advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

MORE ON CHRYSLER'S BANKRUPTCY

By
Neal Boortz
@ May 5, 2009 8:29 AM
Permalink | Comments (68) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday I gave you a Boortz economic lesson in an attempt to explain what the Barack Obama administration is trying to pull in this Chrysler bankruptcy. The latest on this story ... Thomas Lauria, a lawyer for top creditors, has officially filed a motion to stop the Chrysler bankruptcy. Lauria claims that the Obama administration has violated the Constitution by trying to devalue the senior creditors' holdings on behalf of junior creditors. What does Lauria base this on? Something called the 5th Amendment. Maybe you have heard of it. Just in case, here is a little reminder:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But wait ... as they say ... there's more! Lauria, who represents the group referred to as the non-TARP lenders, is going to ask that the bankruptcy court keep the names of his client confidential. Why would that be? Because they have been receiving threats. You can bet that some of the threats are coming from union members. These union goons like the idea of their pension debts being given priority to Chrysler's secured lenders, and I think we all know what union goons do when something happens they don't like. There was a time not too long ago when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms noted that the number one illegal use of explosives in the United States came at the hands of union members engaged in work actions.

But there's another group threatening the secured non-TARP creditors. That would be the White House. Lauria and others have claimed that people within the Obama administration have made it clear that if any of these secured lenders get in the way of Obama's gift to the unions the White House will work to destroy their reputation. Now the White House denies this. What would you expect? But listen to the language ... Obama has attacked these people in public as being "vultures" and has painted them as evil capitalists who don't want to stand by the families of Chrysler workers. If he'll do this in public, what do you think his attack dogs will do in private?

Even if you think Obama hung the moon; even if you're now calling him the best president this country ever had; you just have to recognize the danger in the precedent that's been set here. The United Auto Workers are getting priority for their unsecured Chrysler debt simply because they are political powerful. Now just how is that going to work out for us in the future? Do you want to live in a financial world where lenders base lending decision in part on the political prominence of the borrower?

Giving unsecured creditors priority over secured lenders in bankruptcy proceedings .. now that's change you can believe in.



0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: MORE ON CHRYSLER'S BANKRUPTCY.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/29923

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!


Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Chrysler BK
    The case is in bankruptcy court and no judgments have been issued. So NO law has been broken. Obama let the U.S. court system handle the case.

    These hedge funds made a calculated bet that Obama will not let Chrysler fail because supposedly he is a socialist.
    The played a game of chicken and lost. It turns out Obama had bigger more courage than Bush's Bailout Nation and did not bailout the hedge funds.
    Now the hedge fund managers are afraid of lawsuits from the investors as they have to explain their decisions to them and who will most likely come out in worst in bankruptcy court so they are going on a public relations campaign claiming to be victims.
    The only winners are going to the hedge fund managers, the consultants and the lawyers who will eat whatever they get from bankruptcy court in fees.
  • Treating the bondholders like red-headed stepchildren...
    Neal wrote about this May 6,7, and 8 .
    Today the Wall Street Journal posts a great op-ed piece about this:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html

    It sounds like they read Neal's blog before they wrote theirs!
  • To: Chuck
    Thanks for the example! That illustrates my point perfectly.

    Yes, most liberals were opposed to Bush's plan to privatize Social Security... but who was claiming his proposal was ILLEGAL or "grounds for impeachment"? That's right--nobody.

    Likewise, your hatred of Obama's plan does not constitute lawbreaking, is not grounds for a civil suit, and certainly doesn't qualify for impeachment.

    The comments about "contempt for the law" are, as usual, pure hysteria.

    Thanks for making my point crystal-clear!
  • WHere the hell are we???
    We can dump $$BILLIONS$$$ into a company BECAUSE they are bankrupt, and my little concern can't get a measy $150k to start a business that will employ, rather than lay off, Americans.
  • To Robin: About Risk
    Robin,

