A Vision of our Future

[vesper]

Oh vesper, your post is hysterical for two reasons (my spleen cant take it). 1 I've already proven that "discussions have already been taking place" . the republicans are saying SS is broke and we should cut benefits to reduce the deficit (and I posted a Heritage link you must read and obey). 2 You had to post a lying editorial to try 'craft your narrative'.

Q: Are congressional Democrats talking about confiscating IRA and 401(k) investment accounts?

A: No. There’s no plan to seize these accounts. One House witness at a committee hearing proposed to allow some people to trade their old accounts for a new type that would be less risky.

IRAs, 401(k)s and You

so vesper, if you and cal are so concerned about pension benefit cuts to reduce deficits, then why are you not mad at conservatives? wait, do you have special definition of "pension cuts" or "deficit" we should be aware of?

There are courses on the internet to take that encourage improvement on reading comprehension.
Nowhere did I state that there was a current bill being offered on GRA's. Only that it had been discussed.
But there is a record of Democrats entertaining the idea through meetings in the House committees.
That alone should cause many to pause.
And for the record your FactCheck.org source is funded by the Annenberg Foundation which receives much support from George Soros, the Sugah Daddy of the Democrat party. Hardly non partisan.

 

[Vern]

There are courses on the internet to take that encourage improvement on reading comprehension.
Nowhere did I state that there was a current bill be offered on GRA's.
But there is a record of Democrats entertaining the idea through meetings in the House.
That alone should cause many to pause.
And for the record your FactCheck.org source is funded by the Annenberg Foundation which receives much support from George Soros, the Sugah Daddy of the Democrat party. Hardly non partisan.

oh vesper, to cling to a narrative even after I've proven it false is just sad. And then the tired "librul media" whine. you need help. If you want to prove "confiscation" was discussed then get the testimony. And then you need to get the quotes of the dems saying "confiscate American's 401ks!?!?!? that's a great idea". (my spleen cant take it!!!!)

That just makes your narrative false on two counts. and yet you cling to it. .

 

[vesper]

oh vesper, to cling to a narrative even after I've proven it false is just sad. And then the tired "librul media" whine. you need help. If you want to prove "confiscation" was discussed then get the testimony. And then you need to get the quotes of the dems saying "confiscate American's 401ks!?!?!? that's a great idea". (my spleen cant take it!!!!)

That just makes your narrative false on two counts. and yet you cling to it. .

You haven't proved squat only in your own mind. But today is your lucky day!
I have been able to locate the hearing in the House that I referenced earlier where Teresa Ghilarducci was asked by Democrats to appear to give testimony in favor of nationalizing IRA's.
Progressives/Democrats Want Your 401K: Dr. Ghilarducci Testifies Before House Committee On 401K Takeover

Now go pop some corn and sit back and watch!

 

[Lamees]

Yeah!
I also have some savings for my future dream home. I want to build my dream home, hope to do it soon.

Robina Property Management

 

[Vern]

Oh no, is this going to be another thread where you make a false statement, then try to justify it and claim you never said it. Yep, it sure is.

You haven't proved squat only in your own mind. But today is your lucky day!

Er uh yes I have. Not only did I prove that your “confiscate” claim was lie, you did too. You proved it with the video and you proved it by changing your verbiage to “nationalize”. You’ve done this before vesper.

I have been able to locate the hearing in the House that I referenced earlier where Teresa Ghilarducci was asked by Democrats to appear to give testimony in favor of nationalizing IRA's.

But vesper, werent' you supposed to find the testimony where she wanted to “confiscate” American’s 401ks and the quotes from democrats saying “"confiscate American's 401ks!?!?!? that's a great idea".” Remember your silly claim is "confiscate". And get this you didn't even find where she wants to "nationalize IRAs" (your new and improved false narrative).
.
You did find testimony of a person saying that 401ks don’t help the middle class as much we think and the upper class gets most the 80 billion in tax breaks that 401k’s cost the treasury. Oooo scary stuff for silly cons. OH WAIT!!! I FOUND THE ‘CONSFISCATE’ OR ‘NATIONALIZE’ OR WHATEVER YOUR NEXT WORD WILL BE QUOTE

“Allow workers to swap out their 401k assets for guaranteed retirement account. “

sorry vesper, that proves both of your narratives are false, "confiscate" and "nationalize". thanks for helping prove me right. you should read her link. She makes good points.

Anyhoo, I’ve proven my point that republicans want to reduce pension benefits to help the deficit just like the things that you and the OP 'fretted over'. And you've proven you wont let the facts get in the way of what you really really really really want to believe. And vesper, did you see how I did it so easily. I didn't have to 'weave a tale'. I didn't have make things up. I didn't have to pretend I didn't say things I said. please show this and some other threads to a trusted friend or relative.

 

[vesper]

Oh no, is this going to be another thread where you make a false statement, then try to justify it and claim you never said it. Yep, it sure is.

Er uh yes I have. Not only did I prove that your “confiscate” claim was lie, you did too. You proved it with the video and you proved it by changing your verbiage to “nationalize”. You’ve done this before vesper.


But vesper, werent' you supposed to find the testimony where she wanted to “confiscate” American’s 401ks and the quotes from democrats saying “"confiscate American's 401ks!?!?!? that's a great idea".” Remember your silly claim is "confiscate". And get this you didn't even find where she wants to "nationalize IRAs" (your new and improved false narrative).
.
You did find testimony of a person saying that 401ks don’t help the middle class as much we think and the upper class gets most the 80 billion in tax breaks that 401k’s cost the treasury. Oooo scary stuff for silly cons. OH WAIT!!! I FOUND THE ‘CONSFISCATE’ OR ‘NATIONALIZE’ OR WHATEVER YOUR NEXT
WORD WILL BE QUOTE

“Allow workers to swap out their 401k assets for guaranteed retirement account. “

sorry vesper, that proves both of your narratives are false, "confiscate" and "nationalize". thanks for helping prove me right. you should read her link. She makes good points.

Anyhoo, I’ve proven my point that republicans want to reduce pension benefits to help the deficit just like the things that you and the OP 'fretted over'. And you've proven you wont let the facts get in the way of what you really really really really want to believe. And vesper, did you see how I did it so easily. I didn't have to 'weave a tale'. I didn't have make things up. I didn't have to pretend I didn't say things I said. please show this and some other threads to a trusted friend or relative.

When a government entertains the idea of not allowing me to oversee my own IRA and wants the government to do so through Social Security, taking away from me the right to manage my own money. I call that confiscation. You don't care for my choice of words. Too bad. That doesn't change the fact that Democrats are entertaining the idea of GRA's and the video proves that point

The woman asked by the Democrats to give testimony was Teresa Ghilarducci . She submitted her study to the committee. Here is a link once again to her paper describing how to implement GRA's.
Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

 

[CalGun]

Bush's budget wasn't approved by congress until March 2009, oops bet you didn't get that memo did you.

Did you account for the money paid back from Tarp 1 out of the 2008-9 budget; nope you conveniently left those out too huh?

You may not use bumper stickers but you do use partisan hackery without an open mind. Hence discussion is worthless.

so I guess we dont want to discuss the similarities about whats going in Poland and the republican agenda. You seem concerned for the poles and expressed concern about it happening in this country. But now you want to whine about the facts I posted.

anyhoo, I dont get my facts from bumper stickers like you. the CBO revised the Bush 2009 budget deficit to 1.2 trillion on Jan 7,2009. In case you dont realize it, thats BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER. and the deficit increased another 200 billion because of revenue collapsed even further

_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

 

[Vern]

When a government entertains the idea of not allowing me to oversee my own IRA and wants the government to do so through Social Security, taking away from me the right to manage my own money. I call that confiscation. You don't care for my choice of words. Too bad. That doesn't change the fact that Democrats are entertaining the idea of GRA's and the video proves that point

Oh, you’re back to the “confiscation” lie. You see vesper, when you post it now, you don’t get to claim ignorance of the facts. Anyhoo, as I said, I’ve proven that republicans have actually had discussions about cutting pension benefits to lower the deficit. That’s what the thread starter and you fretted about. You’ve posted a poorly crafted and lying narrative to make the same claim about democrats.

FYI, GRA doesn’t mean “confiscation” or “nationalize” but your silly and lying narrative requires that false equivalency. Oh and the proposal is independent of SS (you should read the links you post once in a while)

oooooo, this is scary stuff vesper.

"The plan calls for all workers not enrolled in an equivalent or better defined-benefit pension to enroll in a GRA, a plan that borrows the best features of defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans, including guaranteed retirement benefits that last a lifetime, low administrative costs, and steady contributions."

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Pensions should have complete protection in bankruptcy, so that instead of paying investors and creditor, pension have priority, since their work built the company.

Wait, the GOP crafted the new bankruptcy laws to make sure that didn't happen.

It's almost as if the OP is being disingenuous.

Obama administration guaranteed that....guaranteed union pensions through the bankruptcy of GM & Chrysler...even gave a portion of the company to the unions....contrary to bankruptcy law...the administration ignored secured creditors in favor of non-secure creditors (unions).

 

[Vern]

Obama administration guaranteed that....guaranteed union pensions through the bankruptcy of GM & Chrysler...even gave a portion of the company to the unions....contrary to bankruptcy law...the administration ignored secured creditors in favor of non-secure creditors (unions).

thank you for proving that cons simply can not criticize President Obama without posting some silly lie they heard on the radio and really really really want to believe. Using actual words and whole sentences explain "contrary to bankruptcy law" and then back it up

(we both know you cant but for some reason cons simply cant admit the truth)

 

[Vern]

Bush's budget wasn't approved by congress until March 2009, oops bet you didn't get that memo did you.

Did you account for the money paid back from Tarp 1 out of the 2008-9 budget; nope you conveniently left those out too huh?

You may not use bumper stickers but you do use partisan hackery without an open mind. Hence discussion is worthless.

the only thing you got right was "Bush's budget". everything else was some silly delusion or pointless question. Since you like questions, here's one for you "how did the govt spend money if Bush didn't sign the "bush's budget"?

 

[Fenton]

The future is now. It seems that there is
prevalent republican narrative that social security is broke and we should cut benefits so as to reduce the deficit. and the funny thing is they're the ones that caused the massive deficits. But dont worry, SS cuts wont affect their constituents.

not that I need a link

2013 Social Security Trust Fund Reports Massive Deficits, Benefit Cuts

7 Trillion in 4.5 Years under a hard left President and it's the REPUBLICANS who created all of the debt ?

Wrong again vern.

And just in case you go all Iraq war on us, the Democrats voted to pay for that too.

 

[Fenton]

the only thing you got right was "Bush's
budget". everything else was some silly delusion or pointless question. Since you like questions, here's one for you "how did the govt spend money if Bush didn't sign the "bush's budget"?

3 out of the 12 2009 spending appropiations bills were signed by Bush, Obama and the Democrats signed the other 9, and wasted nearly a Trillion dolalrs in " stimulus" on top of that.

No matter how you cut it Obama added an extra 7 trillion in structural debt in 4.5 years and the economy is sicker than ever.

I think you libs should lose your right to vote for a few years, until you demonstrate you can make intelligent decisions.

 

[CalGun]

The last budget bush signed was the 08, the 09 he submitted was added to by the socialist congress and signed by your dearly beloved. Here I made it easy for you

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the only thing you got right was "Bush's budget". everything else was some silly delusion or pointless question. Since you like questions, here's one for you "how did the govt spend money if Bush didn't sign the "bush's budget"?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

thank you for proving that cons simply can not criticize President Obama without posting some silly lie they heard on the radio and really really really want to believe. Using actual words and whole sentences explain "contrary to bankruptcy law" and then back it up

(we both know you cant but for some reason cons simply cant admit the truth)

for some reason Libtards refuse to admit the truth when it comes to this administration.

Simply put for those of you with no understanding...or are Libtards...same thing anyways.... Secured creditors are always priority over non-secured creditors in a bankruptcy. If there is any liquidation, repayment etc... the secured creditors are always put at the top of the list for repayment....they may only get pennies on the dollar in settlement, but secured creditors are always priority over unsecured ones. Unsecured creditors get whats left in order of the amount they are owed, the more you are owed the higher up the list you are prioritized.

Bond holders - 401K plans, retirement accounts etc... were forced to settle $27.2 Billion worth of stock for 10% of the new GM stock...thats less than 5 cents on every dollar while the unions get 40% ownership in GM and the Government gets a 50% share of ownership.

The government invested $16.2 billion into GM.
The union retirement accounts accounted for just under $20 Billion.

Now the government had the least invested in GM, the unions had 2nd least and the bondholders had the most money invested.

The government got 50% ownership
The unions got 40% ownership
The bondholders got 10% ownership.

In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated -- because all three are, for the most part, unsecured creditors of GM. And yet according to the formula presented to the court by Timothy Geithner and his auto task force, led by Steven Rattner, those with the largest claim -- the bondholders -- get the smallest piece of the restructured company by a huge margin.

So you, me and everyone else who has an IRA, 401K or any type of investment account that had GM stock got royally screwed in favor of the Union and its pension plan.

If you need it spelled out any clearer on how the Obama administration screwed the people over and turned the bankruptcy reorganization on its head in favor of the unions at the cost of the people I am sure I could find a picture book illustrating the scenario for you.

 

[Vern]

The last budget bush signed was the 08, the 09 he submitted was added to by the socialist congress and signed by your dearly beloved. Here I made it easy for you

oh cal, what would cons and their silly delusions do without the magic of Wikipedia. You might as well post a link to Fenton’s posts as “proof”. Bush signed full year appropriations for 3 depts and half year for the remaining 9 (fenton knows this but see how he cant post it in a clear straightforward manner). I’d post a link but we both know you don’t care about the facts.

for some reason Libtards refuse to admit the truth when it comes to this administration.

er uh Imnu, I didn’t ask you to post more silly lies and delusions. I clearly asked you “Using actual words and whole sentences explain "contrary to bankruptcy law" and then back it up” See how you chose to just babble on and on instead. I can only assume there is some therapeutic value to you babbling on and on because we both know you cant back up your point.

And even though you in no way said, I know you think bondholders are secured creditors. You babbled about secured ahead of non secured and then your next paragraph was about bondholders. Even when you think you are right you refuse to post clear straightforward statements. If you didn’t believe every lie you hear on the radio, you could post clear straightforward statements.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

er uh Imnu, I didn’t ask you to post more silly lies and delusions. I clearly asked you “Using actual words and whole sentences explain "contrary to bankruptcy law" and then back it up” See how you chose to just babble on and on instead. I can only assume there is some therapeutic value to you babbling on and on because we both know you cant back up your point.

And even though you in no way said, I know you think bondholders are secured creditors. You babbled about secured ahead of non secured and then your next paragraph was about bondholders. Even when you think you are right you refuse to post clear straightforward statements. If you didn’t believe every lie you hear on the radio, you could post clear straightforward statements.

I am sorry your "slightly Liberal" mind can not comprehend what was said. I plainly laid out the facts about the GM Bankruptcy and how the government led settlement was contrary to bankruptcy law. Give me a day or so and let me see if I can find a picture book that might make it easier for you to understand. I realize facts and Liberalism dont go together so, maybe, just maybe if I find a picture book...maybe using Curious George or something, it might help you better understand what it is...us adults...we are talking about.

This isnt a bash on your "Chosen One", it is simply laying out the facts...again, I realize facts are a Liberals kryptonite...of what this Administration did to the bankruptcy laws in the case of the GM Bankruptcy.

 

[Vern]

I am sorry your "slightly Liberal" mind can not comprehend what was said. I plainly laid out the facts about the GM Bankruptcy and how the government led settlement was contrary to bankruptcy law. Give me a day or so and let me see if I can find a picture book that might make it easier for you to understand. I realize facts and Liberalism dont go together so, maybe, just maybe if I find a picture book...maybe using Curious George or something, it might help you better understand what it is...us adults...we are talking about.
.

so you again claim “contrary to bankruptcy laws” but back nothing up. In fact, you seem to be under the delusion that the govt is an unsecured creditor. Read this slowly, the govt is the debtor in possession financier. they have the highest priority in bankruptcy. so you don’t even understand the simple things in a bankruptcy. that’s why it would be helpful if you tried to back up your points. First it would cut down on the number of your silly posts and it would make it easier to understand what your exact delusions are so I don’t have to guess.

For instance, I have to assume “similarly situtated” is your vague and round about way to say “all unsecured creditors have to be treated the same”. this is of course something you got from a bumper sticker or conservative editorial because its not true.

and fyi, the unions weren’t bailed out. The 'conservative entertainment complex" uses that phrase to disguise the fact that it was the union VEBA for retiree medical benefits that was bailed out. And guess what, they are by law a higher priortity.

“When Congress added section 1114 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988, the idea was to make sure that retirees were paid their promised medical benefits, even though such benefits would otherwise be a relatively low priority in bankruptcy, as a pre-petition unsecured claim.96 The beauty of the section 1114 solution for Congress was that it gained political points for members who voted for the bill,97 but cost the U.S. Treasury nothing. Section 1114 did not commit tax dollars to bail out retiree benefits but simply reallocated resources within chapter 11 bankruptcies from one set of claimants to another”

http://www.uiowa.edu/~ilr/issues/ILR_96-1_Keating.pdf

 

[Imnukingfutz]

so you again claim “contrary to bankruptcy laws” but back nothing up. In fact, you seem to be under the delusion that the govt is an unsecured creditor. Read this slowly, the govt is the debtor in possession financier. they have the highest priority in bankruptcy. so you don’t even understand the simple things in a bankruptcy. that’s why it would be helpful if you tried to back up your points. First it would cut down on the number of your silly posts and it would make it easier to understand what your exact delusions are so I don’t have to guess.

For instance, I have to assume “similarly situtated” is your vague and round about way to say “all unsecured creditors have to be treated the same”. this is of course something you got from a bumper sticker or conservative editorial because its not true.

and fyi, the unions weren’t bailed out. The 'conservative entertainment complex" uses that phrase to disguise the fact that it was the union VEBA for retiree medical benefits that was bailed out. And guess what, they are by law a higher priortity.

“When Congress added section 1114 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988, the idea was to make sure that retirees were paid their promised medical benefits, even though such benefits would otherwise be a relatively low priority in bankruptcy, as a pre-petition unsecured claim.96 The beauty of the section 1114 solution for Congress was that it gained political points for members who voted for the bill,97 but cost the U.S. Treasury nothing. Section 1114 did not commit tax dollars to bail out retiree benefits but simply reallocated resources within chapter 11 bankruptcies from one set of claimants to another”

http://www.uiowa.edu/~ilr/issues/ILR_96-1_Keating.pdf

The governments bail out of GM & Chrysler would be considered an unsecured loan. There was no collateral placed against the bailout money, none what so ever.

The Union pension plans, the government bailout and the stockholders bonds are all in the same category - unsecured creditors.

