Chrysler files for bankruptcy
Immediate thoughts: Now we have the prospect of:
- $8 billion more of taxpayers’ money down the tubes.
- The United Auto Workers running an auto comany, and ….
- Representing a competitor’s workers (Ford’s) at the bargaining table.
For all the back-and-forth in Washington about conflict of interest in the most piddling situations, this is a historical doozy that is somehow no problemo. What it is, is an outrage. If I were Ford, I would oppose Chrysler’s apparent plan for bankruptcy emergence tooth and nail as a matter of survival.
About friggin time. Now the government and the unions will get screwed instead of the bondholders. Personally if the government doesn’t get a dime back, it will be worth it because that will put a stopper in the money hole Chrysler would have become if the government and unions were the majority owners of the company. This also puts GM on notice, screw the government and the unions, now it’s time for rational economic decisions, not ones made under the gun of a so called emergency.
I have been hearing that Obama wants the bankruptcy process to go quickly. Heck no, Chrysler should take as long as they need to for a workable realistic solution with no government strings attached. I therefore change my boycott recommendation to exclude Chrysler products.
This whole episode should wipe off that smug expression from Obama’s face along with his middle finger.
Comment by dscott — April 30, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
#1, no such luck. I think this is what Obama wanted, and my impression is that the emergence from bankruptcy is pre-ordained, no matter what the creditors and bondholders think.
The interesting battle will be on behalf of the secured bondholders and lenders. If the bankruptcy court doesn’t make their claims superior to everyone else (after employees), you’ll know that the fix is in. “Secured” will no longer mean “secured.”
He and his car czars think they can dictate industrial policy. They can’t if enough people won’t buy what a nationalized or union-controlled company produces. There is already a lot of anger over this, and it will grow when it is seen how much more the government is going to dump into Chrysler, and then GM.
Comment by TBlumer — April 30, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Oppenheimer Fund was one of those bond holders who balked. Their claim was they manage a lot of 401k money and it would be irresponsible of them to accept a payout less than the bankruptcy law demands.
BINGO – the unheard story that the MSM, Obama and the Dems don’t want the public to know: Your 401k money is the target of their largess to the unions. Whom do you really think all those bond holders represent??? Yeah, that would be us, those who own mutual funds in our 401k and IRA.
This is exactly the same idea of vilifying Exxon, I am Exxon you turd Obama, I own it through mutual funds in my 401k. You have meet evil oil, it is ME!
Connecting the dots – now we begin to see why the Dems were actually talking about confiscating the 401k accounts in return for a guaranteed 3% return… Screwing the bondholders is just another way of herding people into accepting the confiscation of 401k accounts under the guise they will be better off given these huge losses. there is a $3.5 trillion pot of money to be stolen in one swipe, tempting, oh so tempting to the Dems.
Comment by dscott — April 30, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Looks like union workers are about to get some real-world experience on George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.”
So exactly who is going to be the pot and kettle in the UAW boardroom? And do the workers understand that the union thugs are now the white-collar “enemies” of the pre-bailout days? Do any of the “management scum” get to stay? (I’m guessing they will if they are pro-union, which makes them moot).
What will happen when the union thugs actually demand that the workers make a- oh no, don’t say it – PROFIT to keep the company viable?
And can the union thugs breech their own contracts to do so, hmmmm…
Otherwise, how are the union thugs going to manage the P&L/Balance sheet/Risk Analysis/ Marketing Reports as well as plant operations AND continue to allow workers mounds of breaks in every shift while getting paid what “white collars” in a profitable position didn’t think they were worth?
Oh silly me, I forgot, the government is going to help them with all of that…I mean they do such a good job with everything else…
Comment by Rose — April 30, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Here is a bankruptcy lawyer discussing the Chrysler situation.
http://wjrpodcasts.com/podcasts/frankbeckmann/Lauria-050109.mp3 Use Quicktime to play it.
What’s extremely disturbing in his comments is the threat from the Whitehouse to one of the bondholders to destroy the bondholder with the full power of the Whitehouse PRESS CORPS!
Where’s the F…ing FBI???? The Whitehouse actually engaged in an extortion attempt. Why no arrests? Where’s the media expose’??? Obama has committed a crime, a felony!!!
They offered 50 cents on the dollar even though they are entitled to 100 cents.
Comment by dscott — May 1, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
#5, OMG.
Comment by TBlumer — May 1, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Can you imagine what this guy is doing in the background with others. This is just one person who talked. If Obama has the brass to do something like this, being a lawyer, then If he is not publicly opposed he will bulldoze everyone until he is charged with a crime. Make no mistake, this was a crime.
Comment by dscott — May 1, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
From jaw boning to jaw breaking.
Comment by Lily S — May 1, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
we need to make this sleazy behavior so toxically hot, that it stops Obama in his tracks. This is Obama’s Watergate!!! The whole story to this point has be spun as to Obama going along with the idea of bankruptcy, he wasn’t, he was furious to the point he tried to blackmail the bondholders.
btw-thanks Tom for making it a story on NB.
Comment by dscott — May 1, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
#9, thanks for the notification.
As an event in and of itself, Watergate had little significance. The cover-up did.
This is a bright-line case of government heavyhandedness that might as well be attempted extortion. Last time I checked, if it’s for the financial gain of particular persons or entities, it’s a crime, and it matters not that the person who engages in it happens to work for the government.
Comment by TBlumer — May 1, 2009 @ 10:17 pm