Judge Asked To Make Treasury's Role In 2009 GM Bailout Public

"If the disclosure revealed Treasury wanted New GM to be free of liabilities tied to Old GM, I wouldn’t be disturbed. I’d consider that to be a prudent policy for the public purse." But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You see, the new GM was given all the loss write offs of the old GM. As a result, the new GM won't need to pay any tax for a very long time. I.e. new GM = old GM. On the other hand, the new GM denied all the accident claims of old GM. I.e. new GM != old GM. Essentially, GM took public money (including tax break) for the bailout, and refuse to pay liability to the public. You can make your choice about whether the new GM is the same as old GM. I am OK with either choice. But don't revert back when the topic changes.

The purpose of bankruptcy is to discharge previous liabilities. If bankruptcy didn't purge a company of previous obligations, then there wouldn't be much point in filing it. This is like expressing shock and dismay that someone got wet by taking a shower, when that was the point. There is nothing to investigate. GM actually took on more liabilities than it had to by agreeing to handle recalls for pre-BK vehicles and to accept liability for defects related to those cars when the incidents occurred post-BK. The internet illiterati have it backwards.

@Pch101 Apparently, the judge gets to be the arbiter of whether the case is out of bounds, and not Justice PCH, the self proclaimed expert on all things bankruptcy. Of course, a bankruptcy is supposed to get rid of liabilities, but as everyone not drowning in the Kool Aid seems to understand, this was no normal bankruptcy. We now pause for an ad hominem attack from his honour...

@Landcrusher As noted, you don't know enough about bankruptcy to know the difference between "normal" and "abnormal." Throwing around the word "normal" is your attempt to slam the process without conceding that you don't grasp how it works. In any case, where is this customary right-wing passion for "tort reform"? CAS is doing what every other tort plaintiff does -- it throws stuff at the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick, even though the motion should be tossed. That sort of thing "normal"ly upsets you, but you're being quite "abnormal" about it when it suits you.

@Pch101 Yeah, not normal, everyone knows it, some hacks deny it. Not even a nice try. I'm still for tort reform. I reserve the right to review the suit and call it ridiculous. No hypocrisy in this at all. Nor would there be hypocrisy in your failing to demand justice for the poor peasants from the evil corporation and their cronies in Washington. In the meantime, feel free to point out why the information requested should be withheld. We are all still waiting. Apart from whatever the law is here, the government became a party with the defense didn't they? They married up. Doesn't seem fair to now claim secrecy for your process of shielding against liability while claiming a shield against liability. Rather double secret probationish.

@Pch101 I'm not convinced there isn't legal obligation. Never mind the moral obligation for a sec, of not turning their back on the former GM's cars with deadly flaws, plus making things right with victims. Point is the New GM assumed the original "GM" trademark and Chevrolet/Cadillac/etc branding. The New GM resumed where the old GM left off. So the new GM made a smooth, seamless transition to not disrupt what the old GM had going for itself. Legacy, heritage, etc. They wanted all the "good" from the old GM, but not the bad/ugly. Kinda convenient, no? Had they let the old GM brand/marques/logos/etc, die and started with a new name/brand, say "Average Motor Co" or "Normal Motors", and renamed all their vehicles, only then would they be legally/morally absolved. Maybe. But there's the lingering sense, the old GM sat on the revelation that their cars were killing Americans, except they knew GM was sinking ship, and at one point, it wouldn't matter anymore. Just a matter of time. Like a boat taking on more water than it could pump out, GM was losing far more millions a day, than was coming in. Day in, day out. So no one executive at the old GM was making rational decisions, based on long term. And while pretending nothing was wrong so employees wouldn't jump ship, consumers wouldn't shop elsewhere, and stockholders not dump GM. Americans died because of this. It reminds me of the Concordia ship, while it was sinking and its crew reassuring passengers everything was just fine, not to worry. This while the ship was leaning so much, they could walk on the walls just as easily as the floor. Both events make me sick just to think about. I will never again go on a cruise. Or buy another GM.

@DenverMike The liability limitations are in the bankruptcy plan approved by the court. GM accepted more liability than was required under the law. Not a matter of opinion, just a fact. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802466.html

@Pch101 I do love the jargon. "Tort reform" essentially interferes with the right of a plaintiff to negotiate payment terms with his own lawyer. The right wing doesn't care what you pay your lawyer if you pay him by the hour or put him on your payroll. But negotiate a contingency agreement, and suddenly they want to stick their noses into it. I would think that in a free country that I would be free to negotiate the terms that I want with my own lawyer. If that's what small government looks like, then I'll take the big government that leaves me alone, thanks very much.

