HFWR
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy.
That would have been a lot of jobs, and economic activity, lost...
GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy.
That would have been a lot of jobs, and economic activity, lost...
The mutual influence and dependency between the supposedly "independent" entities of government and bond rating agencies deserves some thorough airing out. Here's an ABC News story from today that brings this home. In part: I want these discussions out in the open. No one in the government should be putting behind-the-scenes pressure on S&P to delay or modify their reports. It's different if the government requests that a news outlet avoid publishing sensitive information to protect lives, sources, or intelligence methods. This is an attempt to change the behavior of a rating agency simply for political purposes. I'll bet we get no investigation.
GM and CHrysler should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy. I guess the bailouts of AIG and Freddie and Fannie were necessary. AIG and Freddie and Fannie are permanent taxpayer black holes, might as well include them in the budget as a line item............
GM and Chrysler did go into bankruptcy. The shareholders were wiped out, the bondholders got equity instead of debt. The the taxpayers put money into the pot, but none of the private stakeholders walked away with 100% of what they wanted.
These are tough issues, but I think I would done something similar with F&F, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc. We could have put enough money into the pot to stabilize the system without giving their bondholders/creditors 100 cents on the dollar.
GM and Chrysler did go into bankruptcy. The shareholders were wiped out, the bondholders got equity instead of debt. The the taxpayers put money into the pot, but none of the private stakeholders walked away with 100% of what they wanted.
These are tough issues, but I think I would done something similar with F&F, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc. We could have put enough money into the pot to stabilize the system without giving their bondholders/creditors 100 cents on the dollar.
When traditional bankruptcy happens, taxpayer money is not involved.........
As I understand it, no one had deep enough pockets to fund a re-org, and the only alternative would have been Chapter 7 liquidation. Seems to me we picked the lesser of two evils, but, obviously opinions differ...
I think it was more of a political move than a solvency issue. One can understand trying to avert disaster at Fannie and Freddie and maybe AIG but the car companies are a head scratcher............
I think it was more of a political move than a solvency issue. One can understand trying to avert disaster at Fannie and Freddie and maybe AIG but the car companies are a head scratcher............
Not really.... who wants to have millions of people let go under their watch
Now, I am not of the belief that the companies would have gone through Chap 7... you can delay a lot of things in BK...
“There is no other sale, or other potential purchasers, present or on the horizon,” Henderson said in an affidavit filed Monday in bankruptcy court. “The only other alternative is the liquidation of the debtors’ assets that would substantially diminish the value of GM’s business and assets, (and) throw hundreds of thousands of persons out of work and cause the termination of health benefits and jeopardize retirement benefits for current and former employees and their families.”
Millions of people? I don't think so, companies go bankrupt all the time but they don't cease operations and quit making products for sale..........
)
Millions of people? I don't think so, companies go bankrupt all the time but they don't cease operations and quit making products for sale..........
The American Dream is not the only dream.
I agree that lobbyists have too much say.
For every politician with hand outstretched there is a donor handing over money. Together they are co-conspirators, both willing partners and equally committed to using this money to further their interests or deny others.Was the Constitution changed? Lobbyists get to vote in Congress now?
How about putting the blame where it belongs - the Congress Critters that vote for special interests rather than for the 'general welfare'?
-ERD50
For every politician with hand outstretched there is a donor handing over money. Together they are co-conspirators, both willing partners and equally committed to using this money to further their interests or deny others.
Yes, but one of them took a sworn oath.
-ERD50
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
What are they violating?
ERD, I'm not disagreeing with your dim view of politicians taking money, just pointing out that the people giving them the money are no better.
Not sure where bribe came from. The Supreme court doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong with contributing money to politicians - or even judges in some states. I do, but in most cases I wouldn't call that bribery.I'm not letting the bribe offerers (I'll use that term for simplicity) off the hook, I'm just saying the bribe takers are the ones I hold to a higher standard.
If an officer of a company is approached by an outsider to embezzle money, does it and gets caught, I would hold the officer of the company to a higher standard than the random person approaching them.
They swore to uphold the Constitution, which has the 'general welfare' clause, not a 'specific welfare for those who bribe me' clause. So I would say they are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.
-ERD50
I'm not letting the bribe offerers (I'll use that term for simplicity) off the hook, I'm just saying the bribe takers are the ones I hold to a higher standard.