Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (111829)	5/24/2009 1:53:52 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541777

That is how govt money is different from everyone else's money, and it is the issue that can be tested in court. You made public interest arguments in your post. Those should have no place in the determination of how to split up the proceeds of a liquidation. It should make no difference that the money provided back in December was lent by the government or Donald Trump. I dont claim to have any expertise on debt structures, so if the law allows for lending to be above senior debt and that is how the government structured it, that's fine. However, if that's not the case, then the government should be treated the same as all of the other secured creditors. The government had the choice to let Chrysler go into bankruptcy and provide DIP financing (which would have guaranteed seniority), but they chose not to go down that path. Slacker