Obama is responsible for the money he spends--Doesn't matter it it is Bush's budget. Obama is spending the money and that is what causes the deficit.

A deficit is spending more money than you take in. therefore, whoever spends the money is responsible for the deficit. Obama is overspending.

Now if you understand that much, you are no longer ignorant. If you understand that mush and approve it, you are stupid.

Yes, Moon, I am well aware of capitalizing businesses. And I am also aware of the need for a good credit line to borrow money for current needs.

But in business there is a point at which you have taken on too much debt. GM, AIG and various other entities go bankrupt because they spent more than they could afford.

BTW, those bond holders at GM got the screws put to them by the Obama administration when they were forced to buy stock. Their $1,000 bonds melted to a measly $5.

Some people overcharge on credit cards and other buy mnore home than they can afford. The US is becoming bankrupt and Obama is the cause.

Actually the GM bonds probably were worth a lot less than $1000 on the secondary market.

Not all bond holders sold out, but this post is off the subject.  You know, kinda like potsy.  

AIG, GM, credit card abuse, and subprime loans all took place before Obama took office but now he is the reason we are in trouble financially.

Actually the GM bonds probably were worth a lot less than $1000 on the secondary market.

Depending on the values of the assets when liquidated, they would have been paid in full and the stock holders would get the remaining cash.

That was never going to happen. It rarely happens.

Not all bond holders sold out, but this post is off the subject. You know, kinda like potsy. happy.gif

The topic is spending and borrowing. Bonds are how the bigger companies and countries borrow their mnopney. the more they spend the more themy must borrow. So what is it you don't understand?

That was never going to happen. It rarely happens.


It happens ion every business liquidation. However, not every business completely liquidates. Nevertheless, the bond holders lost their shirts. Thanks to Obama.

So now you are saying every liquidation ends up with debt holders being paid in full. That is a remarkable claim.

So what is it you don't understand?

I didn't say that I don't understand.  What is it you don't understand?

So now you are saying every liquidation ends up with debt holders being paid in full. That is a remarkable claim.

Exactly, AJC. The creditors are paid in full if the assets cover the amount.

Let's say a Company has 200,000 in assets and 1 Million in debts. The creditors will get their 200000 and the owners nothing. Of course expenses and liens will be deducted.
first.

Creditors are paid whatever is available for their debts.

Lets say there are 200,000 in assets $50,000 in liabilities and they are going out of business. (Liquidating. The owners get 150,000 and the creditors are paid in full.,

Not all bond holders sold out, but this post is off the subject. You know, kinda like potsy. happy.gif

The subject is overspending. Bonds are borrowed funds and are the result of overspending or leveraging. Therefore, my post is on topic.

But the GM bondholders had no chance of getting paid in full. Maybe 17 cents on the dollar if that so they would not negotiate and in bankruptcy they got more like 5 cents on the dollar.

So now you are saying every liquidation ends up with debt holders being paid in full. That is a remarkable claim.

Exactly, AJC. The creditors are paid in full if the assets cover the amount.

Let's say a Company has 200,000 in assets and 1 Million in debts. The creditors will get their 200000 and the owners nothing. Of course expenses and liens will be deducted.
first.

Creditors are paid whatever is available for their debts.

Lets say there are 200,000 in assets $50,000 in liabilities and they are going out of business. (Liquidating. The owners get 150,000 and the creditors are paid in full.,

Poetse that is wrong on many counts. First the liquidators have to bid to buy off the company. They try and keep the bid as low as possible so they may make a profit. That is what they are in business for. A company may be worth 1 million but they may bid so under the worth of the company. The liquidators are in this to make a profit and the majority of times the owner get nothing at ALL from the bankrupcy. The liquidators have huge costs involved in liquidating off a company. Once the bid is in place in a bankrupt company nobody decides who gets what but the judge in the case. How the heck did you ever determine the owner will get anything? Our creditors were not at all paid in full. Many of them were not paid a dime or a penny. I don't know where you got that creditors are paid in full?

No, I am saying they are paid in full if there are enough assets to cover the debt. If not thay have the claim on all assets and the owners get nothing.

In a sole proprietorship, the owners home and other assets may be used to pay off those debts.

But the fact is that the creditors are paid first, and they will be paid in full before the owners get anything.

Poetse that is wrong on many counts. First the liquidators have to bid to buff the company. They try and keep the bid as low as possible so they may make a profit. That is what they are in business for. A company may be worth 1 million but they may bid so under the worth of the company. The liquidators are in this to make a profit and the majority of times the owner get nothing at ALL from the bankrupcy. The liquidators have huge costs involved in liquidating off a company. Once the bid is in place in a bankrupt company nobody decides who gets what but the judge in the case. How the heck did you ever determine the owner will get anything? Our creditors were not at all paid in full. Many of them were not paid a dime or a penny. I don't know where you got that creditors are paid in full?

I was trying to keep this simple. Of course there are other expenses such as machanix liens and other items that have to be paid before the bankruptcy begins. But the creditors are first in line before the owners.

If we cut out the stupidity, you necons would all disappear, and we can't have that, you're just too comical.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

machanix liens

*******************

What are those?

Jim...

Now if you understand that much, you are no longer ignorant. If you understand that mush and approve it, you are stupid.

********************

Well, yes, I understand that "mush" ... do you?  I thought you didn't denigrate people?  Yet you call people who understand your mush, "stupid"? ... What gives with that?

Jim...

machanix liens

*******************

If a mechanic does work on your car and you sell the car, you must pay him for his services even though you no longer own the car. He is first in line to be paid. Same wopuld apply to a carpenter who did some work on your house before you sold it. he is entitled to be paid even though you don't own the house.



Well, yes, I understand that "mush" ... do you? I thought you didn't denigrate people? Yet you call people who understand your mush, "stupid"? ... What gives with that?

Jim...

Yes, It is believing that you can stimulate the economy by overspending. That is mush and it is stupidity.

If we cut out the stupidity, you necons would all disappear, and we can't have that, you're just too comical.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The stupidity is in spending the fortunes of people when you do not have the right to do so. That's big government and the Obama style.

allowing unions to get in line in front of secured creditors


(instead of following the law) will have dire future consequences on lending


Obama caused lenders to doubt whether the law will be followed in the future in regards to security of debt.


if Obama killed the confidence of lendors that their assets will be protected by the law ...then they will be less likely to lend in the future.

And what will those people who are buying US treasuriotes and bonds do when the Obama administration tells them they are safe.

China has already laughed at Geithner.