QUOTE

In a September 7, 2008, jointly released statement, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and then-Federal Housing Finance Agency director Jim Lockhart announced that as part of the government's decision to take Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship, "New CEOs supported by new non-executive Chairmen have taken over management of the enterprises."

A September 17, 2008, Washington Post article reported of the Bush administration's decision to bail out AIG, "The terms of the rescue package allow the government to replace [chief executive Robert] Willumstad, and a source familiar with the matter said last night that Willumstad would be succeded [sic] by Edward Liddy, former chief executive of Allstate." On September 17, 2008, the Associated Press likewise reported Willumstad's removal as a part of the bailout deal.

< http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200903310005?f=h_top >

QUOTE

I thought your GOP masters wanted a forced bankruptcy? Make up your mind, lol.  

QUOTE

The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government.

QUOTE

They don't have to take the government money if they don't like the terms of the loan.

QUOTE

GM now stands for "Government Motors"--they and Chrysler should simply be like Ford and say "no thanks--we don't want the money under your terms!"  If they have to take bankruptcy, it is preferable to the Fascist push of the Obamunists.

QUOTE

You must have missed this part of my post.  Here it is again

(Liberal @ Mar. 31 2009,3:19 pm)

QUOTE

They don't have to take the government money if they don't like the terms of the loan.

QUOTE

And if you were in control of one of these companies, would you turn over the power to the "Bolshie"?

QUOTE

My GOD b.o., please just take that razor blade and cut your wrists to the bone, and die laughing.

QUOTE

even the local JOBZ program dictated the wages the company would pay.

QUOTE

A September 17, 2008, Washington Post article reported of the Bush administration's decision to bail out AIG, "The terms of the rescue package allow the government to replace [chief executive Robert] Willumstad, and a source familiar with the matter said last night that Willumstad would be succeded [sic] by Edward Liddy, former chief executive of Allstate." On September 17, 2008, the Associated Press likewise reported Willumstad's removal as a part of the bailout deal.

QUOTE

As long as we're talking AIG, let's not forget Fannie and Freddie.

(Liberal @ Mar. 31 2009,9:14 pm)

QUOTE

Why don't you republitards see if you can find the actual wording in the bill that says the government can control what a business pays it's employees?

QUOTE

This part only pertains to Financial Institutions and for now it is all I have the time to look up..

(Liberal @ Mar. 31 2009,9:14 pm)

QUOTE

QUOTE

This idea of Barney "Fat Fingers" Crank and his cronies is going to screw over the lower income guys as well as those who probably should be receiving a serious pay cut unlike our local JOBZ program.

QUOTE

AG's office paid $15,000 for 2 soundproof doors
The Associated Press
Updated: 04/01/2009 02:14:22 AM CDT


ST. PAUL, Minn.—A report says Attorney General Lori Swanson's office paid $15,000 in taxpayer money for two special-order soundproof doors.
WCCO-TV says Swanson refused to talk about the doors, which were custom-finished to match the white oak woodwork in her office.

Her spokesman says the new doors are heavy-duty, locked, sand-reinforced doors for security purposes.

But WCCO says it obtained documents that describe the doors as "sound-attenuating," meaning soundproof, not security. And it says the original handles and hinges were reattached.

The report notes that Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who works across the hall from the attorney general, doesn't have soundproof doors on his office.

QUOTE

Where were you republicans when the shrub fired AIG's CEO.

QUOTE

And there you have it. The "Limbaugh-Hanson doctrine"!

QUOTE

principle, position, or precept

QUOTE

you've already proven your mental statis

QUOTE

Bush is an idiot

QUOTE

Life Cycle of a Democracy

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.  The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years.

These nations have progressed through this sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith
from spiritual faith to great courage
from courage to liberty
from liberty to abundance
from abundance to selfishness
from selfishness to complacency
from complacency to apathy
from apathy to dependency
from dependency back to bondage.
-- Alexander Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)

QUOTE

CHRYSLER


Important Announcement to all Chrysler Customers

In these difficult economic times, it is important to have peace of mind when
making a significant purchase, like a new car or truck. At Chrysler, we are happy
to inform our customers that on Monday, March 30th, President Obama
announced a plan to provide a government backed "Warranty Commitment
Program".

