Obama bailing out Billionaire oil tycoon friends....

Return of Dune said:
How could it make sense otherwise?

The billionare invested 75 million in the company and became the first lienholder.

The company got a loan of 535 million. The investor received none of it, nor was he entitled to any of it. It is all in the article linked to in the OP.

1. No bailout.
2. Investor got none of the $535 million.
3. You folks really need to look into superfreak's bullshit, and stop giving him the benefit of the "expert" mantle he wears.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how a bankruptcy works? Especially a corporate chapter 11?

Do you have any idea what the $535 million went to fund? That money is not gone you dolt. It is invested in the plant they built. That is a tangible asset. That asset is what can be sold (if they don't come out of the Chapter 11) and thus refund Obama's buddy. His financial risk was essentially eliminated by that loan. He had all the benefits of the upside had he made the company work, but NONE of the down side risk. Yet when the assets are sold Obama's buddy is first in line.

Yet you see no benefit to him for Obama pushing through a loan, a loan that was not advisable, a loan that got an interest rate 3-4 times LOWER than others (for no reason).

Like I stated, if this was the Koch's and Obama was Bush... you would be howling right now about evil oil tycoons being protected by the President.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
hasn't it over the last 30 years?
Click to expand...

no. see the AP thread, i explained it there in more detail. in short, the legislation is deemed passed once it finishes the legislative route, then a court can review the passed legislation and see if it withstands judicial scrutiny. also, a court can review legislation that has not been passed if the issue is ripe.
 
Yurt said:
no. see the AP thread, i explained it there in more detail. in short, the legislation is deemed passed once it finishes the legislative route, then a court can review the passed legislation and see if it withstands judicial scrutiny. also, a court can review legislation that has not been passed if the issue is ripe.
Click to expand...

so no court in this land has ever decided a case that created new legislation?
 
Superfreak said:
Do you have any idea how a bankruptcy works? Especially a corporate chapter 11?

Do you have any idea what the $535 million went to fund? That money is not gone you dolt. It is invested in the plant they built. That is a tangible asset. That asset is what can be sold (if they don't come out of the Chapter 11) and thus refund Obama's buddy. His financial risk was essentially eliminated by that loan. He had all the benefits of the upside had he made the company work, but NONE of the down side risk. Yet when the assets are sold Obama's buddy is first in line.

Yet you see no benefit to him for Obama pushing through a loan, a loan that was not advisable, a loan that got an interest rate 3-4 times LOWER than others (for no reason).

Like I stated, if this was the Koch's and Obama was Bush... you would be howling right now about evil oil tycoons being protected by the President.
Click to expand...

These are the facts,

1.the investor put $75 million into the company, achieving first lienholder status.
2. The company borrowed $535 million, NOT THE LIENHOLDER.
3. The lienholder will be paid back his $75 million first, but will receive NONE of the $535 million LOAN.
4. What ever is left, after paying other secured creditors will be paid back to the treasury.

Hence, there was no bailout, the billionare never saw the $535 million and never will.

The Koch bros. have nothing to do with it, you are throwing that in as a desperate distraction tactic.
 
I recall that the Vermont Supreme Court directed the legislature to craft legislation providing marital benefits and protections to gay couples, resulting in the first civil unions law in the country. Of course, the VT Supreme Court did not create legislation and I suppose the legislature could have ignored the court, but it's probably the only instance I can think of where a court has done something like that.
 
Return of Dune said:
Court decisions may result in the creation of law, but not legislation. Legislation is creating law by a legislative body, which a court is not.
Click to expand...

you finally figured this out...after your embarrassing attempt to claim judicial review is passing legislation. i could almost be proud of you dune.
 
Yurt said:
no. legislation by definition cannot be created by the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

then someone better tell judge shoob out of the federal district court in georgia, since he decided that although the legislation to allow concealed handguns in areas like the non secure areas of hartsfield international airport, they didn't really mean that.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then someone better tell judge shoob out of the federal district court in georgia, since he decided that although the legislation to allow concealed handguns in areas like the non secure areas of hartsfield international airport, they didn't really mean that.
Click to expand...

that is still not creating legislation. that is judicial review of legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top