Clintonians Join Vulture Flock Over Argentina

[marmar]

from truthdig:



By Conn Hallinan


It is no surprise that right-wing Republican and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer should be trying to wring hundreds of millions of dollars out of Argentina for a debt that Buenos Aires doesn’t really owe him. He screwed tens of millions of dollars out of poverty-stricken Peru and the Republic of Congo using the same financial sleight of hand. What may surprise people, however, is that key leaders in the administration of former President Bill Clinton are helping him do it.

Singer, who owns Elliot Management, a $17 billion hedge fund, is the leading “vulture investor”—a financial speculator who buys up the bonds of debt strapped nations for pennies on the dollar and then demands payment in full. When Argentina defaulted on its foreign debt in 2001, Singer moved in and bought up $48 million in bonds. He is now demanding that those bonds be paid at full-face value—$1.5 billion—plus interest and fees. It is a move that could derail Argentina’s long climb back into solvency, as well as undermine debt settlements worldwide.

A recent decision by federal District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan may not only force Argentina to pay the vultures, it could unravel a 2006 debt deal between Buenos Aires and other creditors. Under the highly controversial principle of “pari passu” (“equal ranking among creditors”), if the vultures are compensated, so must all the other creditors, even those who settled back in 2006. That bill could reach $15 billion. Given that Argentina has only about $28 billion in foreign reserves, the tab could send Buenos Aires into a recession or force the country into bankruptcy.

The “sleight of hand” involves the fact that the countries the vultures prey on are not really in debt to creditors such as Singer and Eric Hermann of FH International Asset Management LLC. The hedge funds look for distressed countries, then buy their debt at bargain basement prices and sit on it. In the meantime, other creditors cut a deal to take a reduced payment on their bonds, which in turn helps improve the debtor’s economy and allows it to emerge from default. ...................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/day_of_the_vulture_over_argentina_20140724

[navarth]

1. excellent article, marmar, thanks for posting. nt

[Octafish]

2. Debt peonage rules.

Unlike slavery, the Owners don't have to come up with room and board.

[COLGATE4]

3. Let me see if I've got this right -

The Argentine government incurred a ton of debt by issuing bonds, which were bought by investors. When the Argentine government defaulted on its debt, some of the bondholders accepted some type of partial payment as payment in full. Some did not. Eventually some of the bonds held by those who did not agree to receiving pennies on the dollar were sold to other investors. Those investors now want the bonds to be paid in full.

Those latest investors are now being railed against as "vultures" because they are demanding that the bonds be paid in full as they were intended to be when issued. A U.S. Federal Court has now agreed with them. But Argentina doesn't want to pay.

Yep. Certainly sounds unfair to me.

[sabrina 1]

5. They are being called vultures because they ARE vultures. Try reading a little about

what they did to Argentina before jumping to conclusions. Many of them belong in jail, like our own vultures who collapsed THIS economy.

Maybe that ought to be Argentina's answer, to begin filing charges against the vultures who collapsed THEIR economy then sold off their national assets at bargain prices. Of course the same Austerity policies have now moved to first world countries, see Europe where they engaging in the same criminal activities.

Iceland got it right, arrest them and their crooked politician puppets, prosecute and convict them, then move on rebuilding what they destroyed.

[Fuddnik]

6. Singer was Center Stage in Palast's "Vultures Picnic".

[KoKo]

149. Yes...it's a good read. Downloadable at the usual sites....

Thanks for posting about Greg's work.

[COLGATE4]

7. There are no 'conclusions to jump to', aside

from the obvious ones I already made. If the Argentine government has problems with their own people who ran up copious debt, they definitely need to pursue actions against them. That however in no way negates the rights of the people who loaned the Argentine government the money against the promise of getting it repaid as promised. There's no reason investors should be punished for the mismanagement of a given government.

[zeemike]

9. So that kind of blows the theory of risk all to hell.

Because if they don't get their investment back with interest they are being punished...and we should not punish gamblers by denning them a win win all the time.