In summary, the key points from the President's announcement are:

• Government backing of warranty starts with vehicles purchased on or after
March 30, 2009.
• The program will cover the participating manufacturer's warranty on every
new car sold during the company's restructuring period.
• If you buy a new Chrysler, Jeep or Dodge vehicle during this restructuring
period you will be eligible.
• You do not have to do anything to receive the U.S. commitment to your
warranty, it is automatic.
• The U.S. Treasury will back your warranty, and will commit to honoring the
warranty in the event that the manufacturer cannot.
Today Chrysler has the best quality in its 84 year history. 73% of our vehicles
have improved fuel efficiency over the past year. There has never been a better
time than today to purchase a Chrysler, Jeep or Dodge vehicle.

QUOTE

I will never ever buy another GM or Chrysler

QUOTE

Obama's Own Report on GM Says Plan to Build Non-Gas-Burning Car Would Not Save Company
Thursday, April 02, 2009
By Matt Cover

The report on General Motors released by the White House says the company’s restructuring plan will not lead to a stronger company, in part because the beleaguered auto giant’s proposal to rely more heavily on advanced, fuel-efficient cars is not commercially viable.  (I know, it's the White House talking, not Obama)

The report’s findings stand in stark contrast with the President’s chief goal for America’s auto industry: leading the world in green car production.

“I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal:  The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars,” Obama declared  < CNS News >

QUOTE

Lawrence Summers, a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, pulled in more than $2.7 million in speaking fees paid by firms at the heart of the financial crisis, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America Corp. and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers.

He pulled in another $5.2 million from D.E. Shaw, a hedge fund for which he served as managing director from October 2006 until joining the administration.

Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was paid $3.9 million by the power law firm O’Melveny & Myers to represent clients including two firms that receieved federal bailout funds: Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. He also disclosed that he’s a member of the Trilateral Commission and sits on the steering committee of the supersecret Bilderberg group. Both groups are favorite targets of conspiracy theorists.

And White House Counsel Greg Craig earned $1.7 million in private practice representing an exiled Bolivian president, a Panamanian lawmaker wanted by the U.S. government for allegedly murdering a U.S. soldier and a tech billionaire accused of securities fraud and various sensational drug and sex crimes.

QUOTE

Close the revolving door on former and future employers:
No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

QUOTE

While Mr. Obama campaigned on a pledge to restrict lobbyists from working in the White House, a step intended to reduce any influence between the administration and corporations, the ban did not apply to former executives like Mr. Summers, who was not a registered lobbyist. In 2006, he became a managing director of D. E. Shaw, a firm that manages about $30 billion in assets, making it one of the biggest hedge funds in the world.

“Dr. Summers was not an adviser to or an employee of the firms that paid him to speak,” Mr. LaBolt said.

He added, “Of course, since joining the White House, he has complied with the strictest ethics rules ever required of appointees and will not work on specific matters to which D. E. Shaw is a party for two years.”

< http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/politics/04disclose.html?ref=us >

QUOTE

But there's more than just Lynn. The administration's handling of other former lobbyists provides further evidence that the promise has been broken:

* In some cases, the White House apparently has decided that former lobbyists don't need waivers at all. If the former lobbyists simply recuse themselves from discussions concerning whatever interest it is for which they used to lobby, then that suffices.

* Recusals appear to have even less documentation than waivers. We have yet to see a recusal "order," despite having asked the White House for them. We know there are at least two recusals; there may be more. We're not sure how recusals specifically differ from waivers because the White House has said little about the policy.

* The White House is not prompt about releasing the waivers. For two nominees who didn't require Senate approval, waivers were released weeks after they were signed and after the people took their positions. These two waivers were also substantially less detailed than the waiver issued for Lynn.

QUOTE

What part did I leave out?    I quoted Obumbler's web site--in full.

QUOTE

What is it with you thinking I'm posting to you?

QUOTE

You COULD have eliminated any possible confusion, by putting his name on your quote and response--but you didn't.  

(jimhanson @ Apr. 05 2009,3:35 pm)

QUOTE

What part did I leave out?   I quoted Obumbler's web site--in full.

Obama prohibits lobbyists--UNLESS he gives them an exception!



The list is long and the "exceptions" are more convoluted.    From the St. Petersberg Times PolitiFactChecknull< My Webpage >




Read the rest of the article for more names.

Obambi requires 2 years out of office.  Remember, these are the same libbies that went berserk about any possible ties of VP Cheney to Halliburton--even though Cheney had been gone and sold his stock 3 years before taking office.

(jimhanson @ Apr. 05 2009,4:15 pm)

QUOTE

 

Maybe it was because my post directly preceeded your response.

Maybe it was because I posted at 2:36, and you replied at 2:57--only 21 minutes later.  You say you were replying to CC--who posted 19 hours before?

You COULD have eliminated any possible confusion, by putting his name on your quote and response--but you didn't.

Using your fuzzy logic, you could have been replying to someone who posted LAST WEEK!

Now--LIBERAL (I wanted to let you know I was talking to YOU!)  What do you think about the broken Obama lobbyist promise?

QUOTE

In a speech at the White House hours after GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York, Obama hailed GM's plan to emerge from its current woes as "credible" and "full of promise." But he also sought to reassure Americans skeptical about the plan's provisions to transfer a 60 percent ownership stake in the company to the U.S. government in return for an additional investment of about $30 billion during and after the bankruptcy process. The new infusion of cash will bring the total U.S. commitment to GM to about $50 billion.

"We are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help GM succeed," Obama said. "What we are not doing -- what I have no interest in doing -- is running GM."

< Washington Post >

QUOTE

“I think the determination has been made both by the previous administration and the current administration that this assistance is legal, and our goal is to ensure that the taxpayers in any instance when this is used feel confident that it’s being done in a transparent and accountable way.”  

When House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer where Obama derived the legal authority to do what he was doing. Hoyer candidly said he did not know.

QUOTE

“I don't know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don't know technically where that authority would be,” said Hoyer. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don't have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don't know technically the answer to that question.”

QUOTE

Does the GOP have a better plan, or is this just more of the republicans shouting from the sidelines because   they've been put out to pasture?

QUOTE

bank·rupt  (bāngk'rŭpt', -rəpt)    
n.  
Law A debtor that, upon voluntary petition or one invoked by the debtor's creditors, is judged legally insolvent. The debtor's remaining property is then administered for the creditors or is distributed among them.

QUOTE

Definition
When a troubled business is unable to service its debt or pay its creditors, the business or its creditors can file with a federal bankruptcy court for protection under either chapter 7 or chapter 11. In chapter 7, the business ceases operations and a trustee sells all of its assets and distributes the proceeds to its creditors. A chapter 11 filing is usually an attempt to stay in business while a bankruptcy court supervises the "reorganization" of the company's contractual and debt obligations. In most instances the debtor remains in control of its business operations as a "debtor in possession", and is subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court. The court can grant complete or partial relief from most of the company's debts and its contracts, so that the company can make a fresh start. Sometimes, if the business's debts exceed its assets, then at the completion of bankruptcy the company's owners all end up without anything; all their rights and interests are ended and the company's creditors are left with ownership of the newly reorganized company.

QUOTE

Investopedia Commentary

If the bankrupt entity is a firm, the ownership of the firm's assets is transferred from the stockholders to the bondholders. Shareholders are the last people to get paid if a company goes bankrupt. Secure creditors always get first grabs at the proceeds from liquidation.

QUOTE

Once again I didn't hear you complaining when a fellow republican was throwing money at the banks.

QUOTE

Recall that MOST Repubs (and EVERY conservative) voted AGAINST the TARP money.  

Conservatives thought the auto companies SHOULD declare bankruptcy.  The Obamunists favored the bailout--it not only increases their stranglehold, but if the car companies declared bankruptcy, the fat union contracts would be voided.

The government let nearly every AIRLINE declare bankruptcy, and they all went through it--reorganized, and are still flying.  Why NOT the car companies--except for the reasons cited?

Ford didn't take TARP money, and is profitable.  Toyota, Saturn, and Honda are profitable.  The thing that all of the profitable companies have in common?  No huge union costs.  The thing that all Detroit automakers have in common?  BIG union contracts.