    Some others here have made excellent points let me throw one more in. Ultimately it comes down to risk. All investment is inherently risky; however, in general the chance for return is increased with the level of risk you expect to take on. Senior Secured debt is in theory the safest investment you can make with a company. In general you either pay a premium for it or accept a much lower rate of return. If you make this kind of investment your are doing your due diligence to make sure your money is as safe as it can be investing in this particular company. Junior debt and equity all pay much better returns but you are implicitly making a riskier "bet" on the company to achieve those returns. What Obama is doing is telling the people that made what they thought was a safe bet that the need to "sacrifice" while he is telling people that made a risky bet you will be "made whole". Essentially h has stolen the security that the senior bond holders paid for and given it to people who should have known they were making a riskier bet. The problem is having done that the people who thought they were behaving responsibly and prudently are now going to get hurt. While others who should have known they were risking more get to get off scott free. It is in a sense the same situation as the mortgage mess. If I bought a house I can afford and you didn;t I behaved in a responsible manner. If the government then relieves you of your obligation but I keep mine I am a chump. pretty soon instead of being cautious for ourselves we have to rely on someone else at that point it is only a manner of time before you get hurt. Eventually someone will decide to reward some one else at your expense. Ultimately we want the government to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules, not make some people win and others lose.
  • re:Copyleft = Wrong again!
    No, Copy, let me make it easy for you...making a speech is not as innocuous as you seem to think. It's being discussed because somebody in power thinks it's a great idea. Remember when the Left collectively soiled itself because Bush spoke openly about revising Social Security to allow younger people to designate part of their contribution to go into mutual funds or bonds? Is it easy for you now? Stay with me here, there will be a quiz later...so, as you say, making a speech isn't breaking a law. Proposing a radical change in the tax code which punishes companies doing business offshore or punishing bondholders and tossing the idea of putting UAW pensions ahead of all other considerations at Chrysler is a hot tamale. One the President may wish he'd left on the plate. Got it? No laws broken so far, but flirting with an issue that outflanks existing protections makes these legal issues, whether you like it or not. I'm so gald we had this discussion. Now, hurry along and drink your Koolaid and eat your Obama cookies!
  • I don't know Joyce
    "That a good portion of the UAW pension plans would be made up of these same bonds/bond funds?"

    They're WAY too shrewd for that. Who do you think we're dealing with? We've got the Chicago Politics mixed in with REAL organized crime. They would have never put themselves in a position like that.
  • @David "Maybe pensions need to be secured in the future. It seems criminal that the workers get the shaft if things go bad."
    You know as well as everyone else that nothing in life is truly guaranteed. If you want the Gov't to secure debt, what happens if our country is invaded and our gov't replaced.

    There is no way for you to totally secure your retirement. This whole concept of a true pension plan is less than 100 years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#History

    Humanity has survived THOUSANDS of years without them.
  • Wouldn't you think
    That a good portion of the UAW pension plans would be made up of these same bonds/bond funds?

    So they are probably screwing themselves.
  • Secured Creditors
    Think about it this way....I borrow money from a bank to buy my house. I default on my home loan and the government steps in and awards the house to the guy who mows the lawn instead of the bank that loaned the money. Then they called the banker a criminal and threatened to send a mob to his house if he opposed the deal. Got it?
  • Yah know
    I hate beat a dead horse into a thick paste and then dust but if we had the Fairtax up and running our current problems would be like Margaret Mitchell's novel, Gone with the Wind..... :)
  • Trublu
    It's funny, I was just thinking along the same lines this morning, but more along the lines of the talk show host.

    I like Rush and Mark Levin, but both are tough to listen to because of their ranting and ravings. They also tend to denigrate anyone who disagrees with them. Even Shawn Hanity is getting hard to listen to and my 17 year (who is being raised a staunch conservative) will not watch his show. As he put it he's a hypocrite for complaining about the MSM while having his little segment on "Liberal Translation".

    What we need is someone who will use logic and respect (to a degree) and have intelligent conversations with both sides. Neal is the best out there right now. But the best I've seen yet was Oliver North. We need someone like him on the radio again.
  • To Robin, Hope this makes sense to you?
    Robin, I do not think that you understand what a bond holder is. One of the bond holders that is currently fighting this is a Fund that my 401K is invested in. I am not rich, far from it. I only make $45k a year and my 401K is all the savings I got for my future. If the "Bond Holders" get screwed like you HOPE THEY DO, I loose a GOOD bit of my 401K. I had to work lots of hours to get it where it is now. Does this make sense to you now? The Bond holders are not ALL RICH people but people just like you trying t save for the future, retirement or for the kids education. So you see, screwing the bond holders also effects little people too.

    So why should I loose my 401K while a union guy that help run the company into the ground gets to keep his. That is not RIGHT OR FAIR!
  • To Robin
    You asked if a pension was property. I suppose it is, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

    The pension in this case is something the company (Chrysler) owes to their retired employees as compensation for many years of work and as long as the company can they are obligated to pay these benefits. Some companies or employees choose to invest this money someplace other than leaving it with the company. This is a much smarter way of saving for retirement. Many companies have been taken over through hostel takeovers and the retirement funds were raided and the company later sold as junk. This is wrong and measures should be put in place to protect against this. Most companies are going to an employee owned 401K retirement system. This way it is now out of the hands of the employer (and the government).

