[FreeEnterprise]

again, Obama CHANGED bankruptcy laws with the auto companies, when he gave special treatment to the unions. And redistributed the "wealth" of the bond holders to the unions who elected him.

It wasn't a normal bankruptcy and it didn't follow typical payouts...


As far as my friend, he had 800 employees before the "bailout" after, he had to layoff 625 of them... In order to keep the doors open. He borrowed as much as he could and sold most of his equipment just to keep the doors open.

He couldn't make it, as he had such a large contract with the two big auto makers and had already delivered the products to both, and they hadn't paid the bill.

Obama's bankruptcy changes meant that HE GOT NOTHING and they could KEEP all of HIS product.

You don't recover quickly from that. IF his company makes it, it will take decades to get out of the debt he had to take on and the losses as a result of the fake bankruptcy that Obama did.

Oh, and the board removed him as president of the company as a result... He was OK with that and ready for something else as the stress caused by this mess almost killed him.

[FreeEnterprise]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

Not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure they didn't change any bankruptcy laws.

No one is an expert in this, as Obama completely changed the rules to redistribute wealth to the unions...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...268680454.html

"A bedrock principle of bankruptcy law is that creditors with similar claims priority receive equal treatment. If you owe $1,000 each on two credit cards, in bankruptcy you cannot choose to pay $900 to Citi and only $200 to Chase. Each of the creditors is entitled to an equal percentage recovery.

In the auto bankruptcies, however, the administration gave the unsecured claims of VEBA much higher priority than those of other unsecured creditors, such as suppliers and unsecured bondholders.

At the time of bankruptcy, GM owed these unsecured creditors $29.9 billion, for which they received 10% of the stock of "new" GM, which went public in November 2010, and warrants to purchase 15% more at preferred prices. Yet VEBA got 17.5% of new GM and $9 billion in preferred stock and debt obligations. Based on GM's current stock price, VEBA collected assets worth $17.8 billion—$12.2 billion more than if the administration had treated it like the other unsecured creditors.

The same thing happened at Chrysler, only to a greater degree. Chrysler's junior creditors recovered none of their $7 billion in claims. In normal bankruptcy proceedings, the UAW would have also collected nothing. Instead it walked away owning almost half of new Chrysler and a $4.6 billion promissory note earning 9% interest. Had the stock and note gone to the Treasury instead, the bailout would have cost taxpayers $9.2 billion less.

A bedrock principle of bankruptcy law is that creditors with similar claims priority receive equal treatment. If you owe $1,000 each on two credit cards, in bankruptcy you cannot choose to pay $900 to Citi and only $200 to Chase. Each of the creditors is entitled to an equal percentage recovery.

In the auto bankruptcies, however, the administration gave the unsecured claims of VEBA much higher priority than those of other unsecured creditors, such as suppliers and unsecured bondholders.

At the time of bankruptcy, GM owed these unsecured creditors $29.9 billion, for which they received 10% of the stock of "new" GM, which went public in November 2010, and warrants to purchase 15% more at preferred prices. Yet VEBA got 17.5% of new GM and $9 billion in preferred stock and debt obligations. Based on GM's current stock price, VEBA collected assets worth $17.8 billion—$12.2 billion more than if the administration had treated it like the other unsecured creditors.

The same thing happened at Chrysler, only to a greater degree. Chrysler's junior creditors recovered none of their $7 billion in claims. In normal bankruptcy proceedings, the UAW would have also collected nothing. Instead it walked away owning almost half of new Chrysler and a $4.6 billion promissory note earning 9% interest. Had the stock and note gone to the Treasury instead, the bailout would have cost taxpayers $9.2 billion less."



Read the rest of the article to really see just a PART of what Obama did... This story is unreal, and yet, the media covered it up, while small suppliers were HAMMERED as a result.

This is a perfect example of Obama being a community organizer who has NO CLUE how his actions harm business.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

We go to war to promote democracy? I thought the purpose of our foreign policy was to protect OUR interests.

Well I guess I will start here Swerve...

Originally Posted by George Bush 26 Feb 2003

The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)
The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)
Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)
If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq.

Originally Posted by Pres. Bush 2005

Americans can be proud of all that we and our coalition partners have accomplished in Iraq. Our country has been tested before, and we have a long history of resolve and faith in the cause of freedom. Now we will see that cause to victory in Iraq. A democratic Iraq will be a powerful setback to the terrorists who seek to harm our nation. A democratic Iraq will be a great triumph in the history of liberty. And a democratic Iraq will be a source of peace for our children and grandchildren.

Originally Posted by Pres. Johnson 1965

There are those who wonder why we have a responsibility there. Well, we have it there for the same reason that we have a responsibility for the defense of Europe. World War II was fought in both Europe and Asia, and when it ended we found ourselves with continued responsibility for the defense of freedom.
Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves—only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way. We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.