Sorry--but no amount of government meddling will ever make these companies profitable as long as they stay in Detroit and have these contracts.

Obama thinks he can run a car company?  The guy that has never run ANYTHING?    Maybe he should try getting Amtrak, the Post Office, and other government agencies on track first.  

Libbies like to talk about "Our jobs and our money going overseas"--then they put up with a forced sale to Fiat--the Italian econo-box manufacturer.    

WHERE in the Constitution does it say that the President can dictate who can and can't work for a company, and what the company can PRODUCE, how it is DISTRIBUTED, and how it is PRICED?  

GM now stands for "Government Motors"--they and Chrysler should simply be like Ford and say "no thanks--we don't want the money under your terms!"  If they have to take bankruptcy, it is preferable to the Fascist push of the Obamunists.

State (Federal) control NEVER works, whether it is the Stalinist "Five Year Plan", the Russian plans to make tractors, tanks, or planting of potatoes, or the Chinese Communist "Great Leap Forward."  

QUOTE

Forget the Illinois politics--preachers--"pay for play"--this is the closest to Al Capone yet!

OR THIS ONE

[QUOTE]To paraphrase:

1.  Banks get TARP money--and are beholden to the government.

2.  Chrysler gets bailout money.

3.  The Administration wants to force a sale of Chrysler.

4.  The Administration tells the banks that got money from the government to call Chrysler's note.

5.  The major lender to Chrysler DIDN'T take bailout money.  They refuse to settle for the pennies on the dollar that the Administration was offering.  They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to get the best deal they can.

6.  The government will take a big stake in Chrysler, and the United Auto Workers will also take a big stake.  The people that LOANED money to Chrysler and INVESTED in the company get small  potatoes.

7.  The Administration tries to strongarm the bank--threatening to "use the White House Press Corp to ruin them."  Who knew that the White House Press Corp was an arm of the White House--they've dropped any pretense of impartiality.  (Does this sound like Nazi Germany, or what?)  Maybe it's more like Al Capone's guys--"You'se got a good reputation here.  Would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it!"

8.  The bank's lawyer goes public with the information.

9.  The information is corroborated by Chrysler execs.

Since WHEN is it the government's business to "arrange" buyouts?  

Since WHEN is the government empowered to take money from the people that invested it, and give it to those who didn't--the UAW?

Is it any WONDER that the banks are trying to give back the TARP money?

QUOTE

The bail out is immoral and unconstitutional.  Show me where in the constitution that it gives congress the right to steal from the American taxpayers to serve foolish mistakes by special interests?

QUOTE

If $25 or $50 billion is what it will take to keep the American automobile industry from total collapse, I can think of no one better to rescue them than oil.

Of course the Big Three isn't going to ask them. They are asking the taxpayer or more specifically the special interest group who are supposedly the taxpayer to fund their aid package. Asking the oil corporate giants would only open up a new can of worms.

QUOTE

Seems like the decision has been made already to keep them afloat.  Isn't this already part two?  This is the second time...so far.

Who's saying the GOP wants to force them into bankrupcy?  If that's what does happen, so be it.  The companies need to think this out for themselves, not be parented by the government.  You don't think I don't have a stake in this and am still against any bailout?

QUOTE

Seems to me that if this is round two, we all know which President gave them round one.   (this is where any good liberal would use a   , isn't it?)    

(MADDOG @ Jun. 02 2009,12:42 pm)

QUOTE

Perhaps you chose not to research your reply.

From September 29:

November 22:

March 31:  Seems to me that if this is round two, we all know which President gave them round one.   (this is where any good liberal would use a   , isn't it?)  

QUOTE

   



I have no idea what you're trying to say?

QUOTE

Another first in American history.

The Obama administration has determined that Chrysler is not a viable stand alone company.  Under his plan, the government will provide money to force forge a merger with Fiat.   If they don't, he won't give them any more money.

No other president in history has ever forced an American company to sell to a foriegn one.

