Menu

Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Pivotal Day in US History Supreme Court says FU to Contract Law

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 136 total)
1 2 3 … 8 9 10
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM #15862
    macromaniac
    Participant

    Within the last 48 hours our Supreme Court decided that it would no longer adhere to Bankruptcy Law nor Contract Law. Our Government, headed by Barrack Obama pushed aside contract law and bankruptcy law for their own agenda of paying back the UAW for all the contributions to Obama’s campaign for election. Why is this a pivotal moment?

    If one cannot rely upon contract law to be upheld by our judicial system then we have eroded the very bedrock of trust of investors here and abroad. Where does it end? What happens when more banking institutions collapse because they are purposely lying about their holdings and playing the corporate accounting shell game? Is that FDIC, SPIC guarantee really a GUARANTEE or only if the Government feels like it is the best thing to do for their lobbyists at the time. Contract Law subjectivity is an economic time bomb and Obama has lit the fuse.

    With this type of ruling you better do your homework and revisit what you deem SECURE regarding your investments because China and Russia are paying very close attention. Watch the 10 year treasury yield go straight up from here and corporate debt offerings (especially those where the government has allotted TARP monies) receive very little interest unless there is a hell of a premium built in just in case Obama wants to play dictator games.

    Oh yea, but Fiat was going to back out of the deal because they were getting 20% of a company for nothing. Liar Liar.

    June 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM #413343
    BuyerWillEPB
    Participant

    With a precedent like this, good luck selling any corporate bonds in the future. Or good luck selling 10 year and 30 year treasuries for that matter. Ooops!

    June 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM #413577
    BuyerWillEPB
    Participant

    With a precedent like this, good luck selling any corporate bonds in the future. Or good luck selling 10 year and 30 year treasuries for that matter. Ooops!

    June 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM #413828
    BuyerWillEPB
    Participant

    With a precedent like this, good luck selling any corporate bonds in the future. Or good luck selling 10 year and 30 year treasuries for that matter. Ooops!

    June 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM #413897
    BuyerWillEPB
    Participant

    With a precedent like this, good luck selling any corporate bonds in the future. Or good luck selling 10 year and 30 year treasuries for that matter. Ooops!

    June 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM #414048
    BuyerWillEPB
    Participant

    With a precedent like this, good luck selling any corporate bonds in the future. Or good luck selling 10 year and 30 year treasuries for that matter. Ooops!

    June 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM #413352
    Eugene
    Participant

    [quote] our Supreme Court decided that it would no longer adhere to Bankruptcy Law nor Contract Law. Our Government, headed by Barrack Obama[/quote]

    So was it Supreme Court or Barack Obama that decided … whatever it is you say it decided? Last I checked, the Supreme Court was very conservative. Out of nine judges, two were appointed by Reagan, two by Bush Senior, and two by Bush Junior. They are no friends of Barack Obama.

    June 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM #413587
    Eugene
    Participant

    [quote] our Supreme Court decided that it would no longer adhere to Bankruptcy Law nor Contract Law. Our Government, headed by Barrack Obama[/quote]

    So was it Supreme Court or Barack Obama that decided … whatever it is you say it decided? Last I checked, the Supreme Court was very conservative. Out of nine judges, two were appointed by Reagan, two by Bush Senior, and two by Bush Junior. They are no friends of Barack Obama.

    June 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM #413838
    Eugene
    Participant

    [quote] our Supreme Court decided that it would no longer adhere to Bankruptcy Law nor Contract Law. Our Government, headed by Barrack Obama[/quote]

    So was it Supreme Court or Barack Obama that decided … whatever it is you say it decided? Last I checked, the Supreme Court was very conservative. Out of nine judges, two were appointed by Reagan, two by Bush Senior, and two by Bush Junior. They are no friends of Barack Obama.

    June 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM #413907
    Eugene
    Participant

    [quote] our Supreme Court decided that it would no longer adhere to Bankruptcy Law nor Contract Law. Our Government, headed by Barrack Obama[/quote]

    So was it Supreme Court or Barack Obama that decided … whatever it is you say it decided? Last I checked, the Supreme Court was very conservative. Out of nine judges, two were appointed by Reagan, two by Bush Senior, and two by Bush Junior. They are no friends of Barack Obama.

    June 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM #414058
    Eugene
    Participant

    [quote] our Supreme Court decided that it would no longer adhere to Bankruptcy Law nor Contract Law. Our Government, headed by Barrack Obama[/quote]

    So was it Supreme Court or Barack Obama that decided … whatever it is you say it decided? Last I checked, the Supreme Court was very conservative. Out of nine judges, two were appointed by Reagan, two by Bush Senior, and two by Bush Junior. They are no friends of Barack Obama.

    June 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM #413384
    Arraya
    Participant

    paying back the UAW for all the contributions to Obama’s campaign for election.

    haha.. Do you know how much the UAW contributed to his campaign? And really should we even get upset when a politician pays back it’s contributors. It is the status quo in DC. But still 38 million from wall street compared to 400K from the ever shrinking, almost gone forever UAW. That don’t buy you much in DC. As JP morgan dines on the corpse of GM.

    June 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM #413620
    Arraya
    Participant

    paying back the UAW for all the contributions to Obama’s campaign for election.

    haha.. Do you know how much the UAW contributed to his campaign? And really should we even get upset when a politician pays back it’s contributors. It is the status quo in DC. But still 38 million from wall street compared to 400K from the ever shrinking, almost gone forever UAW. That don’t buy you much in DC. As JP morgan dines on the corpse of GM.

    June 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM #413869
    Arraya
    Participant

    paying back the UAW for all the contributions to Obama’s campaign for election.

    haha.. Do you know how much the UAW contributed to his campaign? And really should we even get upset when a politician pays back it’s contributors. It is the status quo in DC. But still 38 million from wall street compared to 400K from the ever shrinking, almost gone forever UAW. That don’t buy you much in DC. As JP morgan dines on the corpse of GM.

    June 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM #413939
    Arraya
    Participant

    paying back the UAW for all the contributions to Obama’s campaign for election.

    haha.. Do you know how much the UAW contributed to his campaign? And really should we even get upset when a politician pays back it’s contributors. It is the status quo in DC. But still 38 million from wall street compared to 400K from the ever shrinking, almost gone forever UAW. That don’t buy you much in DC. As JP morgan dines on the corpse of GM.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 136 total)
1 2 3 … 8 9 10
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.