    What is a 401K? It is usually mutual funds and many of them are made up of stocks and bonds from banks. Yes, banks.

    SO when the banks "write this off" the investors with their retirement funds in the mutual fund owning their bonds take a hit. In other words, their retirement is taken from them (by the government).

    In this case, the government is choosing which citizen deserves his retirement more, and it really comes down to whether he is in a union or not. You see, the unions donated about $18 million to the democrats for the last election so of course they get the protection. The employees of Chrysler followed the union and have a retirement system they asked for. Those with a 401K have legal protection and should be the first in line for protection because that is what the law calls for.

    Now, back to the property issue. If the company owns the retirement fund and through mismanagement or extortion from the unions go out of business the retirement fund is gone too. Lost. Not taken by force.

    The 5th amendment is protection from the GOVERNMENT TAKING your property without due process, kind of like what the government is doing to the banks and their investors who are also saving for a retirement. You see the LAW says they will be paid first because the banks made secured loans to Chrysler. Unfortunately the retirees have no leverage. Is this right? Probably not, but guess what? It's the law. It was the law when they took the job with the promise of a retirement at the end. Their union could have done a better job of protecting the employees by making sure the retirement was secure, but chose a more greedy route.

    If this is allowed to happen contracts will me meaningless, as will laws and this will result in nothing more than anarchy. There will be no laws and people will take what they want when they want from who they want. You could be next.
  • TruBlu
    You are very very right.

    But if that doesn't work can I reach through the internet and smack them???

    JUST KIDDING! Just throwing that out there in honor of Dom.
  • Chrysler/UAW
    Have owned Chrysler products since 1958, if this deal gets done with the UAW holding controlling share, I will not buy another Chrysler product again!!!
  • To David...
    This is by design. There is no doubt about it. This is change. Welcome to the NWO.
  • I'm all for joining the ACLU!
    That is, the American Constitutional Law Union. This would be a great idea, Ben Dover. We'd need the lawyers, but i'd donate to it.
  • Extortion is not a crime
    Copyleft - Making a "suggestion" that a shopkeeper pay protection money is extortion. Obama seems to have made a similar "suggestion" aka "an offer they can't refuse"
  • What if Obama is found guilty
    If Obama or the White House is found guilty in this lawsuit, could this be grounds for violation of his Oath of Office?
  • Wait until what goes around comes home to roost!
    All these new Obama power goodies will eventually be available to Republicans. One day a Republican will be president, maybe in 2012 ... maybe 2016 ...

    Does anyone have cool list of all the nifty things Republicans can do with these newly created Obama gubmint powers?

    You know ... what would Republicans just love to do if they somehow found themselves in a position to wield Obama power?

    I'll start:
    1) Drill the heck out of Alaska and call it a 'rebate' (whatever)
    2) Refer movie star salaries as "bonuses" and cut them down to a realistic "living wage."
    3) Provide stimulus money to oil companies, paid for by increased taxes on old junker cars (because the pollute more), which coincidentally are usually owned by poor people.
    4) Redefine the word "poor" as being a person who does not own a cell phone, TV, car, microwave, house, or central AC, etc.
    5) In the name of 'fairness' and 'justice', begin re-interpreting the living document Constitution to mean that all males must register for selective service withing 30 days of their 18th birthday, and must also own a firearm to comply with Constitutional "militia" requirements.

    OK - a bit silly, I know.

    But - what would Republicans REALLY do with Obama power when the day finally comes?
  • Pension
    Maybe pensions need to be secured in the future. It seems criminal that the workers get the shaft if things go bad.
  • 74 Doge Dart
    Was the last Chrysler product I owned...It was a good vehicle...I was young and had no concept of what car maintenance was. The body was falling apart, but it never stopped running. *shrug* They used to make a good vehicle.

    Now I buy Toyota. I have a 1990 Toyota pickup with 300,000 miles on it and it still runs like a champ. I wouldn't part with it for love nor money. When it dies, I'll get it rebuilt.

