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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (484289)	5/29/2009 1:48:26 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

You are just making this up. Joe seems to have a pattern. He shows up on the thread after a long absence and starts out almost making sense with somewhat reasonable posts. But they get increasingly shrill and bizarre over a couple of days until he finally disappears again. It's weird.

To: combjelly who wrote (484289)	5/29/2009 8:21:49 PM
From: Joe NYC	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

Correct. And a minority of those creditors feel the assets are under-valued. That being the case, they have the option of offering more and winding up with all the assets. They haven't done that. They don't have to bid for anything. They can either accept the bid the government is offering, or, let the bankruptcy court assign them equity ownership of the new company. One way or another, secured creditors have to recover more than unsecured creditors in a fair proceeding, not tainted by corruption. Unfortunatelly, it is not the case here. Obama is using the bankruptcy to financially reward his financial backers. "As long as one dollar, or asset of value is transferred to an unsecured creditor, before secured creditors are paid in full, no amount short of full repaiment is enough." Well, a) that isn't happening and b) the bankruptcy judge decides what happens. Not the creditors. a) Of course it isn't happening (secured creditors being paid before unsecured. That's my point. b) there are rules. BK judge can't just assign title to assets to a hot dog man standing across the streat from Chrysler parking lot. You seem to be saying that the BK judge can. Well, unless they are looking to hire new, they will have to work with the unions if they want to continue operations. No they do not. Union contract is right at the end of the line with the contracts of the rest of unsecured creditors (including UAW pension / haelth care fund. It is pretty much null and void. Besides, it will be a compleely new company. The New Chrysler. "The only reason the union is getting anything is because they contributed to Obama campaign" You are just making this up. I know it can be crushing to realize that someone with so much promise (in eyes of many) is turning out to be an old fashioned crook. Sorry to break you the news. Maybe one day, you will ask: was pay back to the union really worth it? Was it worth the damage it will cause to the financial markets? Was it worth the loss of Obama's integrity? I say no. You rather choose to be in a denial that there is a problem. Joe