Obama and his 'elite' administration are going to find out the hard way; businesses that can't find capital investors DIE. Of course, as long as they're spending taxpayer dollars, they could care less.............until they run out of money.

At least they did not give up the names of any undercover agents.

trueblue - "At least they did not give up the names of any undercover agents."

It's a shame isn't it trueblue?

"Anonymous sources" didn't give up the bush program to monitor terrorist activity within the financial system... oh wait, they did!

"Anonymous sources" didn't give up bush's (continuation) of the rendition program ... wait again, they did.

"Anonymous sources" used by the NYT didn't give up a fake story about McCain during the campaign claiming he had a mistress... oops, better wait again.

The list is endless.

Just out of morbid curiosity trueblue, who was it that leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent?

Oh, really? Then how is it Chrysler found itself needing to borrow so much money?

No doubt the capital on hand from years of paying a premium for the union would be useful, but its unlikely they would have been allowed to keep it.

"Anonymous sources" didn't give up the bush program to monitor terrorist activity within the financial system... oh wait, they did!

That was a fake complaint manufactored by the Bush administration and perpetuated by the talking empty heads.

Bush was the first person to "give up" the the program for monitoring terrorists financial activity.

Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist groups. The executive order was posted on the White House website.

The document called for ``cooperation with, and sharing information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism."

The program was openly discussed(leaked?) by Bush many times.

"Anonymous sources" used by the NYT didn't give up a fake story about McCain during the campaign claiming he had a mistress... oops, better wait again.

Once a cheater always a cheater. McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress.

jpm100....

"Because Daimler came in, bought them via kickbacks to a few top executives and deception to the stockholders. Then proceeded to instantly wisk away their ready capital ($12 bln), purposely designed for situations like the occasion at hand."

Assuming that all of that is true, it sounds an awful lot like a(another) failed LBO, the consequence of which should be bankruptcy.

You can spin Chrysler any way you want, but at the end of the day it is a bankrupt company, which bankruptcy was interferred with by a federal government intent on protecting political classes instead of creditor classes that have decades of established law on their side.

Forgotten in this political intervention is that the rule of law should be a distinct and independent principle. Absent that is the rule of the mob.

But you digress from the point of this post, which is the role of capital in the private market. Do share...does private capital enjoy separate and distinct rights protecting it from the whims of federal fiat?

trueblue - "Once a cheater always a cheater. McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident."

While that may, or may not be true (people do learn and don't continue to make the same mistakes) you failed to address the point, the NYT story was a complete falsehood.

"Bush was the first person to "give up" the the program for monitoring terrorists financial activity."

Sorry guy your info, and the Boston Globe's is woefully inadequate. Rather than spoon feed you I suggest you search the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group documents. In particular one dated Dec 2002 and on page 31 you will find the following:

The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.

Wanna try again?

Conspicuously absent?

A straight-forward and simple answer to "who was it that leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent?"

And any comment on a leak of the rendition program.

JP Morgan is the same group that "helped people out" in the panic of 1907. If they see fit to use the same strong-armed bullying to get money they don't even need, then it's better for Chrysler to go bankrupt, send a message back, and break the chain. Morgan is the obsessed "Ahab" with its need for takeover. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

If Chrysler hadn't gone to bankruptcy, it would have been doomed by the Obama plan. Once the deal would have been set, no banker or hedge fund manager in his/her right mind would have ever again bought any Chrysler stock or bonds.

Sure as long as Uncle O was there to send money, it would have gone on, but 8 years from now Uncle O will be Citizen O and Chrysler would be down the toilet.

jpm100:
Daimler bought Chrysler for something like $37 Billion and sold it for a little over $7 Billion. Even if they sucked up ready cash of $12B it's still a heckuva loss.

As a taxpayer* I suppose I'll be able to just walk onto a Chrysler lot and take any car I like...since I will already have PAID for it! Sadly, when the Union/Government start making them...I won't WANT any of them!

* note to the Leftists, a "taxpayer" is someone who works for a living and pays an inordinant percentage of their earnings to the government.

#6

Who gives a shit? I didnt marry the guy.. Did you?

Barack Obama ... super genius ...

The administration was on record with a series of pro-worker statements; it could not let the auto makers "fail." Second, when the government got tough it did so by threatening to bring nasty public pressure on the creditors. Creditors that were already on the government dole with TARP money caved immediately; hedge funds held out a bit longer - took incredible public heat - and eventually caved as well. The hedge funds, by the way, are the players the government needs to get into it public/private partnership program and its TALF program for either to succeed. So the government ended up ripping players it needs to play in the future for the success of its programs.

jpm100:

Personally, I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Daimler's takeover of Chrysler back in 1998 for the princely sum of $37 BILLION was an unmitigated disaster for the German company. The combination of a luxury car maker with a mass market one was just a bad fit - there was not much synergy between the two operations because the Chrysler buyer was unwilling to pay for the advanced features and technology Daimler had to offer for their part in the deal. As such, there was no way to achieve the kind of savings one normally would get when two companies combine to form a larger entity. Normally, the larger a company is the more money they can save because they have more purchasing power and this yields better deals from suppliers of parts and other components. DaimlerChrysler was not able to do this terribly well and it showed.

In 2007, Daimler sold Chrysler to Cerberus for a mere $7.4 BILLION but Daimler only received a small amount of that money. Cerberus put $5 billion of that into funding Chrysler's operations, $1 BILLION into the company's finance arm and Daimler received the rest. On top of that, Daimler was on the hook for a further $1.6 BILLION in losses before the deal finally closed. You make it sound like Daimler looted poor Chrysler and while they definitely mismanaged Chrysler they hardly walked away richer for the experience. If they had to do it again, they definitely would have passed on the opportunity. Chrysler was healthy at the time of the takeover but they would have gotten themselves into trouble even if the deal hadn't happened as that has been the tortured history of that company - always up and down and rarely on firm footing for long. Poor quality has dogged the company for a long time and their relationship with Daimler did nothing to solve that nagging problem.

The bottom line is that investor confidence has been shattered. Obamalala and gang have done more harm in the first 100 days than all the presidents since Lincoln. Investors private or institutional either don't know what Obamalala will do which is not good. Or, they know what he is going to do and will go else where. Both are bad for the American economy. His "advisers" are projecting 3.5% growth in the economy for the rest of the year. They are as wacko as he is calculating. To stop a contracting economy and turn it around is like turning a huge ocean liner around, it takes miles to do so and a captain that knows a little about navigation.
What Obamalala is creating is an electorate that will be dependent on him and his populist, socialist, nanny-state America.

MPR:

I agree with you completely about the fact that private investors will be wary of doing business in this country going forward and that is not good news for the possibility of an economic recovery. As you say, either they don't know what he is going to do so they stay on the sidelines or they do know what he will do based on how he is handling the situation with Chrysler and GM and they will take a pass on investing domestically. Either situation is very bad news obviously. We are NOT going to get 3.5% growth for the rest of the year when we lost 6.1% in the last quarter. Their projections have already proven to be faulty in so many ways that I cannot give any credibility to that kind of rosy scenario.

it takes miles to do so and a captain that knows a little about navigation.

"What Obamalala is creating is an electorate that will be dependent on him and his populist, socialist, nanny-state America."

And he sees that as a FEATURE - not a bug.

Slightly OT (but only slightly). This article is too important to miss.

Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

TrueBlue,
I agree. It is terrible that Valerie PLame was outed by her husband, Joe Wilson

The man is the president of the USA. Please show the proper respect for the office and cease with the "name calling". I disagree with the President on almost every issue, but haven't 8 years of "chimpymcbushitler" shown you that the office must still be respected? Show some dignity and class, debate the merits of the issues and policies, and leave off with the name calling. Try to be the bigger man/woman and not let the Lee Wards of the world drag you down to their level.

Chad -

Respectfully - stuff a sock in it.

I respect the office of the President. I have very little respect for the person holding it at the present time.

If the left could supposedly 'respect the office of the President' while calling Bush every derogatory term that they could think up, no matter how vile or disgusting, then I think the 'dignity of the office' can withstand calling Obamaramadingdong ridiculous names.

Besides - respect needs to be earned. Obama's done precious little to earn ANY sort of respect, aside from having a smooth manner and a knack for getting people to hear what they want to hear. It doesn't come with the title - and I think that's what he was counting on.

The world is seeing, however, that for all the gloss he tries to project, how smooth he talks... that the holder of the office is massively unqualified for the job. THEY will not respect him.

I will hope for his success - but that doesn't mean I want it on his terms. I hope he'll realize real damn soon that the job isn't about HIM and what HE can do for his cronies and the unions, it's about what's best for the country. And what HE may think is best both may not be, and be actively resisted.

#22

" have'nt 8 years of "chimpymcbushitler" shown you that the office must still be respected?"

NO.

And if there were any merits to Oprahs policies there would be no disagreement or name calling of the punk from Chi- town

JLawson, I agree completely. Respect is not a given. ww

It never was, WW. Like in basic training, you salute the insignia. You learn what the person was like, then you could respect THEM - but you still saluted the representation of their rank.

When Bush flew into our Reserve base one weekend, we had folks lining up to salute as his motorcade went out.

Clinton? He never flew into our base - in 8 years. Preferred to bollix up the traffic patterns at the rather busy local airport. Guess he had some sort of feeling about how much respect he'd get...