@Landcrusher "his honour…" honour? I didn't know Landcrusher was Canadian

@Lie2me That could explain the lack of knowledge of American bankruptcy law, eh?

@Lie2me Ya think?

@Pch101 Lol, you bring up tort reform to try to change the argument? Nice try. Not buying. Now that we agree this isn't a case of hypocrisy, want to explain why the secrecy? Either you don't know (most likely since you love to toss out anything you think you know to bolster your self esteem), or you know and it's deadly to your position (we've been there with you o many times).

@Lie2me I felt the English spelling would come off as more pompous. And there is nothing wrong with being Canadian. And, I bet I could find a Canadian who actually DOES know our bankruptcy laws unlike you two. Likely he or she could have a reasonable discussion as well.

@Pch101 The point of raising "tort reform" is to show the hypocrisy in your camp. You whine about trial lawyers who waste court time, yet you applaud them when they serve your agenda. You talk about "the rule of law" when you don't possess even a basic understanding of the law. You demand "transparency" when the issue at hand is as clear as day and is no secret. The government didn't reduce GM's liability for pre-BK vehicles, it expanded it. If you had an even basic understanding of the case, then you would already know this. People who devote as much energy as you do to this subject should know what you're talking about. Yet you don't. Why all of the effort if you aren't going to learn anything?

@Pch101 Denial and obfuscation. No hypocrisy anyway. Your MSNBC version of Tort Reform is silly anyway. This story is about withheld documents from the Treasury. Why not disclose the documents? Don't know or afraid? Which is it?

@Pch101 I would explain it, but (a) I already have and (b) it's clearly a waste of time.

@Lie2me "And there is nothing wrong with being Canadian" Of course not, but it's nothing short of rude to second guess another country's laws as it applies to their citizens. None of your business "I felt the English spelling would come off as more pompous" I don't find Canadians the least bit pompous, not sure why you would say that

@Pch101 Honestly, can't find even an attempt at explanation. I'll be happy to apologize if you can quote yourself giving an explanation but all I see is smoke and bile.

@Pch101 If you haven't figured it out by now, then you never will. It's pretty clear that you want to be agitated about this topic. The facts aren't going to change that. There are people who have earned bachelor's degrees in less time than it has taken you to still not understand this. I can't possibly fix that.

@Lie2me Lol, where did you get the Canadian thing anyway? It's not a Canadian spelling. Still think PCH in a wig, snorting some snuff, demanding he be respected and referred to as "His Honour" or "His Majesty" would fit fine. Also, I'm not second guessing anything, and my point stands. I'm sure there are plenty of actual experts on the subject who weren't born here who wouldn't need to be rude having respectfully studied the subject and not be guessing at it. BTW, It's not rude to second guess necessarily. Why would you even say that?

Yeah, well, we found out that 'corporations are people too, my friend', and now we feel obligated to help them out.

You have "friends on the left"? Perhaps they're defending the law and not the big corporations. I understand, my "friends on the right" have comprehension difficulties with the law, the constitution, human rights and all that other left agenda stuff

@VoGo Next up: But Exxon made the tanker SAFER than they had to! But McDonalds put LESS pink slime in than they were allowed! The Koch brothers paid MORE in taxes than they had to!

@Lie2me The "rule of law" thing that they talk about so much only applies when it's convenient.

@Lie2me Oh, I agree L2M. My friends on the right have all of those problems you mentioned. They are for the most part absolute shills for corporations. I'm just humored when my friends on the left act like they aren't just as big of shills. And for the record, I mostly support the bailout the way it went down. The least bad of mostly not good choices. It's just hard to swallow because they really did it to themselves. (And though they deserve some of the blame, I'd put the UAW's portion of the blame at less than 5%).

VoGo, What is the big hang up on that tag line? I really don't get it. Isnt it just a legal technicality? The position of conservatives seems to be that a corp is just a piece of paper and that they are made up of people. The most common usage seems to be in opposition to corporate taxes as in "Corporations don't pay taxes..." IfI could get an honest reply, I promise not to attack the answer.

Landcrusher, I'm not hung up on the line, but I know it was a popular refrain just before the 2012 election. My take is that the line, even taken out of context, demonstrated Mitt's character - that he was a man of the corporations, not a man of the people.