Bond. Lame Bond.

TOMMY makes an excellent point. The shifty Gross totally ignores the fact that the big beneficiaries of this crooked deal are a political constituancy of Obamas, the UAW. Gross,as an Obaman,is merely defending the indefensible. This is Government By FIAT ,and Gross also dishonestly refuses to mention what role CERBERUS ,the owner of CHRYSLER,is playing in this. Have these billionaire bigshots cut a deal with Obama?

Spoken like a true Obama spokesman! I guarantee you Daniel Gross is next in line to follow Robert Gibbs as press secretary.

The real truth is here:
# "Let???s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients??? money to share in the ???sacrifice???, they are stealing."
# "The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along."
# "The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power."

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-this-hedge-fund-managers-not-afraid-of-big-bad-obama-2009-5

Zenzi09 - do you think every industry in this country hasn't seen undertrained cheaper labor come in and take jobs? Why do you think Microsoft insists on the high number of H1-B visas? The "brain drain" in Europe has kept US wages stagnant since the 70's. The difference is that many of these jobs really do require a college or graduate education such as nurses and engineers. Keep in mind that even with a union nurses don't make $27 or get the pensions and benefits that auto workers get. The UAW is responsible for the absurd health insurance system in place in the US and most workers find it hard to stomach the griping the auto workers do when they don't get everything they want.

Try as you may, there is no excuse \ no sound reasoning for putting the interest of unsecured debt holders over and above the interest of the secured debt holders. Your article is as biased as any I have ever read - you obviously think your readers are all idiots, Obama lovers, or both. The secured creditors ARE getting the shaft, and if this deal goes through with the union (unsecured debt) reaping all of the benefits as secured debt gets very little it will prove what many have been saying lately: Socialism. Why would ANYONE want to finance ANYTHING if having the debt "secured" means NOTHING ??? Obama has already lied to us more than once (no lobbyist, no pork, etc) and in doing so shows he can not be trusted and his only interest is "election day". He needs the unions votes and has found another way to buy them - with OUR money.

OF THE 3 COMMENTS I HAVE READ--YOUR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE JUST LOSERS WHO HAVE YET TO REALIZE THAT THIS CRISIS (ALL AROUND) DIDNT JUST HAPPEN SINCE 1/20/09. YOU PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
TDWILL-The UAW has taken many many concessions in the past to allow viability for the big 3. However, the big wigs at the top didnt run the company properly and ergo the mess we are in. As for the all mighty foreign car makers that you and your local idiot SHELBY are sooooo proud of -- do you know where the profits go from them? Do you realize that they recieved MILLIONS maybe even BILLIONS in tax concessions!!?? So puhleeze -- spare me the trite comments.

This whole deal is structured to benefit the UAW and the legacy costs. The best thing our American auto manufactures could do is get out from underneith the unions boot. They have so much overhead and pay rediculous wages compared to the foreign manufactures down south who are non union, they will never be competitive against them again.

Tell it like it is. The UAW and legacy costs are the reason our American auto industry is in shambles. There is no way they can continue paying the wages and overhead they have compared to the non union foreign manufactures. The taxpayers again are going to foot the money in this mess. Why should we be responsible. The next election can't get here quick enough. The inflation will be so high by that time, Obama will have sealed his fate. No re election.

You forget what the law states. Credit holders come before others. Even if we get 25% that's more than being offered today. I say, follow the law, let the courts decide. If the answer is, credit holders are bottom on the list, then forget about private indiividuals buying equity in any institution which has accepted Gov bail out money.

You have presumed -- incorrectly -- that debtholders, at bottom, really are entitled only to what their debt is worth in the market, regardless of the face amount or the value of available collateral. This is a convenient rationale for yourto make your story, but it also ignores 200+ years of enforcing creditor rights in the USA through, among other things, the United States Bankruptcy Code, which itself is a tried and tested product of due process (and democracy - when that mattered). Your cries that extraordinary times today call for exceptions to the usual rule of law only confirm the blind faith upon which you baldly assume Chrysler could not (and indeed will not) become "ordinary" precedent for further unlawful government takings. This all congers up a great scene from the classic movie "A Man For All Seasons" (the story of Sir Thomas More, the patron saint of lawyers). Let's hope the Bankruptcy Court channels Sir More for our own safety's sake:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

This may be the most blatantly pro-FACIST article, in the history of Newsweak....INCREDIBLE......Next will be Personal Bankruptcy...and before long...the only loans available to anyone...will be at Mommy and Daddy Govt.'s whims...The private sector would be stupid to lend money....They would lose the protection and safety of contract law....I told y'all Obama voters....He is a classically trained communist....This is his first BIG move, to destroy our capital markets.....

NOBAMA!!!

Here's the deal ... you want to call the investors/banks/whoever greedy .... fine .... but they played by the rules at the time in investing in the company .... now in the middle of the game you have the government coming in and changing the rules and changing the order of the creditors???? ... seems like the messes that we are in now all have come about from the govenment "changing the rules" mid-game ... could that be the common factor?????

Is it possible for President Obama to call anyone greedy when he is preparing to wrack up trillion dollar annual budget deficits for as far as the eye can see? Our nation has long had the world's most avaricious government and Obama is in the process of putting it into historical overdrive: that kind of greed should make even the robber baron corporate bigwigs blanch. The irony of the president's hypocritical name calling would be laughable were it not so pernicious for our future.

According to Gross' logic, he should not have a problem with his local bank confiscating 75 cents of every dollar in his savings account because his bank received TARP funds and Gross thus benefited from the government's support of his bank. What editor at Newsweek allowed this drivel to be published?

One fundamental problem with this opinion piece - the UAW "partners" did have opportunities to "opt out" of their current contract at a time when it would have made a difference, but the union and its members placed their own needs above that of the company. These workers are overpaid and market forces are proving this out - the Obama Administration will protect the interests of one of its biggests contributors (UAW) to the maximum extent allowed by law and the power of the office, but it will only prolong the decline and eventual demise of the company. This has been a political excercise since the Big Three went to the Hill last fall with hat in hand - GM and Chrysler are bankrupt and the only thing keeping them afloat right now is the UAWs' relationship with the Democratic Party. Obama is acting rationally in terms of the political dimensions of this problem; he is acting irrationally in terms of the economics of the situation. This has nothing to do with saving the American auto industry, this is all about saving the UAW.

BTW - Fiat cannot successfully penetrate the U.S. market now, what makes the powers that be in Washington think that Fiat can sell Chryslers. Hell, Diamler couldn't do it and I think most analysts would agree that Daimler is a better managed company with a superior product offering.

Obama has accomplishes one thing, the total elimination of investement capital for any of the "Big Three" - as well as any other corporation in bed with the government. These companies are now wards of the state - no investment firm or individual investor will touch them. Just how long does the Obama team think they will last?