    If anybody thinks I'm buying a vehicle from a company that UAW owns AND works in, they'd better think again. I see all kind of problems and issues looming on the horizon with THIS deal. Chrysler will never again put out a vehicle that was as good as my Dart. Buy Chyrsler? Buy UAW? Not unless they can produce something that's worth a crap, which ain't bloody likely. And I don't want their "green" crap. Recall city.
  • Revised?
    Jeff hits the heart of the question, will the Supreme's define the 5th Amendment as written or "revise the meaning" of the 5th Amendment? We already has seen this concerning eminent domain.
  • it's the law???
    ok. youz waz warned.
    what do you 'xpect from a stinkin' marxist? osamabama wants to ruin the country from the insude so his stinkin' muslim brothers can beat us down to our knees 5 times a day then cut our head s off.

    tol' ya so...
  • Distorted Logic
    Come on folks, most of you are venting to like-minded individuals. We need to get a grip on what is happening and how it came to this point, and determine how to go about rectifying this narcissism-feeding liberal New-American way of thinking.

    Fortunately the majority of readers of this post are intelligent enough to comprehend the application of the Fifth Amendment. UNFORTUNATELY, at least 55% of America either does not understand, or their logic is so totally distorted that they believe Chrysler's top creditors "deserve" what Obama did to them. Too many people have completely bought into the warped sense of reality the Dems and MSM have been feeding them for years.

    If we are to survive as a free society, shallow thinking self centered feel good detest success logic must be countered in the minds of America. Instead of blowing off steam and calling ignorant people (not stupid, just brainwashed government school propagated ignorance) derisive names, we must develop our argument in a simple manner so that freedom's truth WILL matter to these Americans who are otherwise mesmerized by the false pretenses of liberal ideology. Completely remove your difficult-to-control feelings from any discussions you may have, including all these blogs. Learn to present a lucid, factual argument with your liberal thinking friend, treating them with the respect they crave. Learn how to craft your argument in a manner that will appeal to who they are; not to logic, nor their sense of right and wrong, nor to their patriotism, but to their current methods of reasoning... self centered, feel good, shaft the rich guy, anti-capitalistic-because-it-makes-me-appear-more-intelligent, European admiring liberalism. Learn how to convince the average American Idol watching person that the ultimate result of liberalism is the destruction of THEIR way of life.

    We either couch our argument in terms that both appeal to and make sense to our antagonist, or we continue to act like grammar school kids on a playground trying to impress our friends, and lose the war and our way of life.
  • re: Capt. Jack
    Read the post that Capt. Jack suggests.

    I have never seen a more succinct phrasing of what Mr. Obama is aiming for than "a caudillo-run kleptocracy".

    It's a good post all-in-all but - well, if I ever design a new presidential seal to replace the one the Obama campaign came up with, that will certainly be the featured motto.
  • Chrysler/Obama
    This administration's violation of constitutional rights is another example of their being "MASTERS OF THE ART OF DUPLICITY".
  • lasting effects
    And what will be the lasting effects of this Theft? Who in their right mind would invest in one of the big banks, auto companies or any other industry that the government might try to seize?

    Nobody. Way to go Zero. You just shot another big hole in the bottom of the economic boat. Is he really that stupid or is this by design?
  • I've been thinking for awhile that we need to attack unconstitutional laws in courts
    just like Lauria is doing. We need an organization similar to the ACLU, but one that isn't ultra liberal. One that is really concerned about the Constitution. One that will seek out and pursue lawsuits targeting unconstitutional laws.

    This needs to happen on a MASS scale. The judicial branch may not cooperate and may make law from the bench as we've seen in so many cases, but maybe there are still enough real judges out there and it may make a dent. If nothing else maybe it will bring attention to how many unconstitutional laws there currently are.
  • I'll make it easier for you
    What action, specifically, has the administration taken that has broken a U.S. law (including the 5th Amendment)?

