Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
eddy

GM's bankruptcy and the Republican party

Rate this topic

20 posts in this topic

Where should they stand on this? Should they be more moderate on this and support having President Obama run the company? Or should they be conservative and be against it?

 

I want to know, because you know, Republicans need to expand their base in order to win. We could really use the socialist/communist vote in the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostWhere should they stand on this? Should they be more moderate on this and support having President Obama run the company? Or should they be conservative and be against it?

 

I'm starting to wonder what happened to the GOP, and where did it go wrong...(left). And I thought moderates were supposed to be candidates, not the party trends....

Think I'll go back to my cave along with the other primitives....and let the country finish going to hell in a handbasket....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostWhere should they stand on this? Should they be more moderate on this and support having President Obama run the company? Or should they be conservative and be against it?

 

I want to know, because you know, Republicans need to expand their base in order to win. We could really use the socialist/communist vote in the next election.

 

 

i think the more relevent question to ask is ...

 

should we hold BHO accountable for subverting the bankruptcy process, as he did with Chrysler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Posti think the more relevent question to ask is ...

 

should we hold BHO accountable for subverting the bankruptcy process, as he did with Chrysler?

 

how was it subverted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Posti think the more relevent question to ask is ...

 

should we hold BHO accountable for subverting the bankruptcy process, as he did with Chrysler?

 

no. you're wrong.

 

We need to ask people like Colin Powell and Tom Ridge what our view on the GM bankruptcy should be. They say the Republican party needs to expand their base, so does that mean our view should be for government run corporations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Posthow was it subverted?

 

 

IANAL (yet) but I'll quote one who is:

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1242...html#printMode

 

MAY 13, 2009 Chrysler and the Rule of Law

The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.

 

By TODD J. ZYWICKI

 

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

 

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?

 

Until Chrysler.

 

The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

 

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

 

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

 

Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

 

The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler's assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset's, or in this case the company's, value. That's hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.

 

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

 

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

 

Chrysler -- or more accurately, its unionized workers -- may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.

 

And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?

 

Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of a book on consumer bankruptcy and consumer lending, forthcoming from Yale University Press.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?

I don't for the life of me understand why democrat voters don't understand what an ogre this man is. There are only two conclusions:

1) They actually do like mob rule and are taking advantage of their present postition,

or 2) they are stupid. I have always taken the "voters are dumb" stuff with a grain of salt, but I am really wondering. Is government education really THAT s itty that nobody learns what their own government is all about?

 

What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post

 

What is it?

 

 

I'm going with love of country,

I love my country more than economic principles.

 

some are devotees of a "free market" and would rather see our nation collapse than have these imagined free market forces infringed upond.

it's a sickness actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going with love of country

If he loved the USA, he would not subvert the Constitution.

We have lots of evidence, in the form Brakabama's own written and recorded words that he doesn't particularly give a s it about the nation. Its pretty solid stuff.

So did he have a change of heart? Is he a hypocrite? Or does he just know that so many people were educated out of the loop that he can do as he wishes.

Loves the country?beers.gifcwm33.gifTripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs the Balls to come straight out and state the rules. Will they be unpopular sure to some. The US is now that a WHINEY 5 year old that has a wants to stay up late but has to get up early. You tell them over and over why they cant stay up late, but they use every excuse in the book. Now the parents have some choices:

 

A. Let the little hooligan stay up mean while you lose sleep and risk being late or missing the whole thing(bail out)

B. You put you foot down and beat them like a red headed step child(bankrupcy no bail out).

C. Bribe them to get to bed which takes an hr to work out the deal(whats going on now with the bailouts).

D. Give your best father mother mean voice, pick something to thow out or time out and they the little monster cool off, and read them a story till they pass out(No one as done this as of yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We saved 50,000 jobs with this latest move but spent over $400,000 per job - should be a lot of pissed off people. This notion of too big to fail is becoming tiresome but its all the dems have - this was a pay off for all the years of union support and donations.

 

When the bond holders were sent to the back of the line that was a clear indicator as to who this was to benefit besides the lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostI'm going with love of country,

I love my country more than economic principles.

 

some are devotees of a "free market" and would rather see our nation collapse than have these imagined free market forces infringed upond.

it's a sickness actually.

 

What other industries will we lose to our healthcare system? Steel, Auto...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostWho will buy bonds when the government can change the rules as they go along?

 

 

This is pretty much the MO for the Dems since they took control of all brnachs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.