Obama is now wielding the Complicit Press as a Weapon

[JustRalph]

This is why this Admin and the complicit media has now crossed a line ........

This puts Obama and his minions in a whole new category. He is not only shaking hands with Dictators, now he is acting like one. I normally don't throw the word "dictator" around.........but this shows that he will do whatever is necessary to get his way............

If you read this article and don't "get it" you are fooling yourself.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bankruptcy-atto.html

"Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.”* The spokesperson would not elaborate."

[Tom]

Obama has duplicated several steps that other dictators have used on their way to control. Frankly, I am really amazed more people have not wised up yet.

Guess milking Bush and Cheney is easier than facing reality.
Oh, and bashing FOX news. That is my new litmus test for total stupidity, btw. Some here have already "aced" it! :lol:

[mostpost]

JR,
I notice you didn't quote the part of the story that says both the White House and A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE INVESTMENT BANK IN QUESTION denied the claim. You know some of us do click on the links you give and read them.

[JustRalph]

JR,
I notice you didn't quote the part of the story that says both the White House and A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE INVESTMENT BANK IN QUESTION denied the claim. You know some of us do click on the links you give and read them.

The last line of the post has the denial in it.....?

What do you think they are going to say? This is a serious matter. Threatening people with the press? If you didn't care to read it, and take it all in..... then you really don't care. I get complained on for posting too much of copyrighted articles......and when I try to cut back ........ I get this stuff.......... :bang: :bang:

[LottaKash]

Hail to the Chief

[mostpost]

The last line of the post has the denial in it.....?

What do you think they are going to say? This is a serious matter. Threatening people with the press? If you didn't care to read it, and take it all in..... then you really don't care. I get complained on for posting too much of copyrighted articles......and when I try to cut back ........ I get this stuff.......... :bang: :bang:

I've never complained about you posting too much of copyrighted articles. I'm not sure but I think as long as you acknowledge the source and aren't making a profit it would be alright. (I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me)

If the article had merely said the White House denied the story, I would not have commented. It also said the bank denied it.

YOU ARE CORRECT. I just went back and looked at your quote. I missed that last line. My apologies. :( :blush:

The question we need to ask is; Why is Mr. Lauria any more trustworthy than the Obama administration AND the bank itself. What horse does he have in this race.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've never complained about you posting too much of copyrighted articles. I'm not sure but I think as long as you acknowledge the source and aren't making a profit it would be alright. (I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me)No, it would absolutely NOT be alright. Believe me. (Or don't believe me...google it for yourself).

[Tom]

Nixon denied it too.
Clinton denied it.
Denial...more than a river.

[mostpost]

No, it would absolutely NOT be alright. Believe me. (Or don't believe me...google it for yourself).

I took your advice. I googled it for myself. I got 100,000,000 responses. I haven't read them all. I will probably do that this afternoon ;) . I did the wikipedia article on copyright law. It states that the idea of copyright to protect the intellectual property of authors, artists etc. was first formulated in England in 1710 in the Statute of Anne. This gave the creator of a published idea exclusive rights to that idea for a period of 14 years. In the United States copyright law is based on Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution.

I disagree with your conclusion for a couple of reasons.

The article in question was posted on line at ABCNews.com It is essentially in the public domain. Anyone can read it who accesses that link. Therefore, how is it different if JustRalph posts that link in this forum. The very act of posting the link acknowledges the author and owner of the intellectual content. There is no financial gain for JustRalph in posting the link. There is no financial loss for the author. As an employee of ABC News he has been paid for his efforts. As the owner of the article, ABC News has voluntarily placed it in a public forum.

Finally, in the Wikipedia article, it states "In many jurisdictions, copyright law akes exceptions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses." Is this not exactly what we are doing here?

[socantra]

If you read this article and don't "get it" you are fooling yourself.

"Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."


Okay, let me see if I have this straight.

This lawyer, who no longer represents the investment firm, says that the Obama administration threatens to use the White House press corp to destroy the firm's reputation.

In later versions of the story, the press corps is left out and the story becomes that "officials of the Obama White House would embarrass the firm for opposing the Obama administration plan."

Both parties involved deny the story, and that is somehow proof that it must be true?

Also, without the supposed conspiracy involving the press corps, it becomes a use of the White House "bully pulpit", which has been used through history by most presidents to get their way.

It is a formidable tool no doubt, but hardly qualifies as proof of dictatorship, any more than it did when many other presidents used it in the past.

As an editor, I'd tell you to try to patch some of the bigger holes in that story before trying to float it again.

[Tom]

I just checked. He is a dictator.

[JustRalph]

Funny............the Constitution might just get in the way of his Dictatorial Leanings........

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/04/senior-creditors-chrysler-deal-violates-5th-amendment/

Senior creditors: Chrysler deal violates 5th Amendment

If the Obama administration expected the senior creditors of Chrysler to fold their tents under political pressure, they may have gotten a rude shock today. Thomas Lauria, who accused the White House of threatening the creditors withn humiliation at the hands of the White House press corps, has filed a motion to halt the administration’s machinations on behalf of the UAW in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Lauria and his allies claim that the Obama administration has violated the Constitution in their bid to devalue the senior creditors’ holdings on behalf of junior creditors, and have some precedent to support the allegation.


more at the link

[BlueShoe]

We have talked about regaining some control in the 2010 election,and taking back the Whitehouse in 2012.But what if there is no election in 2012,or even 2010?Impossible,you say,this is still America?Perhaps that is correct,but the thought is starting to make me uneasy.Could and would Obama do this,even with opposition from within his own party?Countless dictators have suspended elections "in the interests of national security",or some other pretext.This man knows history,and he has the ideology of Vladimir Lenin and seems to be adopting the tactics of Adolph Hitler.One party rule,nationalize and control the banks and major industry,muzzle and control the media that is already on your side,destroy the currency with hyperinflation,mold and indoctrinate the youth,decrease our prestige and influence abroad,weaken our defenses both at home and abroad,and greatly increase the power of the federal government,and curtail the freedoms of the nations citizens.All this in the vaunted "First hundred days".This man is very,very scary.

[PaceAdvantage]

The article in question was posted on line at ABCNews.com It is essentially in the public domain. Anyone can read it who accesses that link. Therefore, how is it different if JustRalph posts that link in this forum. The very act of posting the link acknowledges the author and owner of the intellectual content. There is no financial gain for JustRalph in posting the link.Nobody said posting a link was bad. What's bad is reproducing the entire article. My rule is a link and two or three paragraphs...and even that is probably pushing things....

Google "Fair Use."

I'll give you a head start (from Wiki):

“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. (http:///wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 106 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) and 17 U.S.C. (http:///wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 106A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106A.html), the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1] (http://#cite_note-0)

”
The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story (http:///wiki/Joseph_Story) in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (http:///wiki/Case_citation) (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington (http:///wiki/George_Washington) in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:

“[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy (http:///wiki/Copyright_infringement)…

In short, we must often… look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.

”
Once these factors were codified as guidelines in 17 U.S.C. (http:///wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 107 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html), they were not rendered exclusive. The section was intended by Congress to restate, but not replace, the prior judge-made law. Courts are still entitled to consider other factors as well.

Fair use tempers copyright's exclusive rights to serve the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution (http:///wiki/United_States_Constitution) defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (http:///wiki/Copyright_Clause)). This principle applies particularly well to the case of criticism and also sheds light on various other limitations on copyright's exclusive rights, particularly the scenes à faire (http:///wiki/Scenes_a_faire) doctrine.

[PaceAdvantage]

So not only is fair use determined by how much you reproduce and for what purpose, but also WHAT you reproduce...do you reproduce the MEAT of the story, etc.

While fair use may or may not come into play on a website such as this, I like to error on the side of caution, which is why I limit people to a link and two to three paragraphs.

Problem is, nobody listens and I end up having to edit their stuff down almost every single day...:faint:

You cite the ABC news link as an example of something that should be OK to reproduce in its entirety...after all, you say it's in the public domain. Except it's not.

Plus, if you reproduce it here, then that's one less person who has the need to click on the link and visit ABC for the rest of the story, thereby depriving them of any revenue they may have received from that extra set of eyeballs.

[boxcar]

I took your advice. I googled it for myself. I got 100,000,000 responses. I haven't read them all. I will probably do that this afternoon ;) . I did the wikipedia article on copyright law. It states that the idea of copyright to protect the intellectual property of authors, artists etc. was first formulated in England in 1710 in the Statute of Anne. This gave the creator of a published idea exclusive rights to that idea for a period of 14 years. In the United States copyright law is based on Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution.

I disagree with your conclusion for a couple of reasons.

The article in question was posted on line at ABCNews.com It is essentially in the public domain. Anyone can read it who accesses that link. Therefore, how is it different if JustRalph posts that link in this forum. The very act of posting the link acknowledges the author and owner of the intellectual content. There is no financial gain for JustRalph in posting the link. There is no financial loss for the author. As an employee of ABC News he has been paid for his efforts. As the owner of the article, ABC News has voluntarily placed it in a public forum.

Finally, in the Wikipedia article, it states "In many jurisdictions, copyright law akes exceptions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses." Is this not exactly what we are doing here?


With this kind of sophistry, it's easy to understand how you became a liberal. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[riskman]

Memo To Chrysler:
Once you surrender yourself on the charity of the government, you shouldn't be surprised by any resultant treatment you get.
Chryslers new magisterial chief, President Barack Obama last Thursday pledged to give Chrysler LLC "a new lease on life," by which he apparently meant ushering the automaker into a bankruptcy reorganization that essentially puts Italy's Fiat SpA in charge.

As mentioned in this thread, there is some arm twisting going on by the Obamamaniacs. Not unusual from any administration.
Obama is blindly following W's buddies Giethner and Paulson to satisfy the lenders with Chrysler exposure who have received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money – lenders the government now basically has the power to order around at will as a result of their agreeing to accept TARP money, such as JP Morgan and Citigroup and Goldman Sachs - all agreed to essentially give up their rights as secured lenders to allow the “surgical bankruptcy” to proceed.

According to Bloomberg, a group of Chrysler's secured independent lenders, mostly institutions and hedge fends, is seeking to block the sale to Fiat SpA on the grounds the move "improperly attempts to extinguish their property rights without their comment."

Get the picture, the welfare TARPS are going ahead of the bankruptcy line instead of the bondholders. What a pathetic situation.

Chrysler should never had taken a penny from from the govt. and should have filed for bankruptcy awhile ago. Who knows, this whole deal might have been planned --to make the TARP whores whole despite the formal rules of bankruptcy.

[mostpost]

So not only is fair use determined by how much you reproduce and for what purpose, but also WHAT you reproduce...do you reproduce the MEAT of the story, etc.

While fair use may or may not come into play on a website such as this, I like to error on the side of caution, which is why I limit people to a link and two to three paragraphs.

Problem is, nobody listens and I end up having to edit their stuff down almost every single day...:faint:

You cite the ABC news link as an example of something that should be OK to reproduce in its entirety...after all, you say it's in the public domain. Except it's not.


Plus, if you reproduce it here, then that's one less person who has the need to click on the link and visit ABC for the rest of the story, thereby depriving them of any revenue they may have received from that extra set of eyeballs.
If I understand what you are saying here and in #14, you are OK with posting a link for people to access, but not Ok if someone copies several paragraphs from that link, such as JustRalph often does. If that is what you are saying I would agree with you. As the owner and chief moderator of this forum, you are responsible for conforming to the rules. I just didn't understand that you were differentiating from posting a link and copying from it. I think your replies have cleared this up for me.

[socantra]

Thomas Lauria, who accused the White House of threatening the creditors withn humiliation at the hands of the White House press corps, has filed a motion to halt the administration’s machinations on behalf of the UAW in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

Wow!! Lawyer files motion. That is NEWS. I do feel that it should be mentioned that Lauria later gave up the claim that the press corps was a co-conspirator, but if you feel it necessary, go ahead. So, the news is that the case will now be decided in the courts instead of on ABC. That sounds like the proper place to me.

[mostpost]

With this kind of sophistry, it's easy to understand how you became a liberal. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
Sophism: "a confusing or ill-conceived argument used to deceive someone."
My main argment is very clear. A copyrighted article can be reproduced without penalty if used for commentary or or related uses. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

My secondary argument was that the link was already posted by whoever originated it; in this case ABC News. So, they obviously wanted people to read it. What difference does it make if I arrive at the link from ABC News or from a link posted here by JustRalph?

My error was when I read JustRalph's comment that people (PA) were criicizing him for possible violations of copyright law, I interpreted that as PA was oblecting to JR posting the link itself. That was wrong as shown by this.

Nobody said posting a link was bad. What's bad is reproducing the entire article. My rule is a link and two or three paragraphs...and even that is probably pushing things....

I COPIED THE PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY ABOVE FROM A REPLY BY PACE ADVANTAGE (POST # 14) PLEASE DO NOT SUE ME FOR PLAGIARISM :rolleyes:

I am a liberal because I have the ability to think critically and research things. And everytime I research something posted here by you and others of your ilk, I find that the facts do not support your theories. :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Sophism: "a confusing or ill-conceived argument used to deceive someone."
My main argment is very clear. A copyrighted article can be reproduced without penalty if used for commentary or or related uses. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html (emphasis mine)

My secondary argument was that the link was already posted by whoever originated it; in this case ABC News. So, they obviously wanted people to read it. What difference does it make if I arrive at the link from ABC News or from a link posted here by JustRalph?

My error was when I read JustRalph's comment that people (PA) were criicizing him for possible violations of copyright law, I interpreted that as PA was oblecting to JR posting the link itself. That was wrong as shown by this.

Nobody said posting a link was bad. What's bad is reproducing the entire article. My rule is a link and two or three paragraphs...and even that is probably pushing things....

I COPIED THE PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY ABOVE FROM A REPLY BY PACE ADVANTAGE (POST # 14) PLEASE DO NOT SUE ME FOR PLAGIARISM :rolleyes:

I am a liberal because I have the ability to think critically and research things. And everytime I research something posted here by you and others of your ilk, I find that the facts do not support your theories. :lol: :lol:

And earlier you wrote:

Originally Posted by mostpost
I've never complained about you posting too much of copyrighted articles. I'm not sure but I think as long as you acknowledge the source and aren't making a profit it would be alright. (I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me)

and then in a subsequent post to the one above ask:

[i]Finally, in the Wikipedia article, it states "In many jurisdictions, copyright law akes exceptions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses." Is this not exactly what we are doing here?

I see you're also a lib because you graduated with honors at Dumb Down U. I respectfully refer you to all your above errors that I put in bold for your education.

Perhaps "sophistry" was the wrong term. I should have used "syllogism" instead.

Given the four guidelines in the Wiki article, why would you assume that this jurisdiction's laws is one of those that would allow (as in MAKE) exceptions? Would not the prudent thing be to merely follow those four guidelines?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

And earlier you wrote:

Originally Posted by mostpost
I've never complained about you posting too much of copyrighted articles. I'm not sure but I think as long as you acknowledge the source and aren't making a profit it would be alright. (I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me)

and then in a subsequent post to the one above ask:

[i]Finally, in the Wikipedia article, it states "In many jurisdictions, copyright law akes exceptions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses." Is this not exactly what we are doing here?

I see you're also a lib because you graduated with honors at Dumb Down U. I respectfully refer you to all your above errors that I put in bold for your education.

Perhaps "sophistry" was the wrong term. I should have used "syllogism" instead.

Given the four guidelines in the Wiki article, why would you assume that this jurisdiction's laws is one of those that would allow (as in MAKE) exceptions? Would not the prudent thing be to merely follow those four guidelines?

