Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

I think it's been mentioned here...

Rangoon78's picture

... what an asshole Obama is.

GM might not have to pay for most deaths tied to recall:

Claims from suits prior to the bankruptcy go to the Motors Liquidation Co., a shell corporation holding only closed GM plants and other debts.

“When I took office, the American auto industry – the heartbeat of American manufacturing – was on the verge of collapse… As President, I refused to let that happen."

Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry:

Co-chairs:
Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner
National Economic Council Director, Larry Summers

0
No votes yet

Comments

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

huh? How is this Obama's fault? The reason that GM does not have to pay is because it declared bankruptcy. It was inevitable that GM was going to declare bankruptcy in 2009, it was for all practical purposes, insolvent. The only question was whether it do a regular bankruptcy, or a managed bankruptcy with government assistance to help minimize the loss of jobs and to allow the company to be saved. Obama decided for the latter. But GM was going bankrupt either way. Which means that either way, GM was going to avoid paying most claims that date from before the date the bankruptcy petition was filed. That's just how bankruptcy law works.

In fact, the people with dead relatives would have done worse if the Obama administration had not intervened in the GM bankruptcy. Without the Obama Administration's help in restructuring the company it would have been a Chapter 7 case and pre-petition claimants get a lot less of their money in a Chapter 7 than a Chapter 11.

Full disclosure: I am a labor lawyer and I filed a claim in the GM bankruptcy. My client ended up getting pennies on the dollar of what it was owed, but that was still better than it would have been without federal intervention.

Submitted by lambert on

.... don't even care enough to fake it anymore.

C'mon. There was nothing "inevitable" about it.

1) Obama could have bailed out GM just like he bailed out the banks, and in any case

2) the deal Obama structured during the bankruptcy had this effect, and it's hard to see why there's anything inevitable about the terms of that deal either.

Try harder.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

Obama could have bailed out GM just like he bailed out the banks, and in any case

True. But if he did nothing, GM would have been a Chapter 7 and the families of people who got injured before 2009 would have gotten nothing. Unless you think Obama had some obligation to give GM a bunch of sweet bailout money with no discharge of liabilities, then I don't see how it is his fault that their claims are limited by the bankruptcy.

the deal Obama structured during the bankruptcy had this effect, and it's hard to see why there's anything inevitable about the terms of that deal either.

Discharge of pre-petition liabilities is what happens in every single bankruptcy. That's what a bankruptcy is. If GM was going to go bankrupt (and it would have if Obama did nothing), then people with claims from before the bankruptcy are going to have limits on their ability to collect. The "terms of the deal" could make their haircut a little less severe. But Rangoon seemed to be objecting to the fact that there would be a haircut, not any particular terms of the deal. And actually, as I mentioned above, the administration's intervention made it better for claimants, not worse. Because the intervention made the bankruptcy a Chapter 11, not a 7.

Try harder.

Try what? I'm just pointing out what I think is a misunderstanding of the nature of bankruptcy.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm suggesting that Obama should have ordered a big truck to drive up to the factory gates and dump a shitload of money there, just as he did for the banks.

This was, apparently, hard to understand.

What I can't understand is why you're here again. Typically, you show up to do damage control for some colossal fuckup. So I must have missed one of those, because otherwise you'd be posting elsewhere than on this post.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

I'm suggesting that Obama should have ordered a big truck to drive up to the factory gates and dump a shitload of money there, just as he did for the banks.

did you read what I wrote above? When you said "Obama could have bailed out GM just like he bailed out the banks" I replied with agreement ("True," I wrote). But my point is not that Obama could not have done more, it's that he did not cause GM to go bankrupt, which means he did not cause pre-petition claimants to lose out on their ability to get compensation. In fact, as I also mentioned above, Obama's actions meant that such claimants were in a better position than they would have been had he not acted.

In other words, Obama's actions made things better for the families of those who died because of the flaw that caused the recall, not worse. I fully acknowledge that Obama could have taken another action that could have made things even better still. But that is not the same thing as saying that Obama made things worse, as Rangoon seemed to be saying in this post.

Rather than acknowledging and responding to my actual point when I made it above, you just repeated your earlier "yeah but he could have bailed out GM like he did the banks" in a rephrased fashion. That's not what I call a rational argument.

What I can't understand is why you're here again. Typically, you show up to do damage control for some colossal fuckup. So I must have missed one of those, because otherwise you'd be posting elsewhere than on this post.

I am happy to answer your question, but can I ask you one first? Why do you always question the legitimacy of my comments whenever I leave one here? It's rather tiresome because I have to go through this every time. But I will try again:

Every once in a while I get bored and I visit here to see what the crowd here is thinking about. I read all the posts on the front page. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I disagree with the post. You know, just like every other web site I visit. The good thing about this blog is that despite your crazy almost-Stalinistic demands for ideological purety (only you guys get to decide who is a TRUE PROGRESSIVE(tm)), you do have mostly unmoderated comments and permit people to leave dissenting views without deleting what they say. So when I see something that I think is based on a mistake (in this case, Rangoon didn't seem to realize that what he/she was complaining about is a product of U.S. bankruptcy law rather than a product of the terms of the Obama admin's auto bailout), I try to point it out. Your other bloggers (Rangoon included) can usually take a constructive piece of criticism, but inevitably you jump in and go all "who the fuck do you think you are coming here to comment? what's your super-secret agenda?!?!?" on me. Which is what I interpret your doing right now.

Still, I find that to be rather entertaining. As I mentioned last time I was here, your nuttiness is what made "Lambert" a punchline in certain circles. (Yeah, I know, you're going to evoke your Gandhi quote and say the fact that I find you clownish means that we're in stage two and any minute now we will reach stage four you will win)

So that is why I come here.

As for your claim that I "do damage control for some colossal fuckup", huh? Is that what noting that Rangoon misunderstood something means? What exactly is the damage and what am I controlling? I suppose if you see anyone who doesn't comment with an "amen" as part of the massive Obot conspiracy to cover up the disaster of his presidency, then I guess my comment about the discharge of pre-petition debt might seem that way.. But I don't buy your premise and I'm not an "Obot" (but that is just what an Obot would say!!! right?)

Alright, your turn. Before you say for the third time, "yeah but Obama could have bailed out GM like he did the banks!!!!", can you please answer my question and explain why you question my motives for commenting every time I leave one here? I think it is a fair question under the circumstances.

Submitted by lambert on

I know a troll when I see one. I have little time to invest with them. I allow them to persist* because trolls provide interesting indications of which way the political winds are blowing.

And now, don't you have a bridge you need to be under?

UPDATE * Despite rule 2. Or not.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

I dispute your characterization of me as a troll because trolls are commentators who try to derail the comments whereas I try very hard to stick to the point of the post and to respond to all of the comments directed at me.

But it's your site so I recognize that you get to make the call.

I also don't think my comments say all that much about "which way the political winds are blowing." (once again your comment seems to assume that I am the representative of some vast Obot conspiracy). I don't think my views are representative of much other than what my views are. (And there's no need to make blind guesses about what I think. I have my own blog, I think it's older than this one. I also was once a pinch-hitter at Eschaton. The dumb things I think about stuff is out there for everyone to see)

But again, ultimately you get to decide how you interpret my comments and I can't do anything about that.

It has been fun tho. 2L4O 4Evah!!!

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

GM restructuring could have easily been negotiated to not screw people with claims against recalls as one of the many terms of the agreement. Ignoring that is specious.