I miss this kind of Democrat
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
For a guy always fretting about groups sucking at the government teat, you sure seem unable to recognize a suit with a boob in his mouth. The bondholders didn't want their fair share of the bankruptcy. They wanted government money, the new money meant to get the auto industry back on its feet. The bondholders didn't get a dime for the simple fact that new money never goes to anyone not part of the future post-bankruptcy company. This is true in private equity, and the government didn't do anything different. I have been on both sides of these in my investing life, so I know personally. The bond holders had the ability to dissolve the company and sell the assets, but they didn't. And the reason is that there was no market in 2008 for a bunch of idle auto manufacturing plants. The breakup value was crap, and they knew it. The court knew it, and the court is the arbiter of the law you said they violated. If your oil company logic is that the most profitable companies should get subsidies, then I guess you are really arguing that government needs to get as big as possible. What kind of sense does it make to subsidize a mature industry, with record profits due to high prices? Do you think they are doing us favors? They are rational capitalists. They don't give America an "American Price" for gas. They are exporting gas right now. And who could blame them, that's just market economics. But actually giving them tax breaks (and yes many are specific to oil and gas) is the worst use of tax breaks possible. It doesn't change the price of gas, doesn't get us into a new industry, doesn't support a struggling industry in hard times. It just gives more money to the investors of a profitable industry. Worst use of a financial incentive I can think of. BTW Paul Ryan wanted to end these subsidies. I suggest you talk to him about your concerns. |
Anonymous
yeah I am a suit. does that mean I can stay w/o being insulted? I'll stick around until you get personal--i have no patience for that level of debate--let the politicians and talking heads live in the gutter. re: gm (and chrysler) bailouts--senior bondholders were subordinated to union pension obligations--so a senior lien fell below unsecured. here's a decent explanation: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law oh please--don't just skip to the bottom and pronounce it biased--really take the time to read it. yep, can always find a judge to affirm; that's a pretty weak defense to justify overriding 100 years of settled and pretty well-functioning bankruptcy law which somehow worked ok for railroads, airlines, and other big businesses subject to schrumpeter's creative destruction. re: oil, i agree mature profitable businesses need no govt help. that includes agriculture, housing (mortgage deduction can go), banking (eliminate or reduce fdic insurance and let banks prove they merit our money), manufacturing (accelerated depreciation schedules) among others. but if you're going to single out oil and gas then at least give a nod to understanding that this country was built in part on cheap energy (and slavery, but that's another thread) and picking on them may make some of us feel good, particularly as all those jobs are in red states, but we are poised for another decade or two of huge economic activity and perhaps reestablishment of the US as the global economic engine due in large part to cheap electricity, lower input costs (feedstock), and development of nat gas transportation--all if we don't screw it up. I count open hostility to our friends in Canada as a step towards screwing it up. That said, I have no idea who gets my vote. Throughout this 5+ year economic crisis I've been waiting for any elected official in any developed country to have an honest dialog about demographics and generational trade-offs. My solution? Lower the voting age to 12 and let the kids decide who cleans up the mess we've left them. |
Anonymous
You must be new. |
Anonymous
| nah, not really, but I try. I understand it's easy and tempting to be nasty when safely anonymous. I find it often masks (poorly) an illogical mind. And how often do you see someone write "ya know, I was out of line there." |
Anonymous
You may be a suit, but it doesn't sound like you have done many bankruptcies. They do have a superior position in bankruptcy, but the government was not obligated to contribute cash to any and every deal offered. And this is why it went down the way it did. Let's pretend the bailout was by private equity. Here is how it would work: Hedge Fund: We're going to pull this thing out of bankruptcy and recapitalize it. Debtors: We want you to make us whole. Hedge Fund: No. we'll pay you some cash but this thing is in bankruptcy and we don't have to pay more than fair value. Debtors: No way. You are putting a lower tier of debt ahead of us. Unfair! We want our money. Hedge Fund: We need them and not you. If you don't like it, go tell the bankruptcy court what you think this company is worth without us. Find a buyer for the company or the pieces. Debtors (to themselves): Gee, there are no buyers for idle car factories. Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Daimler - none of them want to buy factories and they certainly don't want the GM brand. Debtors to Hedge Fund: Let's talk And so that's the way bankruptcies work. Now replace hedge fund with "US Government". And if you really think this is illegal, go read the bankruptcy court proceedings, check out the breakup value numbers. They had no choice but to take a deal, and they took one. |
Anonymous
|
Wow, this is like a ward 3 cocktail party! (hands up) ok I cede to your legal expertise and you were clever to hone in on the 1 of several points where you could trump--leaving the others alone. although i continue to find the handling seamy.
I'm thinking of starting a new thread suggesting, broadly, that the left has been far more responsible for the looming entitlement crisis than has the right. Since our kids end up paying, how about titling it "why republicans love their children more than do democrats" |
Anonymous
I have plenty of thoughts on the other topics. But it is frequently unproductive to address them all at once. If you want to have a thoughtful discussion on Medicare or Social Security, I'm certainly game. Despite what you might think, liberals want a program which is solvent. We just have different ideas on how to get there. As for your idea that liberals are more to blame, I find it odd since the Prescription Drug Benefit was a Republican idea, initiated by a Republican president and receiving strong Republican support. And of course the Social Security Act passed with 85% GOP support in the house and 75% in the Senate. Lastly, I suppose you could title the topic as you like. It may be easier than making good points about what needs to be done to fix our budget. |
Anonymous
| I was thinking more like over the past 35 years cumulatively. You write well, data mine even better. I'm moving on; you're too stuck in your foxhole and others aren't jumping in. |
Anonymous
It's an interesting spin. I have some reasonably informed comments, and you can dismiss it by labeling it "data mining", as though I needed to google my response. I offer to have a real discussion, and suddenly you are making your exit. And in a parting shot, you say I am "stuck in [my] foxhole", and you don't yet know how I would choose to solve the entitlements problem that you declare you care about so much. So much for substance. |
Anonymous
| nah, moving on because you write like a smart 28 yr old on a liberal blog and a reasonable discourse includes some give and take. an apology for the initial insult or giving an inch when i did might have kept this going. but..this is dc after all. i have to go belatedly celebrate milton friedman's 100th birthday. |
Anonymous
Friedman was a great theorist but spotty in his record on public. I liked his work on inflation. See, maybe we have something in common. |
Anonymous
This is beyond outrageous. I think you miss the upside of being a business owner. I look at my mom, a teacher who is a really lazy get to work at 5 am government worker who belongs to a union. She makes a FRACTION of what I make, but in the long run, sacrificed for the pension. She lives pretty comfortably now, but did not make much over the years. I understand that my upside is SO much higher. My HHI is about $540K, my parents' HHI is about $100K. I have the opportunity to lose money, but also to make a lot of money. She always made less for the stability. That's not lazy. That was a choice. She never had the ability to make as much as me. I am willing to take the RISK to make more. |
Anonymous
Hahaha! PP, the Uniform Commercial Code is STATE legislation. It largely facilitates paper transactions, engaging in lending, and FORECLOSING on debt. You trying to paint Ben Heineman as some sort of commie? He wasn't. |
Anonymous
Damned straight he wasn't. He was a good, patriotic American, who favored HONEST capitalism. It takes a real Foxie to claim that by saying Heineman opposed corrupt capitalism, PP was thereby painting him as "some sort of commie". |
Anonymous
I think continually referring to all bankers and Wall Street executives as "fat cats" would qualify. Not to mention how petty and unpresidential it sounds. |