Boxcar

I'll have you know that I graduated Summa Cum Laude from the "Tom School of Typing." :p

[mostpost]

Perhaps "sophistry" was the wrong term. I should have used "syllogism" instead

Boxcar

Now, I have to look up ANOTHER word :bang: :bang:

[mostpost]

boxcar,
According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary:

syllogism: definition 2: A subtle, specious, crafty argument. I'm sure you are using the term in the sense of a "crafty" argument.
Again from Merriam Webster: crafty: skillful, clever. So THANK YOU :D

[boxcar]

boxcar,
According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary:

syllogism: definition 2: A subtle, specious, crafty argument. I'm sure you are using the term in the sense of a "crafty" argument.
Again from Merriam Webster: crafty: skillful, clever. So THANK YOU :D

Why are so sure? So you can flatter yourself? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

What do we think now?

Corroboration............... such a dirty word

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/05/lauria-allegations-of-threats-corroborated/

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.
Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. …
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person said described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm

[mostpost]

What do we think now?

Corroboration............... such a dirty word

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/05/lauria-allegations-of-threats-corroborated/

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.
Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. …
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person said described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm

Well that certainly convinces me :rolleyes: At least your first source was a legitimate news organization. But this is just a conservative blog with contributors like Michelle Malkin. I wouldn't believe her if she told me the sky was blue and grass was green. In this case they say that some anonymous person(s) corroborated the story. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: How do we know this so-called person exists. You say they're corroborators; I say they're collaborators. Kind of the Vichy investors.

[Tom]

No problem, stuff happens.

[mostpost]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

No problem, stuff happens.

Tom, I hate to ruin your day but that was hilarious! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Burls]

This is why this Admin and the complicit media has now crossed a line ........

This puts Obama and his minions in a whole new category. He is not only shaking hands with Dictators, now he is acting like one. I normally don't throw the word "dictator" around.........but this shows that he will do whatever is necessary to get his way............

If you read this article and don't "get it" you are fooling yourself.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bankruptcy-atto.html

"Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.”* The spokesperson would not elaborate."I, for one, applaud the tactics of the Obama Administration here.
Here's why.
If Chrysler hadn't received any bailout money, it would have went belly up and most of its various creditors would have received virtually NOTHING.
By giving Chrysler taxpayer monies, the Obama Administration created an ARTIFICIAL SITUATION where Chrysler's various creditors were, all of a sudden, in a much better situation.
When Chrysler's insurmountable debt situation became clear, the Obama Administration orchestrated the negotiation of a set of reduced entitlements for Chrysler's principal creditors with a FAIR bankruptcy arrangement for Chrysler to deal with any othrt outstanding debt.
All of the various parties that Chrysler owed got something but also had to make sacrifices. They all had to eat some substantial losses.
The paramount concern for the Obama Administration was to minimize damage to the overall economy.
Negotiations amongst Chrysler's various creditors resulted in the consensus that those financial institutions owning third-party Chrysler debt would get 29%. This is certainly better than the paltry percentage (minus legal fees) that they would have ended up with had Chrysler received no bailout monies.
In this situation, a group of hedge-fund managers decided to hold out for more. They weren't satisfied to have their previously worthless bad debt redeemed at 29%. They wanted more - at taxpayer expense.
That's not free enterprise.
That's not free speech.
That's a bunch of dirtbag bankers trying to burn the candle from both ends and take advantage of an artificially soft unfolding of Chrysler that is being underwritten by the taxpayer.
As Obama described the situation:
While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none. Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting. I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices. And that's why I'm supporting Chrysler's plans to use our bankruptcy laws to clear away its remaining obligations so the company can get back on its feet and onto a path of success.
If hedge fund managers are going to act like that, they deserve to be bullied.
The message to them was 'If you try to suck as much as you possibly can out of the public trough here and jeopardize our attempt to minimize the amount of economic suffering incurred by a huge number of people from Chrysler's financial woes, you're gonna get thumped.
I say 'Bravo!' to the Obama Administration on this one.

