A big hmmmmm on auto industry.....

[Guest]

This is quite a strong statement about the antics of this WH by a guy who some consider to be a future star of the Republican Party....

"The No. 2 Republican in the House on Thursday compared President Barack Obama's plans for the auto industry to the policies of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, saying the White House has stripped credit holders of rights and given them to Democratic allies.
"They said, 'Set aside the rule of law, let's strip secured creditors, bondholders, of their rights. Take them away outside of the bankruptcy process and give them to the political cronies and the auto workers' unions," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in an interview with The Associated Press. "

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98OOJCG0&show_article=1

I must say that there are those on here who critique me yet on what I have been saying since Iowa about this President and where he will take us.....

I see NOTHING to indicate any change of anything; we seem to be going headlong in one direction ! Please, if I am wrong,point out where !!!

[Guest]

...future star of the Republican Party....the White House has stripped credit holders of rights ...Set aside the rule of law, let's strip secured creditors, bondholders, of their rights. Take them away outside of the bankruptcy process and give them to the political cronies and the auto workers' unions

First, I surely hope we're not relying on the likes of John Boehner to re-establish the two-party system in Congress. Other than having a great tailor, haberdasher and barber, what leadership has he exhibited lately? Presenting an alternative federal budget, but with no numbers?

But on to the issue at hand...

I have less of a problem with the administration getting involved with the creditors of both GM and Chrysler prior to the filing of bankruptcy than I do with the unfairness with which they pressured some creditors to settle. I say that because after more than two months, the creditors of both companies were no closer to agreeing on a Plan of Reorganization for presentation to the bankruptcy judge as a "pre-packaged" agreement than they were the first day they met. Had someone not gotten involved (who else was there but the government?), both companies would eventually have filed for bankruptcy with no agreement in sight among the creditors. There could only have been one of two results from that scenario: the government (us) would continue to fund both companies because of the fear of the economic impact of their failure...or, the companies would shut down and then liquidate, resulting in somewhere in the range of 2 million people hitting the unemployment lines simultaneously.

Personally, I think the involvement of the government was the only action that could have saved either or both of these companies.

But I agree with Boehner's assessment on the stripping creditors of their rights, having made the same assessment myself (leading me to call the first strike on this administration). The Plan of Reorganization was not fairly constructed and gave greater rewards to the UAW and even the government itself than to all other classes of secured and senior creditors. The country will pay for that action as the capital markets adjust to the fact that they cannot rely on their contracts and legal agreements to preserve their rights, particularly in situations where there's a possibility that the government might show an interest in the outcome of a situation.

The future disinterest of lenders in exposing themselves to this type of situation will be very difficult for the public to discern. As much as anything it will show up as a slowing in economic growth because of the tightness of corporate credit needed to provide the leverage on which our economy has become accustomed. There may be some legal cases in the future that are adjudicated based on the precedents set in these two bankruptcies. But even then, it would take a very perceptive and astute public to interpret the damage to our rule of law that has resulted by the unfair and unequitable trampling of creditor's rights in these cases. The precedents resulting from these cases won't get a lot of discussion on forums such as this one. But I can assure you that the issues and precedents created are garnering lots of discussion, study and planning among law firms representing creditors.

[Guest]

First, I surely hope we're not relying on the likes of John Boehner to re-establish the two-party system in Congress. Other than having a great tailor, haberdasher and barber, what leadership has he exhibited lately? Presenting an alternative federal budget, but with no numbers?

But on to the issue at hand...

I have less of a problem with the administration getting involved with the creditors of both GM and Chrysler prior to the filing of bankruptcy than I do with the unfairness with which they pressured some creditors to settle. I say that because after more than two months, the creditors of both companies were no closer to agreeing on a Plan of Reorganization for presentation to the bankruptcy judge as a "pre-packaged" agreement than they were the first day they met. Had someone not gotten involved (who else was there but the government?), both companies would eventually have filed for bankruptcy with no agreement in sight among the creditors. There could only have been one of two results from that scenario: the government (us) would continue to fund both companies because of the fear of the economic impact of their failure...or, the companies would shut down and then liquidate, resulting in somewhere in the range of 2 million people hitting the unemployment lines simultaneously.

Personally, I think the involvement of the government was the only action that could have saved either or both of these companies.

But I agree with Boehner's assessment on the stripping creditors of their rights, having made the same assessment myself (leading me to call the first strike on this administration). The Plan of Reorganization was not fairly constructed and gave greater rewards to the UAW and even the government itself than to all other classes of secured and senior creditors. The country will pay for that action as the capital markets adjust to the fact that they cannot rely on their contracts and legal agreements to preserve their rights, particularly in situations where there's a possibility that the government might show an interest in the outcome of a situation.

The future disinterest of lenders in exposing themselves to this type of situation will be very difficult for the public to discern. As much as anything it will show up as a slowing in economic growth because of the tightness of corporate credit needed to provide the leverage on which our economy has become accustomed. There may be some legal cases in the future that are adjudicated based on the precedents set in these two bankruptcies. But even then, it would take a very perceptive and astute public to interpret the damage to our rule of law that has resulted by the unfair and unequitable trampling of creditor's rights in these cases. The precedents resulting from these cases won't get a lot of discussion on forums such as this one. But I can assure you that the issues and precedents created are garnering lots of discussion, study and planning among law firms representing creditors.


It was Eric Cantor, not John Boehner :)

[Guest]

It was Eric Cantor, not John Boehner :)

Sorry, I guess Cantor is "the number two Republican in the House". But I think I also recall on April 1, Cantor standing right behind Boehner as Boehner was waving the blue booklet with the official-looking seal on the front, saying that the Republican-generated budget proposal was a better and more responsible proposal than the one sent to the House by the President.

When the media got a look at the alternative budget proposal and saw that there were no numbers attached to the lists and dialog inside, many though it was simply an April Fool's joke. Little did they know that Boehner (and Cantor) were serious.

Like I said, we'll need more than either Boehner or Cantor to re-establish the two-party system that we all desire.

[Guest]

Sorry, I guess Cantor is "the number two Republican in the House". But I think I also recall on April 1, Cantor standing right behind Boehner as Boehner was waving the blue booklet with the official-looking seal on the front, saying that the Republican-generated budget proposal was a better and more responsible proposal than the one sent to the House by the President.

When the media got a look at the alternative budget proposal and saw that there were no numbers attached to the lists and dialog inside, many though it was simply an April Fool's joke. Little did they know that Boehner (and Cantor) were serious.

Like I said, we'll need more than either Boehner or Cantor to re-establish the two-party system that we all desire.
Why put numbers in a bill when they don't take the time to read it anyways???????? Ask Harry Reid how much of Obama's bill he read. Quick Answer: ZERO.