At that point, payback to unsecured creditors falls behind "priority" creditors - secured creditors. Those would be suppliers, vendors, contractors & present employee pay (what is already due to them). If any money is left over, figured out by the attorneys and court trustee it then goes to unsecured creditors based on the highest amount owed on down.

The stockholders (you, me and everyone else that has any kind of investment portfolio - 401K, 403B, IRA, ROTH IRA etc that held GM stock) got shafted in favor of government and union ownership of GM.

Not only did UAW receive its ownership stake in GM to help it finance its healthcare trust (UAW is the actual owner of the stock), UAW received those shares as priority shares...even if GM falters when it comes out of bankruptcy, the UAW is guaranteed their trust fund will be financed.

 

[Vern]

The governments bail out of GM & Chrysler would be considered an unsecured loan. There was no collateral placed against the bailout money, none what so ever.

The Union pension plans, the government bailout and the stockholders bonds are all in the same category - unsecured creditors.

again, you cant even get the simple facts right. The govt was Debtor in Possession Financiers. they funded the bankruptcy. Stop. Your factless baseless rhetoric doesn't change that. The unsecured creditors were suppliers, bondholders (I'll assume you saying stockholders was a typo instead of ignorance) and the UAW VEBA trust.

And guess what, suppliers were made whole. They got top priority to prevent a catastrophic shutdown of the supplier base. And I've posted the relevant section from the Bankruptcy code that shows that the VEBA should have been given a higher priority. And your lack of knowledge of bankruptcy extends to the fact that you don't understand that the UAW has leverage in the bankruptcy proceedings that bondholders don't. You remember, the bankruptcy proceedings you said that was “contrary to bankruptcy laws” and have yet to back up. You repeated the factless rhetoric but you've backed nothing up.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

again, you cant even get the simple facts right. The govt was Debtor in Possession Financiers. they funded the bankruptcy. Stop. Your factless baseless rhetoric doesn't change that. The unsecured creditors were suppliers, bondholders (I'll assume you saying stockholders was a typo instead of ignorance) and the UAW VEBA trust.

And guess what, suppliers were made whole. They got top priority to prevent a catastrophic shutdown of the supplier base. And I've posted the relevant section from the Bankruptcy code that shows that the VEBA should have been given a higher priority. And your lack of knowledge of bankruptcy extends to the fact that you don't understand that the UAW has leverage in the bankruptcy proceedings that bondholders don't. You remember, the bankruptcy proceedings you said that was “contrary to bankruptcy laws” and have yet to back up. You repeated the factless rhetoric but you've backed nothing up.

you can see the government as a secured debtor all you want...the court and the law does not. You can see suppliers as an unsecured debtor all you want..the courts and the law does not.

The government the unions and the bond holders are all unsecured debtors with the government being the low man on the totem pole but yet they got the lions share of the ownership of GM, followed by the unions and then the bondholders got shafted.

The union made out the best out of the three, they got priority shares. GM could go belly up and the unions will have been taken care of by their pal in the WH & their pal in the treasury for their support. They have nothing to loose and everything to gain. The bondholders & the tax payers are the ones who got the shaft.

Here is a damn good article that goes into extreme detail on the Chrysler & GM Bankruptcies. It explains what shenanigans were pulled when and how, it explains what laws were broken by this administration and how the Bush administration circumvented Congress in the 1st phase of the Auto Bailout in 2008 and goes into detail on how the Obama administration used a "sub rosa plan" ... a section 363 sale (against 1978 Federal Bankruptcy laws) to screw secured creditors out of their money while handing over huge portions of each company to the UAW (up to 40% of GM & 55% of Chrysler). It is a long article but very much worth the read.
The Auto Bailout and the Rule of Law > Publications > National Affairs

Take the time to read it, you might become informed.

 

[Vern]

you can see the government as a secured debtor all you want...the court and the law does not. You can see suppliers as an unsecured debtor all you want..the courts and the law does not.

The government the unions and the bond holders are all unsecured debtors with the government being the low man on the totem pole but yet they got the lions share of the ownership of GM, followed by the unions and then the bondholders got shafted..

rule number 1. don't post a link and say "here, this says what I want to believe". Make a point, post the appropriate blurb from a reputable link and provide the link.

Now in your link, where does it say the govt is an unsecured creditor? Oh my, even you silly link calls the govt the "debtor in possession" financier. And you again somehow left suppliers off your list of unsecured creditors. again, you cant even get the simple facts right. And the 'editorial' you posted the link to counts on your lack of knowledge.

Now back up your newest factless empty rhetoric of the govt being "low man on the totem pole". Honestly, what would cons post if they couldn't post factless empty rhetoric?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

rule number 1. don't post a link and say "here, this says what I want to believe". Make a point, post the appropriate blurb from a reputable link and provide the link.

Now in your link, where does it say the govt is an unsecured creditor? Oh my, even you silly link calls the govt the "debtor in possession" financier. And you again somehow left suppliers off your list of unsecured creditors. again, you cant even get the simple facts right. And the 'editorial' you posted the link to counts on your lack of knowledge.

Now back up your newest factless empty rhetoric of the govt being "low man on the totem pole". Honestly, what would cons post if they couldn't post factless empty rhetoric?

General Motors Bankruptcy Filing

Here are the Bankruptcy filings, the actual paperwork. Please note that the US Government is NOT listed as a secure creditor. Here is a better question...show us anywhere that the government is a secured creditor for the GM or Chrysler bankruptcies.

I like how you buzzed over the law that was broken by this Administration to get this bankruptcy through. I guess if you ignore the truth it somehow goes away?

As far as - "here, this says what I want to believe" - call me old fashioned, but I tend to believe the truth and facts....I know thats a weird thing in Bizarre Liberal land.

Note in the bankruptcy filings who the largest creditor owed money to is..they are listed in order of most to least....if you even bother to read it.

You are like the horse that got led to the water but you couldnt make him drink...you are a liberal who you can show facts to but still cant make you think.

Now run back to where ever you get your talking points from and let them tell you how to respond because you certainly are not thinking for yourself...you might have to say a few Hail Obama's to get your answers, but I am sure you will come back and say something else just as stupid as - the government is a secured creditor in the GM bankruptcy.

 

[Vern]

Here are the Bankruptcy filings, the actual paperwork. Please note that the US Government is NOT listed as a secure creditor. Here is a better question...show us anywhere that the government is a secured creditor for the GM or Chrysler bankruptcies.

great link Imnu. I’ve never read the actual paper work. You have to understand, I post facts and the more facts I can get the better. Did you read the part about section 1114. You remember, the UAW Veba trust gets priority in bankruptcy. Strange that none of the editorials you rely on ever mention that don’t you think? mmmm, it probably hurts their lying narratives the President Obama treated bondholders unfairly. wait, I think con editorials claim he ‘broke the law’. so much for that lying narrative.

“In connection with the foregoing, the UAW has agreed to be the authorized representative for UAW-Represented Retirees for purposes of section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code and will enter into the UAW Retiree Settlement Agreement effective upon the closing of the 363 Transaction.”

good stuff. anyhoo, thank you for proving once and for all that you only see what you want to see because when I scroll down to Schedule 3: Consolidated List of Holders of 5 Largest Secured Claims the first creditor I see listed is the

United StatesDepartment of theTreasury

starts on page 69. If you go back to page 4 section EXECUTION OF LOAN FACILITIES – U.S. AND CANADA, you see that the US and Canada are explicitly called out as debtor in possession financiers. can you say “superpriority”?

“a secured superpriority debtor–in-possession credit agreement”

I like how you buzzed over the law that was broken by this Administration to get this bankruptcy through. I guess if you ignore the truth it somehow goes away? .

I didn’t “buzz over” anything. What laws were broken? You and your editorial keeps making the claim but doesn’t really explain it. Please be specific. We both know that the bondholders were not treated illegally. So that’s a lying narrative. What were the other laws remembering of course the bondholder thing was a lie?

and fyi Imnu, the unsecured debtors listed as “trade debt” are suppliers. so can you at least add suppliers as an unsecured debtor in your future factless posts?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

great link Imnu. I’ve never read the actual paper work. You have to understand, I post facts and the more facts I can get the better. Did you read the part about section 1114. You remember, the UAW Veba trust gets priority in bankruptcy. Strange that none of the editorials you rely on ever mention that don’t you think? mmmm, it probably hurts their lying narratives the President Obama treated bondholders unfairly. wait, I think con editorials claim he ‘broke the law’. so much for that lying narrative.

“In connection with the foregoing, the UAW has agreed to be the authorized representative for UAW-Represented Retirees for purposes of section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code and will enter into the UAW Retiree Settlement Agreement effective upon the closing of the 363 Transaction.”

good stuff. anyhoo, thank you for proving once and for all that you only see what you want to see because when I scroll down to Schedule 3: Consolidated List of Holders of 5 Largest Secured Claims the first creditor I see listed is the

United StatesDepartment of theTreasury

starts on page 69. If you go back to page 4 section EXECUTION OF LOAN FACILITIES – U.S. AND CANADA, you see that the US and Canada are explicitly called out as debtor in possession financiers. can you say “superpriority”?

“a secured superpriority debtor–in-possession credit agreement”



I didn’t “buzz over” anything. What laws were broken? You and your editorial keeps making the claim but doesn’t really explain it. Please be specific. We both know that the bondholders were not treated illegally. So that’s a lying narrative. What were the other laws remembering of course the bondholder thing was a lie?

and fyi Imnu, the unsecured debtors listed as “trade debt” are suppliers. so can you at least add suppliers as an unsecured debtor in your future factless posts?

All that link is to is the actual filing...not to the underhanded behind the scene shenanigans, broken law and pay back for support and the screwing of bond holders that went on.

What laws were broken? - a 363 sale to yourself is illegal and has been illegal since the 1978 bankruptcy overhaul. I stated this law but like everything else you either didnt see it or chose to ignore it. You cant declare bankruptcy and then be the only one buying stuff from yourself. A liquidation is exactly that, you liquidate. If someone bids higher than you, you loose. You cant have a private bankruptcy sale and be the only purchaser.

“a secured superpriority debtor–in-possession credit agreement” ....you mean "secured, non-contingent claims"? - look at the amount...$20B - page 70 (PDF page 94)
There are two separate loans made to GM in the bailout. 1st was in 2008 and was part of TARP - that is the secured loan....which has been paid back in full...remember the commercial that the GM President took so much flack over? Edited GM commercial claiming payback of government loan - YouTubeThe 2nd loan, a much larger one made to them in March 2009, is unsecured and is not listed on the bankruptcy filings at all. $20B does not equate to 60% +/- ownership nor does the UAW payoff...yea, its in a trust for the retired workers healthcare payments which are guaranteed even if GM goes belly up. But owned, operated and managed by the UAW, its the UAW's money to 1) pay for retired workers medical plans 2) when that is all paid for the remainder stays in UAW control. It wouldnt be so bad if it was managed, operated and handled by a third party...and when the last of the existing retirees passes into the social security stage, all remaining monies and shares go back to GM. But no, it stays in the hands of the UAW. It is nothing more than a pay off for support.

UAW trust gets priority in bankruptcy....yes it does because thats the way it was written by the administration. They were a non secured creditor and were put way ahead of other non-secured and secured creditors.

You are the only person I have had the chance to chat with...Liberal, Conservative, Independent who is insistent that the the Government didnt tilt this bankruptcy in their favor and the favor of the UAW over everyone else. You are in a world of your own there.