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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (44541)	7/31/2010 6:27:02 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A COMPLETELY LEGAL (and traditional) use of the U.S.'s bankruptcy laws... regarding the provision for any "Debtor in Possession". ANYONE (if they'd wanted to) could have stepped up to the plate and, (by injecting new funds while GM was in bankruptcy sufficient to see GM successfully emerge from bankruptcy proceedings), gained the extra heft over the course of events in bankruptcy by being granted "Debtor in Possession" STATUS by the bankruptcy judge. The Court had an OPEN SOLICITATION for anyone who wanted to do so. But no one else in the entire world wanted to do so. So the government did it. This has been in the law since the Great Depression.... Perfectly legal and proper use of the existing bankruptcy laws.

To: TimF who wrote (44541)	8/7/2010 3:53:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

GM could have shed its debts in a normal bankruptcy. What Obama did was give a handout to the unions, by forcing the other creditors to accept less favorable terms. He didn't save any company (and if he did, if the company would not survive without government handouts, then the company shouldn't be saved), he lavished favors on one of his special interest constituencies, a union. First of all, it was not Obama who benefited the unions but rather than the BK judge. Secondly, why do you always come out in defense of impersonal corps. instead of the American worker? Why should corps. benefit more than the average American?