    Remember, making a speech or a recommendation is not a crime... Let's see what you can come up with.
  • aren't pensions property?
    i don't know the answer to this but i don't understand why pensions aren't a higher priority than bondholders. if bondholders have a loss can't they write it off? bondholders don't become homeless without their money but pensioners do. i know the empathy impared don't give a hoot about employees but i do. i don't really care about the law anymore. i used to but i got tired of being suckered by politicians and cops and rich people getting over when they break the law. i hope the bond holders lose and the people don't get screwed out of their pensions. the bond holders can get what is left over. we're all sick of the good ole boy network and i'm glad obama is trying to dismantle it for the rest of us.
  • party of no ideas
    sounds better than the party of BAD ideas
  • Where are the Obama supporters?
    I would would be interested in hearing someone's take on this that does not agree with Boortz. I'm curious how the Administration justifies this sort of action. I know, we have CopyLeft, Stan and Hugo. But I'm looking for an intelligent argument from someone who understands the Constitution and the concept of Rule of Law. Not a conservative troll posing as a dumb liberal.
  • UAW WANTS TO SELL ITS SHARE?
    This makes sense since "a house divided cannot stand.." How can the unions extort..sorry,I mean collective bargain with managment when it is managment. As far as them selling their interest,where are they gonna find a sucke..sorry, I mean a mark..sorry again,well lets just say it..some totally stupid,trusting,wealthy morons,to flush their money down a sh*t hole for the pleasure of Obamas whims.Hmmm..stupid,obama trusting,wealthy morons,with more money than brains??....ok UAW,put in a call to Hollywood,I think you found your buyers......
  • More for the rest of us
    If this is the way that the government acts as a union advocate, then the banks will no longer lend to unionized enterprises. That will make capital more available for productive, non-union businesses. There will be no corporate bonds for unionized companies - did you get that UPS, GM, Chrysler, Ford, Boeing, Lockheed, Pete Seger,...
  • Take off the blinders
    You, with the setting sun t shirt and 'Change'bumper sticker! Step away from the Koolaid! As tough as it is for you to get this, it's what the Administration is proposing to do which violates the principals of free enterprise and private ownership. The Federal Government will toss the bondholders under the bus in favor of the UAW. The lenders who gave Chrysler loans are being told, 'sorry, your s.o.l.'. You don't have a problem with that but you think Bush and Cheney are war criminals? Copy, all this time I thought you had some standards. I'll let an actual lawyer decide the legal merits. But I'm guessing you are not one. Fess up, you are on the Boortz payroll, aren't you? You are like one of the guys that gets paid to get whipped by the next champion on WWE...everyone knows it's a put on.
  • Obama's gift to the unions
    Government theft is a crime.
    If an organization steals, the chief officer is guilty.
    BO is doing the same thing as your boy Madoff.
  • Chrysler
    This sums it up pretty well if you are looking for a basic explaination:
    http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/obama_to_secured_creditors_dro.html
  • 5th Amendment & Govt. Abuse of Power
    I read the 5th the same way the secured creditors do. I also believe the seizure and reported threats are an illegal abuse of power by a government that the Bill of Rights specifically was written to protect us from.

    I've written Mr. Lauria and told him I read the Constitution the way his clients do and offered support. I suggest others do the same. Here is his e-mail address; tlauria@whitecase.com
  • What say we all chick in and give Stan Gable remedial reading lessons.
    Once more Stan: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

    That's like spewing the BS that the 2nd amendment is just about hunting,

    Just for reference: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Just in case Stan is too stupid to figure it out: “security of a free state” means defending from tyranny – foreign and DOMESTIC.
  • @Stan "The 5th amendment is about crimes, not about Bankruptcy. "
    Um... dude... have you not seen what Obama is doing? He's making not cooperating the way he wants in regards to a government forced bankruptcy a crime and he's doing so w/o passing a law.

    Clearly it's in violation of the 5th. Please think things through.
  • I Think Neal Should Devote Some Time To Saul Alinsky
    I have not read this book but perhaps in order to understand Mr. Obama and his tactics, we should read "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. If I remember correctly, Mr. Alinsky greatly influenced Mr. Obama in his community organizing. A review that I read on Barnes and Noble's website about this book talked about destroying the system from within to create a new system from the ashes.

    I think this Primer might be Mr. Obama's playbook and we may see exhibited the goon like tactics that are mentioned about the threats against secured Chrysler creditors.
  • Um, read it again, Stan
    "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    That's not just about criminals. And the lawsuit is about the government not wanting to justly compensate these lenders.
  • Stan is confused, again
    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    These protections are supposed to belong to everyone, not just criminals. But that was before Obama.
  • Still waiting...
    Can someone point to an act from Obama's administration on this matter that has broken an actual LAW?

    Or is this just more empty-headed screeching and posturing from the Party of No Ideas?
  • Look a little closer
    "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

    Due process of law
    Just compensation

    Yay, citing Colbert, hmmm not too smart.
  • Stan Gable - Clueless
    It is about a crime. Violations of Contract Law....plus there is this pesky sentence "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
  • union pensioners
    if only the unions would take their pensition funds and put in the bank and leave it there, we wouldn't have this problem. but that money was too inviting to organized crime. so it was loaned out, i don't know how or why, all i know is families don't have their pensions anymore.

    and i'm talking about organized crime, illegal (mafia) and legal (government)
  • 5th Amendment
    Obviously Stan Gable is a government school graduate, because reading isn't his strong suit.