[COLGATE4]

22. No, it doesn't. There is always risk - but in this case

the "risk" seems to be that the Argentine government just doesn't want to pay. That's not a risk envisioned in most lending agreements, including these.

[zeemike]

32. So only risks that are envisioned count then.

That sure is a sweet deal...if you don't envision it, it don't count as a risk.
That is a gamblers paradise.

[COLGATE4]

227. If buying a country's International bonds were a gamble,

how many investors do you think would take it? Countries would be unable to secure additional financing from outside sources when needed if there is the risk that they won't get paid. No one in their right mind will buy bonds if they envision that there will be a default.

[zeemike]

230. You mean like credit default swaps?

But that did not hurt them at all, because the tax payer picked up the losses...they socialized the risk and capitalized the profits.
Just as only the little people pay taxes, only the Little people take risks when they invest.

[treestar]

220. That poster made a good point though

Investors take risks. If you lend money out, it's a risk. So it's capitalism biting them in the ass - they can win big, but lose big too.

[sabrina 1]

14. Clearly you know nothing about what happened in Argentina, which I suspected from your comments.

For one thing, it was the corrupt Argentine Govt that 'ran up debt', in collusion with the vultures now swooping down to further ravage the country's economy. NOT the people.

I understand why you support them now. Thanks.

[COLGATE4]

18. I support the law and legal institutions. If the 'corrupt Argentine

government' ran up debt then deal with those who did it. In the meantime they still owe the money.

[sabrina 1]

24. What law? Blind support for bad law would mean we here in the US would still

be supporting segregation eg. Criminals in corrupt governments make these laws. And they should be resisted at all costs for the good of the people.

Blind support for bad law implemented by corrupt governments is dangerous for the well-being of the people.

It was blind support for Bush's bad 'security' legislation that led to our disastrous invasions of other nations, to our loss of Civil Rights right here among other things. All of those laws will be fixed and those who blindly supported them, just like those who blindly supported segragation, will become history's dinosaurs.

[COLGATE4]

27. Oh, I don't know - maybe existing laws on International

Commerce and Finance, agreed to among virtually all the nations on the globe. I haven't heard any outcry from the International Community about these laws (which permit commerce and finance to flow freely and support our entire economy as well as that of other nations as well). The fact that you believe you are entitled to pick and choose which laws you feel are entitled to be honored and which to disregard really has no bearing on anything. If laws need to be changed, then by all means change them but merely shouting perfunctory emotional declarations may make you feel good but as a legitimate argument has zero validity.

[sabrina 1]

33. Corruption is a crime under the law also. But if you want to pick and choose your laws in favor

of the corrupt, who am I to try to stop you?

[COLGATE4]

38. Sounds wonderful but it wonderfully

non-sensical. If corruption is illegal what laws do you imagine legitimize it?

[sabrina 1]

43. See our bailouts for the corrupt banks, watch 'The Men Who Collapsed the World' among other

great documentaries on this topic, read Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine'. Start somewhere, because you are supporting the very people who created the policies that collapsed the world's economies. Maybe that's fine by you, I have no idea, I'm just assuming that no one would want to do that and it's simply a matter of your not knowing much about what's been going on regarding these matters.

[COLGATE4]

57. You keep repeating this as if it made any difference.

When challenged you persistently refuse to address any of the facts, relying instead on endlessly repeating tired cliches about situations which you and others on this thread apparently fail to actually understand. But keep convincing yourself that you actually know what you're talking about.

[griloco]

145. Whoops http://www.lusakatimes.com/2010/04/09/britian-deals-legal-blow-vulture-funds/ nt

[griloco]

147. Whoops http://www.jubileeaustralia.org/page/work/stop-debt-vultures nt

[griloco]

148. Whoops http://www.funds-europe.com/news/11474-isle-of-man-outlaws-vulture-funds nt

[griloco]

150. Whoops Jersey, too?

http://www.existenceisresistance.org/archives/1403

[griloco]

151. Whoops more?

http://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/article/africa-gets-new-international-organization-in-the-field-of-litigation-4806/

[griloco]

154. Whoops Brazil, too?

http://www.telam.com.ar/english/notas/201406/2637-brazil-supports-argentina-against-the-vulture-funds.html

[COLGATE4]

156. And your point is?

Whether Brazil - or Tanzania - or Afghanistan or any other country you care to name "supports" Argentina is less than irrelevant.The essential point is very simple (and has nothing to do with whoever may be cheerleading for the Argentinians):

The sovereign nation of Argentina wanted to spend more money than they had available from normal revenue sources so they went out to the international financial community and solicited loans from the entire world by issuing bonds. Investors bought those bonds, believing that (as per the terms of the bonds) that they would be repaid when and as promised. Argentina however instead refused to pay, threatening default and trying to weasel out of the debt by offering the original bondholders pennies on the dollar. Many accepted, not our of any affection for Argentina but simply because, as the saying goes in Spanish "something is something and nothing is nothing". Other original investors however didn't sell on the cheap, choosing instead to hold onto their bonds until a later date when better offer came along. Now one of the parties who bought the bonds is demanding payment, as is his unquestioned legal right to do so, determined by a United States Federal Court The fact that the Argentine government now once again finds it inconvenient to repay the money they so eagerly borrowed (and spent) is not of interest to anybody except perhaps the Argentinians. The upshot now seems to be that Argentina, rather than owing up to its just debts this time around is prepared to once again default. That should do absolute wonders for their already shaky economy.

[griloco]

157. i dunno, somebody once posted that nobody cared.

Commerce and Finance, agreed to among virtually all the nations on the globe. I haven't heard any outcry from the International Community about these laws (which permit commerce and finance to flow freely and support our entire economy as well as that of other nations as well).

[COLGATE4]

159. Not following you...

[griloco]

160. I'm surprised. I thought ve both vept for vultures. maybe if u sleep on it & come back fresh anon nt

[COLGATE4]

161. No. I fully support Singer. No need to

sleep on it.

[griloco]

166. who doesnt? except

The Ghosts of Charles Dickens and The Grinch post Cindy Lu Who. Ya know, I warned him to stay away from her.
"Grin," I said, "if there's there's a shred of compassion in you, she'll infect it and it'll mushroom like a malignant tumor on HGH."
He didn't listen.
I sure hope Singer herds my advice.

[COLGATE4]

172. I think your Lithium is wearing off. nt

[griloco]

173. Not according to Reply #109

Perhaps you and he went to different med schools.
But, no matter, it's poor Paul we worry about. Now that Argentina defaulted and sent the market plunging,
it's gotta hurt Paul. I know you're with me hoping he's not soon in front of Mr. McDonalds begging for bits*
so the he might browse the dollar menu for brunch.


*lest you're not a mathematician, it's 8 bits to the dollar

[griloco]

146. in case you mist it http://www.lusakatimes.com/2010/04/09/britian-deals-legal-blow-vulture-funds/

[rhett o rick]

111. So I am betting you admire Mittens the Romney. He robs, rapes and pillages, and it's all

allowed by the laws that you support. Capitalism can be a shit sometimes.

[COLGATE4]

117. You lose.

[dixiegrrrrl]

240. I think the general tenor of comments about your POV

reflect the feelings of good ole Mr. Bumble.
"If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot."

[brentspeak]

48. Singer and his vulture partners merely purchased Argentina's existing debt

They never loaned the Argentine government a single penny.

[COLGATE4]

51. Irrelevant. nt

[brentspeak]

55. Perfectly relevant, since you dishonestly

implied that Singer and his partners are the ones who were the lenders, when, in fact, they aren't.

[COLGATE4]

58. I never implied such a thing. They hold the bonds now - it's

irrelevant who first got them. Bonds are generally freely transferrable, and that's what happened here. Or is it your contention that only the original bondholder is entitled to be repaid?

[brentspeak]

62. "I never implied such a thing"

These are the words of Colgate4:

That however in no way negates the rights of the people who loaned the Argentine government the money against the promise of getting it repaid as promised. There's no reason investors should be punished for the mismanagement of a given government.

Yes, you did in fact dishonestly implied that Singer and his vulture crew who are squeezing Argentina are the same people who actually financed Argentina in the first place. I suggest quitting while you are still behind.

[COLGATE4]

64. The rights of the original bondholders pass to the newer

bondholders. The debt remains valid regardless of who happens to hold the paper. You're trying to make an argument which does not hold water legally.

[brentspeak]

67. The only argument I have made

is that you have duplicitously implied that Singer is someone who has loaned Argentina money.

And now that you are dishonestly claiming that I have made some other additional argument on the topic of bondholder legal rights, there seems to be no bottom to your unethical line of debate.

[Dreamer Tatum]

71. Since he holds the right to receive payments

he in effect IS the lender.

The schoolyard logic applied to international financial matters is stunning.

[brentspeak]

75. No, he is the creditor

Not the original "lender". I was responding to a misleading implication (clearly made) that Singer and his partners were in fact the actual original financiers who were not getting "repaid" for money they had lent:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5301968

COLGATE4:

...
That however in no way negates the rights of the people who loaned the Argentine government the money against the promise of getting it repaid as promised. There's no reason investors should be punished for the mismanagement of a given government.

...

I never disputed Singer's legal rights as the new bondholder. But that would have been clear to any Jr. High school student following the exchange on this thread.

I guess Wall St. shills gotta stick up for each other, no matter how ridiculous they make themselves look.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4050711&mesg_id=4051173

[Dreamer Tatum]

77. What difference does it make except to you?

And yes, if understanding how the bond market works makes me a "shill," then I wear the name proudly.

[brentspeak]

79. You're the genius who claims I didn't understand the bond market

Based upon my dispute with someone who was trying to paint the bondholder as the original lender.

And yes, since you proudly admit to being a "shill", here's my very favorite post of yours' (which comes from) this thread. The tear-jerking description of "contrite" CEOs gets me every time.

[Dreamer Tatum]

81. THAT'S your favorite post of mine? REALLY?

Hoo boy. Most people opt for my Ben Dayho epic.

[GeorgeGist]

114. You're thinking is vulture like.

[COLGATE4]

119. What I have stated here

is what exactly what I would advise a client if (s)he were in the same situation as the present bondholder. What is being missed (intentionally, I believe in some cases) js the unalterable fact that whether or not you agree the particular results in a legal case, how the law itself works is fact, not a matter of opinion.

[merrily]

187. So what? Why should we care that you would advise a client who pays

a pittance for creditor rights after the borrower has defaulted that fairness and justice demand that the client be paid 100% of the original loan? It's not true. The law may demand it, but that does not mean the law is either fair or just. Or that the law isn't an ass.

how the law itself works is fact, not a matter of opinion.

Oh, please.

No one said how the law works is a matter of opinion. If you are a lawyer, I don't think you win cases by trotting straw men before the bench. It's not going to do much, even on a message board, either, except elicit the straw man label.

BTW, how our law works is not always entirely consistent with what our laws say, but that is yet another issue from the issue in this thread.

Not only did no one post to you that what our laws say is a matter of opinion--though, btw, it often is---but not a single poster engaged you at all over your statements about what the law says. No one argued that the court decision was in violation of our existing plutocrat-protecting laws and "justice" system, either. You, however, posted about fairness and how Singer "should" get the full amount of a loan he neither made nor paid for in full.

Meanwhile, you have alternated between equating Singer with the original lender in your "shouldy" posts with switching to "it is irrelevant that he is the original lender when you switch your claims from fairness and justice to the letter of our plutocrat-protecting law. How you frame the facts and your claims of fairness are what the debate on this thread with you has been about--fairness and what "should" happen. Not a post I have read to this point in the thread argued with your statement of what existing law says.

[COLGATE4]

216. Lawyers have a saying:

When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. And when the law and facts are against you, pound the table.

You're pounding the table.

[merrily]

219. I am familiar with that saying. (Big deal.) This is a message board, not a court, though.

As far as pounding the table, labeling a straw man for what it is is not pounding a table. Also, look in the mirror.

Your opening argument was about fairness, not about what the law stated.