[Tom]

The problem with what Obama is doing is that he is telling the world that our US Contract law is null and void. He is sending a clear signal to our potential creditors that they will not be protected by law if they encounter a bankruptcy. What he is doing is lunacy, and out right illegal. And his stupid comments about not standing with those bondholders who were ot willing to accept sacrigfice just shows his true ignorance/arrogance - they took a hefty hit already - I would call that a sacrifice. It is very obvious what he is doinghere - he STOLE Chrysler and gave it to the UAW as payback for them making the dems the 98% recipients of thier contributions last year. And, he screwed the taxpayers by doing it. The guy is a crook - 100% certainty. He belong in the BIG house, not the white house.

[Burls]

The problem with what Obama is doing is that he is telling the world that our US Contract law is null and void. He is sending a clear signal to our potential creditors that they will not be protected by law if they encounter a bankruptcy.Not so. Why should someone who makes a loan to a company, or buys that loan from some other party, be entitled to a share of any money given to that company in a financial emergency, by the taxpayers, for the purpose of protecting the public interest?

What he is doing is lunacy, and out right illegal. And his stupid comments about not standing with those bondholders who were not willing to accept sacrifice just shows his true ignorance/arrogance - they took a hefty hit already - I would call that a sacrifice.
How is it lunacy?
How is it illegal?
If there was no government intervention in the matter, they would have taken a heftier hit.
Shame on those hedge fund managers for acting as if they are entitled to so much more than they really are.

It is very obvious what he is doing here - he STOLE Chrysler and gave it to the UAW as payback for them making the dems the 98% recipients of thier contributions last year. And, he screwed the taxpayers by doing it. The guy is a crook - 100% certainty. He belong in the BIG house, not the white house.He didn't steal Chrysler.
In a very unusual situation, on behalf of, and in the interests of, the American public, he orchestrated the temporary takeover of Chrysler by the American people. He has already stated that the goal is to have private investors buy the American people's interest in Chrysler, once Chrysler becomes a viable business again.

[Lefty]

Those hedgefund mgrs have a financial responsibility to their clients. Obama is screwing their clients in favor of union people. So much for the dims being fair to all. Tom is dead on and you're dead wrong. And now Obama through his minions is threateningthem. He's closest thing we've has to a dictator and if we don't watch out, he will be a full fledged one. And as JR said in title of thread the press is complicit in helping him bring about a socialist state. We have Pravda and wanna be dictator.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tom, I hate to ruin your day but that was hilarious! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:OK, as I was deleting mostpost's duplicate post and the exchange that resulted from that error, I see I may have inadvertently ruined a good joke...except...I don't get it...can someone spell it out for this idiot?

[Tom]

Burls, you need to read up a lot on contract law and bankruptcy proceedings.
They were thrown out the window and the message sent here to all potential investors is that the US is a bad risk because they go back on their word and break contracts. there are levels of investment that have various level of risk associated with them. There is a hierarchy for payment from bankruptcy.
When this is not followed, we call it lying and stealing. The UAW got 55%of a company that they have 0 stake in. They were entitles to nothing. Thisis payback.

Our creditors are already balking at our borrowing plans, and telling than our word, our contracts, are not going to be honored will make them stop carrying us. That is lunacy.

[mostpost]

OK, as I was deleting mostpost's duplicate post and the exchange that resulted from that error, I see I may have inadvertently ruined a good joke...except...I don't get it...can someone spell it out for this idiot?

OK Due to a problem with internet explorer and my security software, I double posted. When I saw that I could not correct the problem, I posted a message of apology. Tom graciously responded "No problem, stuff happens".
Then, DELIBERATELY DOUBLE POSTED. I found this quite funny as did NJSTINKS. The deliberate part being the key here.

[Tom]

I'm reaching out across the aisle. ;)

[delayjf]

I would call that a sacrifice. It is very obvious what he is doinghere - he STOLE Chrysler and gave it to the UAW as payback for them making the dems the 98% recipients of thier contributions last year. And, he screwed the taxpayers by doing it. The guy is a crook - 100% certainty. He belong in the BIG house, not the white house

Here's a stupid question,

Assume the UAW gets controlling interests in Chrysler - what makes them think they will be able to do any better than the current group running the company.

[Tom]

Not their intention.
They are only in it for the money.
Look at the AFL_CIO - actively trying to get amnesty passed to bring in millions of new workers/members. At a time when were are close to 10% unemployment among citizens. Not about representing anyone, just themselves.

Now, do workers need a second union to represent them with the UAW, now management? :lol:

[Burls]

The UAW got 55%of a company that they have 0 stake in. They were entitled to nothing.
Not so.
Both GM and Chrysler had previous substantial commitments to pay the health care of their retired workers; that is, people who had worked for these companies for 20 or 30 years.

The UAW started making concessions during 2007 contract negotiations and that helped in negotiating the stakes they stand to gain now. ... To unload these health care costs, GM and Chrysler persuaded a reluctant UAW to take billions in cash to set up trust funds called voluntary employees beneficiary associations, or VEBAs, to pay the bills starting next year. But the U.S. auto market went bad and both automakers ran out of cash.

That's what the 55% position in Chrysler is for; to finance the commitment to providing health care that Chrysler had already made.


What's happening at Chrysler and GM is not employee ownership in any recognizable way," said Corey Rosen, founder and executive director of the non-profit National Center for Employee Ownership.
"The employees don't own any part of Chrysler or GM, it's the health trust, and they're going to sell that stock as soon as they can. It's more like somebody saying: 'I can't pay the money I owe you, so take some stock and you can sell it."

So don't worry folks, the UAW has no aspirations of taking over Chrysler.

[Tom]

Burls, they can't sell it if they don't own it.
It they own it, it is wrong. It is as I described above.

[Burls]

Burls, they can't sell it if they don't own it.
It they own it, it is wrong. It is as I described above.
But they do own it, Tom.
And, in any case, the hedge funds are getting more than they were originally entitled to, so it's time for them to stop whining.
Because nobody wants to hear it.
And it certainly won't scare off investors to know that even if their risky investments in 'bad debt', say, go sour, there is still a chance of getting something rather than nothing for that bad debt, as a result of intervention by the Federal Government.

Anyway, I thought the deal was that we take Arlen Specter and you guys have to take Nacy Pelosi. ...

[PaceAdvantage]

OK Due to a problem with internet explorer and my security software, I double posted. When I saw that I could not correct the problem, I posted a message of apology. Tom graciously responded "No problem, stuff happens".
Then, DELIBERATELY DOUBLE POSTED. I found this quite funny as did NJSTINKS. The deliberate part being the key here.I don't think I saw Tom's double post...maybe I deleted it before I realized what was going on...in any event...sorry for being so quick on the gun....

[Tom]

Burls, enjoy your little world.
What color is the sky there? :bang:

[newtothegame]

Burls, enjoy your little world.
What color is the sky there? :bang:

Haze?? foggy? Smoke filled? oh wait...thats california...Pelosi's state :lol:

[Tom]

Yeah, Lucy in the Sky with diamonds country! :lol:

[delayjf]

And, in any case, the hedge funds are getting more than they were originally entitled to, so it's time for them to stop whining.

In as much as I'm not a bankrupcy lawyer, not did I stay at a holiday Inn express last night. A few Questions.

What would UAW Healthcare fund recieve in the event of a Chysler bankrupsy??

Does the amount Chysler committed to the UAW fund equate to a 55% share of the company? How does that amount compare with the amount invested by the hedge funds?

[ArlJim78]

It looks like Don Obama and his team of thugs have won (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/oppenheimer-withdraws-from-dissident-chrysler-group/) this battle.
Their intimidation and threats have sent the so-called non-tarp lenders heading for the hills. there aren't enough of them left to make any difference.
From the Times:
_______________________________________________
"The withdrawals of OppenheimerFunds and Stairway Capital Management will likely drop the group, calling itself the Committee of Non-TARP Lenders, below 5 percent of Chrysler’s $6.9 billion in secured debt, this person said. That would almost certainly eliminate the group’s standing in federal bankruptcy court."

"Ever since the group made public last week, its membership has shrunken by the day as it faced public criticism from President Obama and others. That continued withdrawal of firms led Oppenheimer and Stairway to conclude that they could not succeed in opposing the Chrysler reorganization plan in court, the two firms said in separate statements."

"The remaining members of the group are Schultze Asset Management, Group G Capital Partners and Foxhill Capital Partners. Other secured creditors remain opposed to the Chrysler plan, but have refrained from joining the committee for fear of public reprisal, people with knowledge of the situation told DealBook"

Good-bye rule of law, hello banana republic.

[Burls]

In as much as I'm not a bankrupcy lawyer, not did I stay at a holiday Inn express last night. A few Questions.

What would UAW Healthcare fund recieve in the event of a Chysler bankrupsy??

Does the amount Chysler committed to the UAW fund equate to a 55% share of the company? How does that amount compare with the amount invested by the hedge funds?Look at it this way.
Suppose the Federal Government just allowed Chrysler to go bankrupt and then made emergency top off payments to the various affected banks to keep them liquid and to the UAW to fund the previously promised health care benefits.
Then the hedge funds would have ended up with what they were really entitled to ... practically nada.
So what is the hedge funds's basis of complaint?
We're being denied entitlement to monies that we were never entitled to in the first place.
Why else would they have to fear PUBLIC REPRISAL?
If they had a legitimate case to make for receiving more, why wouldn't they just publicize that case in order to deflect public reprisal?

[Tom]

They are doing just that in court.

and to the UAW to fund the previously promised health care benefits.

BS - the gov has no business giving them a penny. No one has repaid my losses from my IRA. Let the UAW lose like the rest of us. They are not entitled to being paid of by ME when I am losing.

You just do not get it, do you
The gov has NO money at all - never did, never will. IT all comes from US.

[Burls]

You just do not get it, do you?
The gov has NO money at all - never did, never will. IT all comes from US.I do get it.
That's why I am happy to see that the hedge-fund managers who bought bad debt for who knows how much - but I'm betting less than 29 cents on the dollar - aren't being allowed to suck in exhorbitant gains at the taxpayer's expense.
These aren't investors.
They're speculators who pay bottom dollar for bad debt and then try to squeeze whatever they can from the debtor companies on the brink of bankruptcy.
Here's a bonanza situation where the Federal Government is subzidizing a debtor company with taxpayer dollars in order to benefit that general public by going another step towards stabilizing a highly troubled economy.
These glorified collection agencies have no right to one cent of these taxpayer-funded government subsidies.
Why should people who put money into hedge-funds expect hard-working taxpayers to be subsidize their high-risk investments?
That's the real question here.

[Tom]

The only real question here is do we obey the laws or not.
Obama is not, and that will NOT encourage investment.
If you were a potential investor, and you know that Obama would not follow the laws and would print any amount of money he needed, thereby destroying the dollar, would you invest here?

And yes, they are investors, the UAW is not. Why should hard working tax payers subsidize UAW people???????

[Burls]

Why should hard working tax payers subsidize UAW people???????That's a good question and the more I've been thinking about this discussion the more I am of the view that NEITHER the UAW nor the Hedge Funds should be getting taxpayer dough. And the fact that the UAW was able to negotiate something they really don't deserve certainly doesn't entitle Hedge Fund investors to ALSO get something they don't deserve. The Hedge Fund managers are greedy screaming brats. "Those other people got a bigger hunk of public money than we did, so we want more!!!" I wouldn't be averse to cutting down the UAW's share of taxpayer money, but there's no way Hedge Fund investors should be getting more of the taxpayer's money.

[JustRalph]

More Government Threats to private industry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3867204

[newtothegame]

More Government Threats to private industry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3867204


Talk about "mob like" tactics...sheeze....:bang:

[Tom]

What should have happened was to allow GM and Chrysler to file for bankruptcy, get no tax money, and then follow the exiting laws and let the chips fall where they may. But noooooooo, Obama has to stick is ignorant nose into things. the idiot is supposed to uphold the law, not write his own.

[Lefty]

Righto, Tom. How many Billions in bailout money would we have saved?