    Look at the last two clauses, nimrod:

    "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    Neither of these has ANYTHING to do with criminal law; they apply to any action of government.
  • Chrysler
    Chicago Politics at it's finest.

    The left is pushing too far. Believe next election will change things (I hope). November 2010, we can't wait.
  • Jeff
    The real question is how will the Supreme Court rule. Will they uphold the Constitution or will they flush it.
  • More in the 5th Amendment
    Hey Stan, read on a little more. Try to have an attention span more than five seconds or five words. "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that no one can take your money (invested, in secure Chrysler bonds) without due process. And Obama flapping his oh-so-talented-jaws is NOT due process !!!
  • Stan, read it yourself...
    In addition to the part that you like, it also specifically states that a person may not be deprived of his property without due process or just compensation. Bondholders got neither.
  • Stan
    did you just fail to read this part of the 5th?

    "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
  • Buddies!
    Whenever my liberal "friends" would go on with the "Bush's oil buddies" nonsense, I'd press them to please give details about these corrupt deals, and give dates and name names. Of course they couldn't because it was all just mindless hyperbole.

    But Obama is doing exactly what liberals accused Bush of doing - being directly involved in the unconstitutional use of government force on the behalf of a rich, powerful political ally.
  • Finally someone stands up!
    I am in full support of Lauria. I have been watching this mess and the GM mess wondering when someone was going to stand up and say that the loans that the GOV / unions made are unsecure. Therefore, you are just like any other lender and do not get to tell us how to run the company.
  • Buyer beware
    Yo, Fiat, are you really sure you want a piece of the action here? Our politicians and unions make the Euros look like seasoned pros. America, you clamored for 'Change'. You declared conservatives evil, greedy, and DOA. Well, you threw the Constitution to the wolves while crying foul over tactics that provided valuable intel which in turn saved lives. Now we have this mess with Chrsyler and G.M. Are you sure you want the President deciding who wins and who loses in the business world? And dictating Wall Street's impact on the economy? I believe things have changed allright. We are backsliding into FDR style bloated, poorly run Government. And no way to fix what's being broken. Way to go, America! To steal from Churchill( Winston, not Ward...), "Never have so many owed so much to so few"...he was praising the valiant efforts of the RAF during the Battle of Britain. I'm referring to the taxpayers subsidizing payoffs to the unions! No,really, keep the change!
  • Another reason why
    Supreme Court appointments are so important. I wonder how much of Obama's crap will end up going before the Court because it's blatantly unconstitutional???
  • So the UAW wants to sell??
    Because they know that they can't hold a knife to their own throats when it's contract time...

    Since investing in a company is far too risky (at any time, Obamunism can take your wealth away from you) I would hope that they won't find any takers, and they can screw themselves into the ground if they want to.

    I am the proud owner of a 2004 Dodge Ram pickup, and it will be the last vehicle I ever purchase from Chrysler.
  • Baroque Obozo
    Well,he's the best President we've had since GW.
  • Read the constitution
    The 5th amendment is about crimes, not about Bankruptcy. Chrysler is in bankruptcy cause of bad business decisions, not because of a capital or other infamous crime.

    "when we wanted bigger cars, they gave us bigger cars. when we wanted fuel-efficient cars, they gave us bigger cars" - Colbert
  • Chrysler & GM
    I've been rereading Atlas Shrugged recently & cannot help but note the similarities to The Twentieth Century Motor Co. being acted out with the auto makers & the union ownership proposal. Yikes.
  • 5th amendment
    I wonder if Obama and crew will be able to stop laughing at someone challenging them and citing the constitution as precedent?
  • Lauria is da man!!!
    FINALLY someone is calling them on the Constitution! Can't wait to see how this plays out and who else steps up to the plate.
  • It had to happen
    Every generation need to experience the left in full power. The repercussion will be evident very soon. Obama will be a one termer. I work in a union shop and now you can only find one RABID member who admitts voting for oblama. lol. Better days ahead.
    SEMPER FI
  • As reported on the WSJ report this morning
    The federal government is ready to give Chrysler ANOTHER 4.5 Billion. In the next sentence the UAW is announcing they don't really want to own 55% of the company and wish to sell their portion as soon as possible.

    Sounds like good old money laundering to me.
  • Good luck on your bankruptcy case
    Good Luck Mr. Lauria. However, many of the judges are former trial lawyers, i.e. Obama supporters. Even though they are supposed to rule impartially according to the law, it is possible that their personal biases can come through.
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement