Larry Gude
Strung Out
Might? I'd bet on it.
The Chrysler Plan
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
Might? I'd bet on it.
Tilted
..
Are they or aren't they?!?!?!?! They will remain in business. They will continue to operate and produce vehicles. But, they may go through bankruptcy proceedings to eliminate a substantial portion of their debt. It's just like when an individual goes through bankruptcy - they continue to live, but much of their debt gets discharged.
Who exactly will own Chrysler when it is all said and done, and which assets they will retain, is yet to be seen.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's the thing reporters don't do enough of; context.
Tilted
..
Give me 25:2 odds, and devise a way whereby we can definitively determine whether or not negotiations are actually on-going, and we've got a bet.
But seriously, since it was the hypothetical 'one' doing the believing, I chose to insert 'might' (not knowing what that hypothetical one might believe). If it had been 'me' doing the believing, I most likely would not have inserted 'might'. Make sense? Good - I really should get to work this morning.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Tilted
..
Waiting on a statement from some of Chrysler's debt holders - this situation is about to get ugly.
Anyone that thinks that the governmnent's actions in this matter represent anything other than a misuse of governmental power and taxpayer money to secure or reward political favor, is delusional. There is no way to explain them in the absence of that motivation. There is no way to reconcile its actions and statements with the reality of the situation that exists, the economic mechanics involved, and the laws which should apply.
And the Michigan governor - she's either an insincere POS or a complete moron. I don't much care which one, but I'd bet on the former.
Anyone that thinks that the governmnent's actions in this matter represent anything other than a misuse of governmental power and taxpayer money to secure or reward political favor, is delusional. There is no way to explain them in the absence of that motivation. There is no way to reconcile its actions and statements with the reality of the situation that exists, the economic mechanics involved, and the laws which should apply.
And the Michigan governor - she's either an insincere POS or a complete moron. I don't much care which one, but I'd bet on the former.
Bavarian
New Member
FIAT should observe the problems Daimler AG had with Chrysler when they owned it. It cost a lot of money to buy and even more to get rid of.
Let Chrysler go bankrupt, break it up and sell its parts to other auto makers who will know how to operate a successful company. Keep UAW and other unions out.
Let Chrysler go bankrupt, break it up and sell its parts to other auto makers who will know how to operate a successful company. Keep UAW and other unions out.
vanbells
Pookieboo!!!
Japanese or German companies don't want to buy "invest" money in american automakers. This could be good for FIAT though. Surprisingly, Chrysler cars are a step up compared to FIAT cars.
The only good thing that's coming out of this partnership is saving thousands of jobs.
It's going to be great to see FIAT in Nascar. LOLOLOL
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
The high milage cars Fiat sells in Europe are illegal here.
UAW ownes 55% of Chrysler, don't think you'll keep them out.
Bavarian
New Member
Isn't the agreement to give UAW 55%% OBE with the bankruptcy?
Tilted
..
I was out of the office today when Obama made his statement with regard to Chrysler. I finally got a chance to hear some of it.
I have to say it was quite disappointing. It is one thing for a politician to spin the facts, and state them in a way that sheds a positive light on their agenda. But, what he did went beyond that. He flat out lied to the American people. He sought to take advantage of the reality that most people aren't really aware of what is actually going on in this situation, so that he could get away with lying to their faces. He obviously hopes and assumes that most people will not be able to take enough time to understand the details and dynamics of the situation - because if they did - they would be offended by the load of BS he tried to spoon feed them.
These people whom he sought to demonize, who have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors, didn't decide to 'hold out' for more taxpayer subsidized bailout. These are senior, secured debt holders. They don't need to be bailed out. In bankruptcy (assuming the rule of law is not compromised), they will get their money - most all of it - before the junior and non-secured debt holders will. There was little reason for them to offer to give up much of anything - but they did anyway. They seem to have negotiated in good faith. The fact that some other lenders (who were under the thumb of the government because they took tarp money) were successfully coerced into agreeing to patently unfair terms, doesn't mean that these lenders behaved badly in not agreeing to those terms. For now, I don't wish to get lost in those details.
President Obama's statement was very disheartening. He has essentially let it be known that, in the future, all parties better do what he wants them to, regardless of whether or not it is fair, right, legal or wise. Because, if they do not, he will use his popularity and the general ignorance of the American people, to paint those 'non-compliant' parties as pariahs. That is a grotesque use of the Presidential office, and he comes off as a spoiled brat baby, hell bent on punishing any responsible adult who dares not let him have his way.
I have strongly disagreed with many of his policies in the past. But today, I saw personal behavior, not ideology, which was repugnant. I saw vindictiveness for vindictiveness' sake. Ideological differences aside, I hope we can all agree that our President can not allow himself to indulge such impulses.
His attack on people, because they dared suggest that rule of law should still matter in this country, is unconscionable.
I guess we all have that moment when the enormity of a situation (in this case, the direness of the 'change' that is happening) hits home for them. Often, that moment is precipitated by something that is more symbolically important than systemically important - and comes long after the point where reason should have made the reality of the situation clear.
That moment came today for me.
I have to say it was quite disappointing. It is one thing for a politician to spin the facts, and state them in a way that sheds a positive light on their agenda. But, what he did went beyond that. He flat out lied to the American people. He sought to take advantage of the reality that most people aren't really aware of what is actually going on in this situation, so that he could get away with lying to their faces. He obviously hopes and assumes that most people will not be able to take enough time to understand the details and dynamics of the situation - because if they did - they would be offended by the load of BS he tried to spoon feed them.
These people whom he sought to demonize, who have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors, didn't decide to 'hold out' for more taxpayer subsidized bailout. These are senior, secured debt holders. They don't need to be bailed out. In bankruptcy (assuming the rule of law is not compromised), they will get their money - most all of it - before the junior and non-secured debt holders will. There was little reason for them to offer to give up much of anything - but they did anyway. They seem to have negotiated in good faith. The fact that some other lenders (who were under the thumb of the government because they took tarp money) were successfully coerced into agreeing to patently unfair terms, doesn't mean that these lenders behaved badly in not agreeing to those terms. For now, I don't wish to get lost in those details.
President Obama's statement was very disheartening. He has essentially let it be known that, in the future, all parties better do what he wants them to, regardless of whether or not it is fair, right, legal or wise. Because, if they do not, he will use his popularity and the general ignorance of the American people, to paint those 'non-compliant' parties as pariahs. That is a grotesque use of the Presidential office, and he comes off as a spoiled brat baby, hell bent on punishing any responsible adult who dares not let him have his way.
I have strongly disagreed with many of his policies in the past. But today, I saw personal behavior, not ideology, which was repugnant. I saw vindictiveness for vindictiveness' sake. Ideological differences aside, I hope we can all agree that our President can not allow himself to indulge such impulses.
His attack on people, because they dared suggest that rule of law should still matter in this country, is unconscionable.
I guess we all have that moment when the enormity of a situation (in this case, the direness of the 'change' that is happening) hits home for them. Often, that moment is precipitated by something that is more symbolically important than systemically important - and comes long after the point where reason should have made the reality of the situation clear.
That moment came today for me.
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I am struck by what I read as the sincerity of your thoughts there because you are not, in my view, a reflexive Obama/Left basher.
Hmmm. Is Obama truly going off the rails here?
Pete
Repete
I read the article where he was bashing the fund companies who held bonds. It is absolutely inconceivable that the President of the United States is bashing people who have the responsibility for other peoples money.
How dare he try to shame them into accepting a settlement? These funds hold peoples retirement funds, and savings. Chrysler is a good guy after they wrecked themselves but bond owners are supposed to ignore their responsibility to their clients and take a voluntary screw job?
somdrenter
Sorry, I'm not Patch...
If any one of us declared bankruptcy…..
Would we get 8 billion?
Would we get 8 billion?
Tilted
..
You're right, I don't seek to bash Obama, just to bash Obama. As I've said before, I tend to like Obama as a person, and still suspect that I would enjoy playing a round of golf with him - the person, not the President.
I'm often put off when people make derisive statements about him, or any political figure, just to be derisive and not based on actual transgressions. I think he often catches specific flack when he hasn't done anything specific to deserve it, or at least when the issue at hand isn't materially important, simply because people don't like him and his policies in general. I'd like to think that I feel no need to be critical of him in those contexts, because there are plenty of contexts when he legitimately deserves criticism, and where the basis for that criticism is reasonably articulable.
In general, I haven't viewed him as some inherently evil person, hell bent on destroying American society. I've viewed him as someone who has fundamentally different notions of how things should be, than I do - different notions of what is fair and what the purpose of society is. I have generally believed that his views and ideology, and those of others who share them, are somewhat naive, and evidence a failure to achieve the highest human levels of intellectual awareness.
I have believed that, relatively speaking, he is very intelligent - but his ideological goals demonstrate to me that his understanding of the general dynamics that control the physical universe lacks some degree of sophistication. However, I have not believed that his ideologies or actions are motivated by some sort of evilness, or even ugliness. I have sincerely believed that his goals and vision for this country are well-intentioned, if somewhat misguided. Generally speaking, I haven't believed that he recognizes that the policies he is pursuing are wrong, and that he choses to pursue them anyway.
Simply stated, I haven't believed that he was a bad person, just that he had bad ideas.
I'm struggling now to reconcile that 'benefit of the doubt' that I have given to his character, with what I saw yesterday. To most, in the larger context, this issue is no doubt small potatoes. But, incidental as they may be, I haven't been able to make his actions (i.e. the comments he made, not what his Administration is trying to do with Chrysler) fit into a model wherein he is not a fundamentally ugly, vindictive, insecure person. If I believed he was not intelligent enough to understand the dynamics in play in this specific situation, then I could excuse his comments as ineptness. But, he has shown me that he does not lack for basic intelligence, nor do I believe that he was so far removed from these particular negotiations that I can excuse his comments as ignorance.
As I said before, I saw vindictiveness for vindictiveness' sake - and I had thought him above that. Furthermore, I've never perceived him as the fundamentally insecure sort (like say a Bill Clinton), who would need to indulge such ugliness in order to compensate for his own insecurities.
Frankly, I'm not quite sure what to make of him at this point - I'm still trying to reconcile everything I've observed form him in the past with some new, seemingly contrarian information. Likely, I'll need to see more before I have a firm opinion of his character again. But, at the very least, I'm willing to consider the possibility that I was wrong in my rather high estimation of his personal character.
As to your question - policy wise, he has definitely gone off the rails. But, as you no doubt realize, Bush messed the rails up pretty bad before Obama even got the chance to be the engineer. In fact, if Obama had been able to repair the rails well enough and fast enough to keep the train on them - I would have said he deserved an awful lot of credit for it. That doesn't excuse the fact that he didn't even try, though.
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Would we get 8 billion?
Damn if that isn't an interesting proposition right there.
"Mr. President, if I declare bankruptcy, how much money will you give me?"
"Oh, Larry. Don't be silly! This is different!"
"Mr. President, respectfully sir, how so?"
"Well, uh, you see, obviously, there is, uh, difference in, uh, looking at all options, seeking the best advice from the, uh, best minds that, uh, err, oh lookit! The teleprompter just stopped working! Been fun. I gotta split! Shoot some hoops...later!"
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Excellent post. Very well thought out, very well said.
Kinda leaves you stuck in the position that he is, in fact, and simply so, a socialist, huh?
Tilted
..
I think that's a point that is lost on a lot of people - and many of the politicians who have spoken on this issue have intentionally used specific rhetoric to make that so. They keep referring to 'hedge funds' in an effort to stir inherent negative sentiment. I don't know how many of these creditors can accurately be referred to as 'hedge funds', but that term is currently used in such a general way, that it has very little specific meaning. And, to the extent that it does have specific meaning, most people aren't aware of it. They just know that it refers to something bad, run by evil, greedy, economy-wrecking people. The use of that term, in this context, is a play on people's ignorance.
And, you are right - the people making the decisions not to accept these terms have fiduciary responsibilities to others. If I was one of the people who had skin in the game, and they agreed to the deal that was proposed, I would be conferring with a lawyer about what I could do to stop it right now. They would have essentially been shamed into agreeing to let other people steal my money.
They already offered to take 40% less than they were owed - that showed extreme good faith (not toward their investors, mind you). This is not debt that should be wiped out in a bankruptcy proceeding (again, assuming the proceeding is not compromised). They should get almost all of it. If there is anything left of Chrysler - anything to be 'given' to the UAW and Fiat, then that should mean that these creditors were paid in full. If they are not, then what happened was inappropriate, and the bankruptcy court neglected its fundamental responsibility in this matter.
I cannot overstate how patently unfair this whole process has been toward certain parties, and to the benefit of other parties. It is shameful that our government has had a hand in it. We should all be ashamed of what has gone on - unfortunately most people are too busy trying to get by, to understand what has gone on.
Tilted
..
It's hard to argue with that conclusion - except to the extent that different people have vastly different understandings/impressions of what 'socialist' means. I think I'll try to start using the term Marxist, instead of socialist, as there is less vagueness in that term, and less room to mis-interpret what is meant by its usage.