You've been using your law degree to use the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and to snark at and condescend to those who disagree with you. However, that is misplaced. Not a single poster argued with you about your statement as to applicable law and no poster exhibited any ignorance of what applicable law stated or any need to be schooled on that point anyway.

On the issue of fairness, which you raised, you never made your case. As to fairness, the facts of the Singer case are not with you and existing law is not a determinant of fairness.

So, again, your calling out a poster on the ground that how the law works is not a matter of opinion when no one claimed it was a matter of opinion is a straw man. A straw man who may have been to make your law degree more relevant to this thread than it actually is.

[treestar]

221. Not a big distinction really

the bonds are transferable. It matters little that someone else has them. If the original holder had them, the Argentine government would still owe the full amount.

That he bought them for pennies on the dollar shows they were not worth much and the original holders took their loss. But if they've gone up in value, he made a good investment.

[merrily]

180. You more than implied it. You posted that the people who lent the money were asking for it

back. That post was in contradistinction to your own earlier post, which explained that the ones asking for the money now were ones who bought the bonds after default.

[merrily]

179. Nope. Not irrelevant at all. They knew the risk and priced their purchase accordingly.

And, as my prior post to you states, even those who lent to Argentina knew the risk and priced accordingly.

The nature of loans and investments is that you win on some and you lose on some. If you are not willing for any losses, put your money under your mattress.

[Common Sense Party]

188. Part of the nature of loans and borrowing is also that if you don't pay back the money you borrow,

no one will lend to you again (at least not for a long time). You're on la lista de mierda.

Argentina may want to think about that, since they are essentially broke still (and have been for decades).

This isn't their first default, so the lenders (and the hedge funds who later purchased the debt) knew they were taking a risk and will most likely get bupkis for all their troubles.

But Argentina is not likely to turn their country around without a bit of restraint and self-discipline.

[merrily]

190. But, that has not been a prominent issue in the debate on this thread so far. Whether fairness and

justice demand that Singer get paid in full according to the terms of a loan made by lenders he bought out at a pittance has been the subject of the debate.

This isn't their first default,

Seems like all the more reason that fairness and justice don't demand payment in full to Singer.

Argentina may want to think about that,

Maybe, but I am not in regular communication with Argentina, so I won't be passing your message on to Argentina; and I doubt Argentina reads replies to my DU posts about what fairness and justice supposedly demands as to Singer.

In my opinion, justice just might demand that he and people like him reimburse taxpayers for part of the cost of maintaining a judicial system that rewards him for buying junk bonds when most taxpayers can't afford to use that same judicial system. After all, he "didn't build that."

[Common Sense Party]

191. Wow. Thanks for the condescending dismissal of my point.

Appreciate ya!

[merrily]

192. I tend to assume that a reply to a post of mine has something to do with my post.

I don't think that is an unusual expectation on a message board

Obviously, I had no clue what your reply had to do with the post of mine to which you were supposedly replying. It was a general comment on what Argentina should be thinking about, not anything like the subject of my post or indeed, what the thread had focused on to that point. What did you expect me to say to a reply to my post that was totally unrelated to my post?

I don't get your victimized reply or appreciate that, either.

[griloco]

241. so much for the lista

Better watch out for them BRICS

http://thebricspost.com/argentina-gets-a-7-5-bn-loan-from-china/

[merrily]

178. By your own cleaar description, the people who loaned Argentina money are no longer

involved. Rather, it's people who bought their interests at a pittance after default, knowing full well the economic risk they were taking. They are vultures.

Even the people who invested initially knew they were taking an economic risk in the hope of a nice return.


The nature of loans is that you don't get repaid sometimes, but, when you do, it makes up for your losses because you price your loans to do that. Pretending there is some moral high ground in those who buy up junk securities (or issue them, or sell them to others after default or bankruptcy) is silly.

If you don't want risk, don't invest or lend. Keep your money in a safe.

[jwirr]

26. Read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" which is a lesson in disaster capital and tells you exactly

what these vultures are doing. Then and Now.