There is also the Truman Doctrine of 1947 which has guided US foreign policy is our suppport of Greece and then in Korea.

I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.
I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.
The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred. But we cannot allow changes in the status quo in violation of the Charter of the United Nations by such methods as coercion, or by such subterfuges as political infiltration. In helping free and independent nations to maintain their freedom, the United States will be giving effect to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations

You also have FDR’s 4 freedoms speech in Jan 1941.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

We owed him a bullet for his murder of Americans regardless of him stopping his nuclear program. That being said there were plenty of ways to give it to him and it's a shame Obama's not being impeached for blatant violation of the War Powers Act.

Why I fully agree Ghaddafi git what he deserved I am curious to why you feel Obama should be impeached for violation of teh War powers act of 1973?

You seem to support the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. Why did Obama do nothing to help Mousavi? We could have potentially solved the whole Iran problem right then and there.



So you were outraged when Obama backed the Honduran dicator Mel Zelaya along with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? You are also equally dissappointed that Obama did nothing to help Mousavi in Iran?

Like I said I was disappointed, at a minmial cost America could have helped the Iranians but we blew it. It reminds me of how we blew the Hungarian uprising in the 50's.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

As far as my friend, he had 800 employees before the "bailout" after, he had to layoff 625 of them... In order to keep the doors open. He borrowed as much as he could and sold most of his equipment just to keep the doors open.

He couldn't make it, as he had such a large contract with the two big auto makers and had already delivered the products to both, and they hadn't paid the bill.

Obama's bankruptcy changes meant that HE GOT NOTHING and they could KEEP all of HIS product..

Is your friends name George... George Glass?

[SniperForce-Duffek]

A absolutely disagree with helping the FSA in Syria. I don't particularly care for bashar al-assad, but he's the best thing in the region right now. The FSA is nothing more than a group of terrorists.

[custar]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoo...kruptcy-again/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-...rticle/2507182

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Wasn't there something in bankruptcy law about who gets paid when?

Yes, priority of creditors is specifically spelled out in the Bankruptcy Code.

This article is interesting if true.

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

This article is interesting if true.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08...tory-on/189238

It's unfortunate but the bottom line is the reason those pensions went poof is precisely because they were at-will and not union workers. Contracts protect workers, especially when the **** hits the fan.

[custar]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08...tory-on/189238

It's unfortunate but the bottom line is the reason those pensions went poof is precisely because they were at-will and not union workers. Contracts protect workers, especially when the **** hits the fan.

Employment at will is definitely precarious. This sucks for the folks who lost their pensions.

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

Employment at will is definitely precarious. This sucks for the folks who lost their pensions.

custar

Here's a contemporary article that kind of shows how things were going down around that time: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ajibQvHlMFLk

On the other hand those people did reap the rewards of higher salaries and bonuses in the years they did work.

EDIT: This is basically the rundown of the situation: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-pensions.html

[custar]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

On the other hand those people did reap the rewards of higher salaries and bonuses in the years they did work.

But that does not justify them losing the pensions they paid into. The New GM did not have to honor the obligations of the Old GM. That is part of the power of the Bankruptcy courts. Also, digging a small amount shows the Delphi retirees have filed a lawsuit over destruction of their pensions. I wish them the best in that.

custar

[F1VENOM]

Unions are destroying America.

It's unfair to not pay them what the unions promised them.

......

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Unions are destroying America.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/ne...ure-unionized/

The comments on this article are priceless too.

[F1VENOM]

Way to take my words out of context.

That article, that's ducked up.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

I know, but it fit so perfectly.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

A absolutely disagree with helping the FSA in Syria. I don't particularly care for bashar al-assad, but he's the best thing in the region right now. The FSA is nothing more than a group of terrorists.

Both sides are dirty and terrorist supporters.

I think we should give the rebels humanitarian aid and may-be military intel but thats all. That way way we continue to support teh Truman doctrine and (this is going to cynical) we prolong the war letting both sides kill more of each other. Which will eat up the resource that they (both sides) would have filtered to Hezbollah and other terrorists networks.

[Iamamartianchurch]

What was wrong with Gaddafi, and why should we support democracy anywhere?

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

What was wrong with Gaddafi, and why should we support democracy anywhere?

I am assuming these are rhetorical questions

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

I am assuming these are rhetorical questions

I want legitimate answers.

Let me rephrase one of them.

What was wrong with Gaddafi that required us to assist his usurpers and in what way did this serve American interests?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I want legitimate answers.

Let me rephrase one of them.

What was wrong with Gaddafi that required us to assist his usurpers and in what way did this serve American interests?

I'm confused how we got to the point that foreign policy is solely for serving American interests.

[custar]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I'm confused how we got to the point that foreign policy is solely for serving American interests.

What else would be the point of U.S. foreign policy?

custar