read this - takes a couple of minutes, but it's
very interesting.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3238

Notable quote from among many:

"But American "progressives" seem to be unable to learn from other
people's mistakes, even if the former KGB officer Vladimir Putin
himself is asking Obama to take a lesson from the pages of Russian
history and not exercise "excessive intervention in economic activity
and blind faith in the state's omnipotence.

"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role
absolute," (Putin)... said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "In
the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This
lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

It's pretty amazing when a former KGB agent and commisar gives sound
advice to American leadership.

Wow, did they have anything to say about their incredible investment
in Afghanistan that worked out so well?

Obamanomics....
 

"jps" wrote in message
...


Obama's not selling snake oil, he's selling sanity.


Hmmmm. He just got a demerit on my scorecard.

Link below is to NPR's broadcast yesterday. If you want to watch the
Chrysler part,
let it load for a few seconds, then move the horizontal time slider over to
about the 6 minute point.
The report on Chrysler starts at about 6 min, 5 sec.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/info/local-pl...bre07s26caq4c4


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to overwhelming
political pressure. The attorney for them describes what happened. Contrary
to what Obama announced publically (that the bondholders refused to budge or
negotiate), they had indeed submitted a proposal offering acceptance of 50
cents on the dollar as a counter offer to the government's 30 cents on the
dollar. That's part of good faith negotiation. However, according to the
bond holder's attorney, they were muscled out of any ability to have their
proposal officially considered. They were not allowed to take part in the
negotiating process.

The attorney describes Obama as being dishonest in terms of his public
announcements that the bondholders were not willing to negotiate and
fingered them as the "bad guys". He also pointed out that Obama has been
saying that private investors should and will come to the rescue in the
restructuring plan however his (the attorney's) feeling is that there is no
way private money will be found, based on what just happened to the existing
bond holders. They lost everything. Who in their right mind would invest?

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

Obama pulled some old fashioned Chicago-style politics in this one. I am
starting to notice that although he solicits ideas and invites comments of
his initiatives, it seems to be for show only. He has plugs stuck in his
ears.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

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


"jps" wrote in message
.. .


Obama's not selling snake oil, he's selling sanity.


Hmmmm. He just got a demerit on my scorecard.

Link below is to NPR's broadcast yesterday. If you want to watch the
Chrysler part,
let it load for a few seconds, then move the horizontal time slider over to
about the 6 minute point.
The report on Chrysler starts at about 6 min, 5 sec.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/info/local-pl...bre07s26caq4c4


Basically, the bond holders have thrown in the towel due to overwhelming
political pressure. The attorney for them describes what happened. Contrary
to what Obama announced publically (that the bondholders refused to budge or
negotiate), they had indeed submitted a proposal offering acceptance of 50
cents on the dollar as a counter offer to the government's 30 cents on the
dollar. That's part of good faith negotiation. However, according to the
bond holder's attorney, they were muscled out of any ability to have their
proposal officially considered. They were not allowed to take part in the
negotiating process.

The attorney describes Obama as being dishonest in terms of his public
announcements that the bondholders were not willing to negotiate and
fingered them as the "bad guys". He also pointed out that Obama has been
saying that private investors should and will come to the rescue in the
restructuring plan however his (the attorney's) feeling is that there is no
way private money will be found, based on what just happened to the existing
bond holders. They lost everything. Who in their right mind would invest?

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

Obama pulled some old fashioned Chicago-style politics in this one. I am
starting to notice that although he solicits ideas and invites comments of
his initiatives, it seems to be for show only. He has plugs stuck in his
ears.

Eisboch


He's the decider now. Get used to it.

I had to suffer through 8 years of a buffoon who had not a clue what
the farkle he was doing.

It tasted like **** nearly every day. I hope the worthy opposition is
enjoying the taste and smell. You never get used to it.

It's a good exercise for building empathy.

Obamanomics....
 

"jps" wrote in message
...


He's the decider now. Get used to it.

I had to suffer through 8 years of a buffoon who had not a clue what
the farkle he was doing.

It tasted like **** nearly every day. I hope the worthy opposition is
enjoying the taste and smell. You never get used to it.

It's a good exercise for building empathy.


Obama is demonstrating the "my way or the highway" mentality that people
were so critical of in GWB.
I admit, he's a little more clever about it, but the result is the same.
It's business as usual. More of the same.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 15:34:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .


He's the decider now. Get used to it.

I had to suffer through 8 years of a buffoon who had not a clue what
the farkle he was doing.

It tasted like **** nearly every day. I hope the worthy opposition is
enjoying the taste and smell. You never get used to it.

It's a good exercise for building empathy.


Obama is demonstrating the "my way or the highway" mentality that people
were so critical of in GWB.
I admit, he's a little more clever about it, but the result is the same.
It's business as usual. More of the same.

Eisboch

Yeah, Bush drove us into the ****ter and Obama is driving us out.

You're historically correct, it is more of the same.

Obamanomics....
 

Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


Obama's not selling snake oil, he's selling sanity.


Hmmmm. He just got a demerit on my scorecard.

Link below is to NPR's broadcast yesterday. If you want to watch the
Chrysler part,
let it load for a few seconds, then move the horizontal time slider over
to about the 6 minute point.
The report on Chrysler starts at about 6 min, 5 sec.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/info/local-pl...bre07s26caq4c4


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

Awwwww.

Obamanomics....
 

"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

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?

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.

Obamanomics....
 

HK wrote:
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.


"unsatiable"? How about insatiable?

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:11:57 -0400, HK wrote:

HK wrote:
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.


"unsatiable"? How about insatiable?

How about behind the green door?

--Vic

Obamanomics....
 

"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.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

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


"HK" wrote in message
om...
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.

--Vic

Obamanomics....
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

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

--Vic


It's in court, but the bond holders threw in the towel for any claim. This
removes any conflicts and allows the bankruptcy court to proceed with
dividing up Chrysler per the desires of the Fed.

The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations and
they determined that the public opinion damage done by Obama may put them at
risk, either business-wise or literally physically. Many people have
lumped *all* financial institutions into the scum of the earth category
lately, if you haven't noticed. (although they are, at the same time, being
begged to start lending again).


Personally, I think investors/bondholders should have stayed the course. I
am not advocating them or the other parties involved. I am disturbed that
binding contracts become meaningless due to political power and influence.
I thought we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to honest, transparent
and open leadership.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

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


"HK" wrote in message
om...
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.

Eisboch

Is what's happening illegal?

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

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

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

Obamanomics....
 

Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

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

--Vic


It's in court, but the bond holders threw in the towel for any claim.
This removes any conflicts and allows the bankruptcy court to proceed
with dividing up Chrysler per the desires of the Fed.

The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations and
they determined that the public opinion damage done by Obama may put
them at risk, either business-wise or literally physically. Many
people have lumped *all* financial institutions into the scum of the
earth category lately, if you haven't noticed. (although they are, at
the same time, being begged to start lending again).


Personally, I think investors/bondholders should have stayed the
course. I am not advocating them or the other parties involved. I am
disturbed that binding contracts become meaningless due to political
power and influence.
I thought we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to honest,
transparent and open leadership.

Eisboch




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.

It wouldn't have bothered me if all the troubled financial services
companies went bellyup, and their assets sold off to less troubled
companies. If they had behaved responsibly, they wouldn't have gotten in
as deep as they did.

Obamanomics....
 

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.

Obamanomics....
 

"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

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:40:53 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

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

--Vic


It's in court, but the bond holders threw in the towel for any claim. This
removes any conflicts and allows the bankruptcy court to proceed with
dividing up Chrysler per the desires of the Fed.

The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations and
they determined that the public opinion damage done by Obama may put them at
risk, either business-wise or literally physically. Many people have
lumped *all* financial institutions into the scum of the earth category
lately, if you haven't noticed. (although they are, at the same time, being
begged to start lending again).


Personally, I think investors/bondholders should have stayed the course. I
am not advocating them or the other parties involved. I am disturbed that
binding contracts become meaningless due to political power and influence.
I thought we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to honest, transparent
and open leadership.

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

Obamanomics....
 

"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.


It wouldn't have bothered me if all the troubled financial services
companies went bellyup, and their assets sold off to less troubled
companies. If they had behaved responsibly, they wouldn't have gotten in
as deep as they did.

You are lumping them all together (which is, in part the problem that
exists).
As I previously pointed out, the Chrysler bondholders are the ones that kept
the
company afloat and provided the funds to pay employees and conduct business.
Chrysler used up all their money, then the Fed money. (which, BTW, I don't
think is even secured)

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

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.

Obamanomics....
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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.


I don't. I am going by the attorney statements made on the NPR interview.

But, think about it. The bond holders refused the 29 or 30 cents on the
dollar Fed offer, which forced the Chapter 11 filing.
They were hoping for a better deal via the bankruptcy court.

Then suddenly, they drop their claim, clearing the way for the Fed
recommended deal and walked away from a lot of money.

Why?

Obamanomics....
 

"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.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:24:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


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.


I don't. I am going by the attorney statements made on the NPR
interview.

That would be Lauria. Nothing for nothing, it isn't the first time a
lawyer tried influencing the public in his clients interests.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...hreat-to-firm/

Obamanomics....
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:24:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


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.


I don't. I am going by the attorney statements made on the NPR
interview.

That would be Lauria. Nothing for nothing, it isn't the first time a
lawyer tried influencing the public in his clients interests.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...hreat-to-firm/




Sorry. It doesn't pass the "make sense" test.

It's over. The deal is done. There's nothing left to influence the public
about in his clients' interests.

His interview was a postmortem.

Eisboch

Obamanomics....
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...

That would be Lauria. Nothing for nothing, it isn't the first time a
lawyer tried influencing the public in his clients interests.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...hreat-to-firm/



LOL! I had to read the last part a couple of times to make sure I wasn't
missing something.

First of all, Weinnberg is only one of many parties involved.
Second of all, they caved due to Obama's public statements and a realistic
outcome analysis.
They are *still* of the position that the lenders where justified in pursing
the bankruptcy proceedings.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the statement.


"The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion
Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when
announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing. In considering the President’s
words and exercising our best investment judgment, 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."


(if you recall, Obama didn't exactly endorse the interests of the secured
lenders in his announcement)



and:


"We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to
carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment
mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors’
money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing
else.



While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in
pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we
believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in
the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation
proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue
this immediately."




Pretty much in line with Lauria's statements, I think.

Eisboch