QUOTE

GM's Hummer sold to Chinese company  

03 June 2009

In the first ever acquisition of a US car maker by a Chinese business, privately-owned Chengdu-based road and construction equipment maker  Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company, has acquired bankrupt auto giant General Motor's large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks sold under the Hummer brand in a deal believed to be $500 million.  < Hummer sold >

QUOTE

Illegal, Unfair Auto Bailout That Harms Retirees and Taxpayers Challenged in Chrysler Bankruptcy

The Indiana State Teachers’ Retirement Fund is rightly challenging the diversion of tens of billions of dollars of federal TARP bank bailout money to pay for auto bailouts in the Chrysler bankruptcy case. That diversion violates the law. It is part of the government’s unfair reorganization plan for Chrysler, which rips off pension funds to provide short-sighted, unsustainable preferential treatment for the UAW.

(The bailouts are doing no good. General Motors and Chrysler would actually have been better off if they had filed for bankruptcy last year, rather than taking federal money, since the bailouts have come with costly political strings attached, such as dropping opposition to costly CAFE regulations and other federal mandates, and bowing to political meddling in fundamental corporate decisionmaking, and have left the automakers with higher labor costs than if they had just ripped up their collective bargaining agreements in a standard bankruptcy, endangering their long-run competitiveness. Indeed, the politicized auto bailouts resemble the failed British auto bailouts of the 1970s). < openmarket.org >

QUOTE

Does anybody know--with Hummer now sold to the Chinese, will they be making our military vehicles?

QUOTE

Obama lawyer: Chrysler-Fiat must be allowed

U.S. solicitor general asks Supreme Court to ignore appeal of Chrysler bankruptcy made by Indiana pension fund.

A top Obama administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court on Monday to allow Chrysler's bankruptcy to proceed, noting that the needs of the economy outweigh the needs of the deal's detractors.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed a request that the court deny an appeal by Indiana pension funds that had invested in Chrysler and say they will lose $6 million because of the bankruptcy.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock argues that the Chrysler case upends long-standing bankruptcy law. He also says President Obama has overstepped his authority by using funds from the $700 billion TARP bailout, originally enacted to rescue the financial sector, for an automaker bailout.

Kagan defended the use of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and argued that Indiana's appeal lacks legal merit. In addition, she said the losses to the Indiana funds "cannot outweigh" the potential broader problems a collapse of Chrysler would present.

"As an economic matter ... blocking the transaction would undoubtedly have grave consequences," Kagan wrote.

This is the last opportunity for Mourdock to stall Chrysler's bankruptcy process, following his unsuccessful appeal to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Mourdock filed his appeal on behalf of three Indiana pension funds, representing state police and teachers as well as a "Major Moves" construction fund.

The U.S. Supreme Court has until 4 p.m. ET on Monday to either listen to Mourdock's appeal, or ignore it, allowing Chrysler to proceed with its bankruptcy process.

The Indiana funds represent $42 million of Chrysler's $6.9 billion debt, which the automaker is trying to unload through the Chapter 11 process. Mourdock has told CNNMoney.com that it's his duty as state treasurer to oppose Chrysler's bankruptcy, because some $6 million worth of pension funds would get wiped out in the deal.

Chrysler, which filed for Chapter 11 on April 30, is trying get approval to transfer its best-performing assets, such as factories and dealership contracts, to a new company called Chrysler Group, partnering with the Italian automaker Fiat.

Fiat would own 20% of Chrysler Group initially, though this share could eventually increase. The biggest share of 55% would be controlled by a United Auto Workers union trust. A minority stake of 8% would go to the U.S. government, and 2% would be held by the federal and provincial governments of Canada and Ontario.

Fiat has until June 15 to change its mind on the deal. After that date, Fiat is locked in.

Chrysler's asset transfer was approved just hours before the bankruptcy filing of General Motors (GMGMQ) on June 1. The Chrysler bankruptcy process is being closely watched by investors, to see how it might impact GM.

The recession has dried up consumer demand, pushing Chrysler and GM to the edge of survival. Rising fuel prices, job losses and the bank industry's temporary hiatus from offering car loans have all contributed to the decline of the Detroit-based auto industry.

President Obama pushed Chrysler and GM toward bankruptcy, after the auto makers failed to satisfy his expectations for an industry overhaul. Obama has requested that the Chapter 11 process be completed within 30 to 60 days.

QUOTE

noting that the needs of the economy outweigh the needs of the deal's detractors.