The rhetoric of Rep Eric Cantor (R-AIPAC) suggests that the House leadership is determined to engage in a protracted struggle with President Obama over economic policy (as well as just about everything else). Cantor is playing to what he perceives to be the "base" of his party, and there is little to suggest that the President will get any cooperation whatever from the Republicans.

But I have to admit that Rep. Cantor wears nice suits. Kind of reminds me of Terry McAuliffe, who also claims to be a Virginian but who also does the bidding of someone else.

What does Israel have to do with Obama's meddling with the auto bankruptcies?

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

If Eric Cantor is say, Code Yellow Idiot, than it follows that Sarah Palin is Code Orange, and Michelle Bachmann is just about Code Red.

Why are so many conservatives in America not only not conservative but so child-like in their thinking?

Most Americans already have such a fucked-up view on socialism or communism, that they can't even define it properly. They just define it the way they've heard it on the radio or on FOX News or from one of their Code whatever idiots.

These people are going to sink even further in the next couple of elections if all they've got are "Obama is like Putin!" kinds of shit.

I seriously can't wait until adults in America get together and decide to have a new conservative party, because this one isn't conservative, and is now filled with the dumbest and most sentimental idiots among us.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

It is unfortunate that Cantor has mucked up a pretty accurate message about how secured creditors' rights were abrogated on a whim of the administration with juvenile rhetoric.

What happened here should upset folks who look at it rationally, but that's hard to do with the veneer of rhetoric that has been added.

Matt

There is absolutely no problem with the government wiping creditor debt from a company it is forced to bail out. This is all part of the bankruptcy process (though in this instance it was done so that the company and government could bypass bankruptcy). Besides you forget the fact these "creditors' rights" only exist because the government enforces them, there is nothing natural about "creditor rights", it is a creation of The State.

The government is bound by the law, just as the creditors and the companies are.

These secured creditors were completely shafted on this deal. But it's OK, those greedy teachers and cops don't need their pensions anyway.

Matt

uhm so they can wipe creditors away but give another entity a stake in the company that is a retun on what exactly? No I don't think so.


as far as laws being a creation of the s'tate' well fine lets see what we don't want to enforce next....using that as a yardstick we could argue anything.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

how about coding terorrism?

Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Obama auto team called shareholder lawyer a “terrorist”

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

That's true and it's a poor argument. The point is that it's equally or even less proposterous as the "natural rights" and state intervention argument. It's just as hogwash, there are no "natural credit rights", these or constructs of a modern economy which require enforcement by The State to even exist. Credit is not an intrinsically natural property right, like something you can tangibly own.

Without more in depth knowledge on the specifics I can't comment. You may very well be justified in your position. However The State should and does have the authority to wipe out creditors in Bankruptcy. Whether or not this should be legal to save the State and the effected company from entering bankruptcy in the first place is dubious though, but it's not intrinsically against some natural order or ethical standard.

The Republicans are done, over, finito. They're going to thrash around in these death throes until 2010, screwing up what more they can and causing even more misery until we finally vote the last few out of office and they become like the Whigs, nothing more than a bad memory.

I doubt they'll even field a candidate for President in 2012. Unless maybe Palin and Limbaugh decide they need to promo their new show The Rush and Sarah Comedy Hour.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Yes the state does BUT they don’t have the right to abrogate returns if the co. is not collapsed as an entity. IF there are any proceeds etc. that can be realized they must provide the specie to those whom have been, by contract, granted first service.

Further- the pension funds in question received, over their investment lives LOWER returns on these investments for more security, i.e. being first in line if the co. goes belly up etc.


And as far as cantor being over the top etc. maybe, but hes not alluding to something fantastic, look at what Putin et al have done to Khodorkovsky etc. etc etc. they used government mechanisms to shortcut contractual law and judicial outcomes.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I'll take that bet - here's my offer:

If the Republicans do not nominate a candidate in 2012, I will forever leave this forum.

If they do, you will forever leave the forum.

Ready to put your membership where your mouth is, JD?

does lying help ?


lifelong resident of Richmond

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

No, you don't seem to fully understand bankruptcy. In a normal reorganization, the secured creditors get their money back, the unsecured creditors get the ownership of the new post bankruptcy company, and the shareholders get diddly squat (maybe a warrant of negligible value). The only class that gets "wiped out" are the shareholders, not "the creditors".

That said, there is a contractual order of claims upon a company that enters bankruptcy. It is not a "natural order" as found in nature, but it is indeed the "natural order" found in contract law, which is the legal framework for the modern economy. Secured creditors are first. Then unsecured creditors, followed by preferred shareholders, and finally, common shareholders. It certainly looks as though the U.S. government strong-armed the unsecured creditors into taking an inferior cut of the post bankruptcy GM, with the benefit going to both the UAW and the U.S. government, itself. Unless both the U.S. government, and the UAW pension plan, are somehow legally viewed as creditors that are senior to the unsecured bondholders, this is indeed, illegal.