finknottle Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Having intervened and run roughshod over the law in the case of Chrysler, the Obama administration now turns to GM: GM bondholders, for example, are being pushed to accept a 10 percent equity stake in repayment of their $27 billion in loans to the company. The United Auto Workers, on the other hand, is being offered a 35 percent equity stake in exchange for its claim of roughly $10 billion -- a claim that would typically be wiped out in bankruptcy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 With things like this happening do people really thing the market (and economy) are going to come back quickly? This is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why shouldn't he? Afterall they were huge contributors and involked viloence in several areas to ensure the dems and Obama won everything. it's only right that they get some payback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 With things like this happening do people really thing the market (and economy) are going to come back quickly? This is disturbing. This is just another in a long line of efforts to repay the unions for getting Obama elected. Look no further than the gun-to-the-head of Gov. Arnie to return cut wages to SEIU in California or risk losing their stimulus money. It's a union-driven world, and we're just living in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Here's a good opinion piece by George Will that quickly explains what this administration is doing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1303014_pf.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 With things like this happening do people really thing the market (and economy) are going to come back quickly? This is disturbing. Nope. Next time a company in a union-dominated industry can't sell senior secured debt securities without paying an interest rate tatmount to junk junior unsecured debt to raise money to build a new plant and they wonder why...well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 Nope. Next time a company in a union-dominated industry can't sell senior secured debt securities without paying an interest rate tatmount to junk junior unsecured debt to raise money to build a new plant and they wonder why...well.... That's ok, the government will lean on the institutions to buy the debt. TARP and vehicles like it are proving quite usefull to this administration. I'm really excited economic system we are building. Look out, Asian Tigers, we are going to Kick Some A$$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Here's a good opinion piece by George Will that quickly explains what this administration is doing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1303014_pf.html If George Will ever gets anything right, it'll be the first time. NOW I'll go read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Nope. Next time a company in a union-dominated industry can't sell senior secured debt securities without paying an interest rate tatmount to junk junior unsecured debt to raise money to build a new plant and they wonder why...well.... Nothing to see here. Move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm mildly interested in what the Obama apologists think of this. Then again, I think I know their line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm mildly interested in what the Obama apologists think of this. Then again, I think I know their line. Same defense they had when the administration railroaded the Chrysler negotiations. Deafening silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Same defense they had when the administration railroaded the Chrysler negotiations. Deafening silence. That's because they know it's wrong. They see the administration doing precisely what they were warned about; nationalization of automakers, banks, insurers, health care, etc. Spending beyond anything ever seen, particularly the billions given to both Chrysler AND GM which, despite promises, we will never, ever see again. But hey...we get 6% ownership, so that's something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 But hey...we get 6% ownership, so that's something. 6% of nothing = nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 6% of nothing = nothing Unless it becomes 6% of more debt. Which is very likely with UAW getting 55% and ability to sit someone on the board. Part of me can see a remake of Animal House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 That's because they know it's wrong. They see the administration doing precisely what they were warned about; nationalization of automakers, banks, insurers, health care, etc. Spending beyond anything ever seen, particularly the billions given to both Chrysler AND GM which, despite promises, we will never, ever see again. But hey...we get 6% ownership, so that's something. I'd differ slightly here. Yes, it is what they were warned about. Presumably they are ok with that. Some degree of nationalization is not neccessarily evil, it's a question of economic policy. Sometimes it may be a good idea, sometimes not, and each may have their opinion on where, what, and when. The issue is what the legal framework is for nationalization or quasi-nationalization. It's a little like exercising emminent domain. It is one thing to nationalize while playing by clear and fair rules. It is quite another when you don't pay a fair price, ignore existing law, and strong-arm people into it. I suspect the reason the left is uncharacteristically quiet on the matter is not because they disapprove of the outcome, but rather because they recognize the means this administration is employing to get it. Their methods look Chavezesque, and nobody wants to defend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Unless it becomes 6% of more debt. Which is very likely with UAW getting 55% and ability to sit someone on the board. Part of me can see a remake of Animal House. I could argue that it would be very productive if you took the best and brightest off the floor (part-time as they need to stay in touch with the jobs) as sort of a committee that sends one representative to this board. Pity, it will be some sort of appointment that will be political. Some UAW guy who hasn't worked in a factory in ages, if at all, will end up on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I'd differ slightly here. Yes, it is what they were warned about. Presumably they are ok with that. Some degree of nationalization is not neccessarily evil, it's a question of economic policy. Sometimes it may be a good idea, sometimes not, and each may have their opinion on where, what, and when. The issue is what the legal framework is for nationalization or quasi-nationalization. It's a little like exercising emminent domain. It is one thing to nationalize while playing by clear and fair rules. It is quite another when you don't pay a fair price, ignore existing law, and strong-arm people into it. I suspect the reason the left is uncharacteristically quite on the matter is not because they disapprove of the outcome, but rather because they recognize the means this administration is employing to get it. Their methods look Chavezesque, and nobody wants to defend them. I agree with your assessment. But why not man up and call this out. The unintended consequences of these actions are going to have far reaching negative effects on all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 PASS THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 PASS THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT!!! And no loans for you!! Guess the Obama administration may want to re-think the a$$ raping it just gave to Chrysler senior debtholders... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 A lot of anti-union people and companies are using scare tactics like that. Right in the middle of class warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts