Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:43 PM on j-body.org


If you take nothing else from this video, take this:

The Whitehouse directly threatened a private company for not going along with their demands. This private company had a contract as a primary debt holder that, in the event of a bankruptsy, they were to be paid 100% before any other debt holder was paid. They were already agreeing to a 50% concession, but Obama forced them to take a 71% concession (they recieved only 29˘ for each $1 that they are owed), and gain no ownership in the company for this concession. The Whitehouse subverted contractual law for the purpose of deciding what to do with a private company, and the only group involved in the deal that took gains, and no losses, was the UAW.

This should get everyone's attention, because it's a glaring example of exactly what this administration has in store for the country. This was right out of the classic union thug playbook. You threaten the company to force them into taking the deal with the union. Only this time, it came from an office that is supposed to be upholding the constitution and protecting the private citizens.








Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 5:55 PM on j-body.org
Enter U.S.S.A.




Keep your powder dry.


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:36 PM on j-body.org
oh you anti-obama bush lovers. You stole the election in 2000, lied about WMD's, lied about Alqueadadada in Iraq, and now you are picking on the first black president you racist right-wing limbaughlovin. If you can't beat him, lie and make up stories about him. No fear, unless he gets caught on video, by michael moore, clubbing baby seals over the head, pooring antifreeze in fluffy's dish, and jaywalking, we have nothing to fear in '12.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:58 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

oh you anti-obama bush lovers. You stole the election in 2000, lied about WMD's, lied about Alqueadadada in Iraq, and now you are picking on the first black president you racist right-wing limbaughlovin. If you can't beat him, lie and make up stories about him. No fear, unless he gets caught on video, by michael moore, clubbing baby seals over the head, pooring antifreeze in fluffy's dish, and jaywalking, we have nothing to fear in '12.


HaHaHa wut?




Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:26 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

oh you anti-obama bush lovers. You stole the election in 2000, lied about WMD's, lied about Alqueadadada in Iraq, and now you are picking on the first black president you racist right-wing limbaughlovin. If you can't beat him, lie and make up stories about him. No fear, unless he gets caught on video, by michael moore, clubbing baby seals over the head, pooring antifreeze in fluffy's dish, and jaywalking, we have nothing to fear in '12.



Hmmmmm ok.



Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:14 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

...and now you are picking on the first black president you racist right-wing limbaughlovin...


you killed any valid argument you had with that one comment...though you didn't have much of one to begin with

and that is the biggest piece of bull@!#$ i have ever seen and im tired of everyone saying we are "racist" because we speak out about obama. he could have been a white guy and doing the same things obama is doing and we would still hate him and all that he and his administration is doing. hell if hillary won you would probily be calling us sexist now also cause we were against her.



If I'm weird and everyone else is weird, does that make me normal?
-me

Versus Motorsports really @!#$ sucks
and so does DHL...but more
Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:04 AM on j-body.org
AZSpitFire97+01 (Todd) wrote:

ScottaWhite wrote:

...and now you are picking on the first black president you racist right-wing limbaughlovin...


you killed any valid argument you had with that one comment...though you didn't have much of one to begin with

and that is the biggest piece of bull@!#$ i have ever seen and im tired of everyone saying we are "racist" because we speak out about obama. he could have been a white guy and doing the same things obama is doing and we would still hate him and all that he and his administration is doing. hell if hillary won you would probily be calling us sexist now also cause we were against her.
He was being sarcastic. Scotta is probably the closest thing this board has to a racist, lol.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:06 AM on j-body.org
god i hope he was...that just pissed me off

i haven't read any of his other posts

if it was a joke them im sorry



If I'm weird and everyone else is weird, does that make me normal?
-me

Versus Motorsports really @!#$ sucks
and so does DHL...but more
Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:16 AM on j-body.org
IF Chrysler would have turned down the bailout money, they wouldn't have to worry about it. I guess the government thinks at the point in time companys want to take free tax dollars they can tell them what to do, like an investor does. I don't agree with it, nor do I think any bailout was a good idea. I do not feel sorry for any of these companies getting bent over by the government, if they would have made better business decisions maybe they would not have the White House telling them what and how to do it. All these corporations should have been left to fail.

I love how he is complaining about how they are being offered .29 on the dollar, and the junior creditors are getting $10-20 billion dollars, I wonder what that breaks down to .50 on the dollar or .70 on the dollar or is it .15-.20 on the dollar. Apples to oranges, and with this spinning of the facts to make his case I would love to see the actual figures.

I am not sure how bankruptcy laws work on the corporate level but I do know that if I file on my house the contract that I had with the mortgage company becomes null and void. Does it work like that in this case? Can you have a contract that circumvents this situation that is legally binding in court? Hell I don't know maybe so. I am not a lawyer nor am I a bankruptcy judge. I would like to research the other side of the fence on this topic. In the interview the true facts are distorted to make the lawyers case, he is doing what he is paid to do.

By no means am I defending the White House's position, but I have a feeling there is allot more to this story than what a lawyer for the opposition says in a radio interview. So before we all go get our pitch forks and torches maybe we study both sides of the matter in lieu of just one.

As far as the UAW being the only group to gain from this, @!#$ em, the UAW should have got nothing. They are one of the major problems in this industry. The UAW extorts companies to pay their employees $28.00 per hour for jobs that require a skill set of a $12.00 employee. And people wonder why all the manufacturing jobs went to Mexico.


KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:30 AM on j-body.org
Racist? Me? I'd LOVE to see you back that one up. Now, you'll have to search the threads for my name for a while, but I'm sure you'll come up with some veiled innuendo, which will give you your "Aha!"....so have at it.

BUT, I am racist against MiddleEastern Islamic "radicals", they can all go throw rocks at Israeli tanks for all I care.....in fact, I'll buy the dvd.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Contractual Law walked on, private company threatened by Whitehouse
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:44 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

IF Chrysler would have turned down the bailout money, they wouldn't have to worry about it. I guess the government thinks at the point in time companys want to take free tax dollars they can tell them what to do, like an investor does. I don't agree with it, nor do I think any bailout was a good idea. I do not feel sorry for any of these companies getting bent over by the government, if they would have made better business decisions maybe they would not have the White House telling them what and how to do it. All these corporations should have been left to fail.

I love how he is complaining about how they are being offered .29 on the dollar, and the junior creditors are getting $10-20 billion dollars, I wonder what that breaks down to .50 on the dollar or .70 on the dollar or is it .15-.20 on the dollar. Apples to oranges, and with this spinning of the facts to make his case I would love to see the actual figures.

I am not sure how bankruptcy laws work on the corporate level but I do know that if I file on my house the contract that I had with the mortgage company becomes null and void. Does it work like that in this case? Can you have a contract that circumvents this situation that is legally binding in court? Hell I don't know maybe so. I am not a lawyer nor am I a bankruptcy judge. I would like to research the other side of the fence on this topic. In the interview the true facts are distorted to make the lawyers case, he is doing what he is paid to do.

By no means am I defending the White House's position, but I have a feeling there is allot more to this story than what a lawyer for the opposition says in a radio interview. So before we all go get our pitch forks and torches maybe we study both sides of the matter in lieu of just one.

As far as the UAW being the only group to gain from this, @!#$ em, the UAW should have got nothing. They are one of the major problems in this industry. The UAW extorts companies to pay their employees $28.00 per hour for jobs that require a skill set of a $12.00 employee. And people wonder why all the manufacturing jobs went to Mexico.

It seems we agree for the most part, but something you should know, as it lends credibility to the lawyer's position: he is a registered Democrat, and was an Obama supporter. He has now been on the receiving end of the abuse of power, and apparently has seen the light.

As far as not knowing how bankruptcy works, the simple answer that should clarify this for you is that you can have a contract as a senior creditor, which means in the event of a bankruptcy, you are entitled to be paid first, and no other creditor can be paid until you are 100% paid. This is the case here, but the senior creditor was still agreeing to take 50% of that. They were threatened into taking only 29%.

Also, this issue has nothing to do with the bailouts, for two reasons:

1. The investment firm in question was not the recipient of bailout money. They are simply a creditor of the company. And they were not forced by any legislation or other legal matters, they were threatened in a thug-like manner, by the Whitehouse. If this doesn't scare you, it should. The very office that is supposed to be upholding the Constitution, and protecting the citizens of this country, was threatening to destroy a private company, who represents the interest of thousands of individuals.

2. This was the government stepping into a bankruptcy to keep the unions in power. I firmly believe this would have happened if no bailout money was given. The entire premise they are operating on is that any company who is "too big to fail" will have government intervention if they deem it necessary.








Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search