The US government is above it's own law....

No wonder people don't lend their money in the USA... they have no rights,
not even to get repaid. Theft from creditors is legal in the USA....

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN0940870920090609?rpc=44

Same will happen with GM....

I predict when it happens with GM, that private money will scatter from the
USA and oil will go over $100 barrel as the US currency tanks in value.

And I hear noise that the government is a tight spot with T-Bills. Can't
sell them and redemptions are coming in. Big squeeze to jack interest
rates. Private market rates are already over 10% and rising. Big debtors
aught to lock in you mortgages now.

Government is also contemplating breaking another law on tax losses. GM has
some $85B in losses but for it to be legal to move the tax deduction to the
new company as a subsidy from the taxpayers 50% of the ownership has to be
the same. Interesting tos ee how Government Motors breaks this law.

Looks like GM common stock holders got 100% wipped out. No listing at all
any more. Wholely dependant subsidurary of the USSR (United States
Socialist Republic).

Canuck57 wrote:
Simple English "secured creditor" now means "stupid fool" by government
decree.

--
Civis Romanus Sum

"Jim Higgins" <gordian238 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

And wonder why low cost credit isn't there to be had. We certainly
underestimate the GM damage.

Not quite, Common stock can legally be wiped out in bankrupt court but
PREFERRED stock holders and BOND holders have ALWAYS been inline BEFORE
other creditor in bankruptcy court.

SOMETHING is radically wrong with the Union coming before PREFERRED stock
holders and BOND holders and lawyers that I spoke with are astounded that it
is being allowed to happing. US contract laws are being wiped out, that is
unbelievable!!

"Canuck57" <fred (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

On Jun 10, 11:02*am, "Mike" <mikehu... (AT) lycos (DOT) com> wrote:

In plain language, I think the argument goes something like this:

The retiree health fund (now to be administered by the union) needs to
get a substantial chunk of what's left as a matter of public policy,
because if it doesn't, the taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill for
their care. Whatever assets GM still has to distribute are a result
of its operations during a period of time when these health
obligations were allegedly being funded - if in fact they weren't,
then the assets on hand basically include ill-gotten-gains which must
be restituted before determining what assets are left to distribute
through bankruptcy.

Those who argue that this is illegal are asking us to look at the
trees and ignore the forest. They are in effect asking that the
taxpayers shoulder the cost of GM's financial mismanagement by picking
up the unavoidable retiree health care costs, so that the creditors
can grab a greater chunk of the carcass.

Granted, some of the creditors who stand to loose are themselves
health care / pension funds, but they are probably not loosing their
entire portfolios, and we may need to start taking a more careful look
at where that money is allowed to be invested.

Given that government is ultimately the insurer of last resort,
government needs to take a stronger role in keeping an eye on where
health care funds are investing. It may ultimately prove a lot
simpler to just drop the shell-game pretense of private health care
financing, and run it as a public system funded by a combination of
employer and employee contributions.

On Jun 10, 9:15*pm, "Canuck57" <f... (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:
Think about it this way: which is better from a public policy
standpoint?

GM retiree health benefits being unfunded, or UAW pension getting a
little and other pension funds that were invested in GM loosing the
17% of what they might have been able to get that the UAW fund is
going to get?

Wiping out the GM retiree health benefits doesn't just mean those
retirees get screwed, it means that ultimately you and I as the
taxpayers will have to pick up the eventual cost of their care.

Odd that you claim this, but then attack the one provision of the re-
organization plan that is actually trying to do something to mitigate
the degree to which the unavoidable cost of GM's retired workers lands
on your lap and mine!

On Jun 11, 9:37*am, "Mike" <mikehu... (AT) lycos (DOT) com> wrote:

Did they or did they not just not take a quick look at the Chrysler
deal and decide to let it happen?

Seems to me that the executive branch may write the reorganization
plans, but it's actually a bankruptcy judge who has to approve them.

You can argue the legality or illegality, morality or immorality,
practicality or impracticality forever - but one thing that is clear
is that its not going to happen unless all three branches of
government go along with it.

<cs_posting (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Jun 10, 9:15 pm, "Canuck57" <f... (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:
Easy, liquify GM and pay the bond holders and preffered share holders first.

As many of these creditors getting shafted are other peoples pensions in
401K, IRA and private pension plans.

What you are really saying is to hell with other people, GM employees come
above everyone else. Might even be your own pension that is getting
screwed!

GMers are self centered pawns of government corruption. Pure an simple.

On Jun 11, 8:07 pm, "Canuck57" <f... (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:

In which case, you and I as the taxpayers end up picking up the health
care expenses for GM's now uninsured retirees.

I think it makes sense to screw other pensions out of 17% of what they
might have been able to get, in order that there be anything at all
available to cover the GM retirees, so that taxpayers and insured
patients don't end up picking up the cost their inevitable emergency-
room primary care.

If anything, more true of those who invested in the company than those
who worked there...

You don't buy this argument because you don't actually understand what
is happening. The UAW fund is not getting all of the assets
available, it's getting 17% of them. Which does not mean that secured
creditors get nothing, it means that they get 17% less than they might
have gotten.

<cs_posting (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

And the cost of that, compared to continuing to bail out GM and their unions
is what? Have you even begun to think this through, or are you just
knee-jerking the response above?



--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net