[sabrina 1]

34. Yes, that should be required reading for anyone who cares about the current system of predatory

capitalism and how Argentina, among others, was victimized by it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. Where were you when Argentina took on the debt in the first place?

I see exactly zero threads when money is lent, but shitloads when people have the temerity to ask for it back.

[brentspeak]

84. Where were you when Wall St. banks were asking for taxpayer bailouts?

Answer: Shilling for banks to receive free money and get-out-jail-free cards after having first fleecing the American public:

Funny how this "temerity" thing works -- from this thread :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4050711&mesg_id=4050804

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4050711&mesg_id=4051173

[Dreamer Tatum]

86. I stand by both of those.

And PS - the banks repaid the government with interest.

I take it from your path down my memory lane (which I fully own and stand by) that you have nothing to add of your
own.

[brentspeak]

89. You do? This actual economist doesn't:

Dean Baker: Wall Street's greatest heist: the Tarp.

"And PS - the banks repaid the government with interest."

As it turns out, that is bull$hit.

Also: how much have the banks repaid the millions of Americans who have lost their homes and livelihoods as a result of Wall Street's mortgage securitization scams?

[Dreamer Tatum]

90. Do you have an actual point that is germaine to this thread?

I could give a fuck what Dean Baker said. If the banks weren't bailed out, there'd STILL be no capital markets. What are you whining at me for?

[brentspeak]

91. Yes, the point is that you're defending soaking Argentina

by bondholders who didn't actually lend Argentina any money while simultaneously defending Wall St. banks receiving undeserved bailouts after actually ripping off the American public. Further, you claimed (without merit) that not bailing out the banks would "freeze the credit markets" and wreck the world economy, and yet somehow you fail to see how quickly the global economy would inevitably hobble if Argentina were either to default or otherwise be made to pay this onerous debt.

Dreamer Tatum: "I could give a fuck what Dean Baker said."

Of course a self-proclaimed "shill" would disparage Baker. He's disproved the fairy tale of a "credit market freeze" many times over.

[Louisiana1976]

94. Yeah, Argentina should tell the bondholders to pound sand.

[Dreamer Tatum]

105. Why, exactly?

Do you tell your creditors to pound sand?

[Dreamer Tatum]

106. It doesn't matter who loaned the money, for the love of fucking Pete.

Do you own any stock? Oh, you do? Well, did you invest your own dollars in the company?

Wall Street banks have fuck-all to do with anything. The argument is merely over and you're dragging
irrelevant bullshit in to try to intimidate, which isn't working.

Let Argentina refinance the debt they owe. Is that so hard?

[brentspeak]

116. "Let Argentina refinance the debt they owe. Is that so hard?"

Since the holdout vulture firms refused to allow Argentina to refinance and demanded full payment instead, then, yes, it is that hard. That's what the whole thing is about.


You didn't bother to read up on any of this before you pontificated, did you?

[merrily]

185. If it doesn't matter, why has every poster siding with Singer posted that the

people who lent Argentina the money should get it back? Singer screwed those people, too. That is the nature of junk bond dealers.

Do you own any stock? Oh, you do? Well, did you invest your own dollars in the company?

Now, that is irrelevant to this thread. How much singer paid for his junk bonds and whether he knew the extent of the risk he was taking when he bought after the borrower had already defaulted is a lot more relevant to this thread than how some DUer pays for unspecified stock.

[sabrina 1]

163. Argentina did not 'take on debt' in the first place. Their corrupt Government did that.

Too bad for those hoping to make a killing on the backs of ordinary people. When you know your money is going to come from corrupt actions, you take a risk that your 'partners in crime' might leave you empty handed.

Iceland did it right, they arrested their corrupt politicians who made similar deals in THEIR name without THEIR permission, and they arrested their crooked bankers. Argentina needs to start prosecuting those who illegally sold their country down the river. And too bad for the predatory lenders, they lose.

They should try making an honest living like everyone else, instead of living up the name they have so earned so well.

[merrily]

181. Please see posts 178 and 179.

What the heck do you think the absences of DU thread when the loan was made (if indeed there were no threads) proves anyway? We're posting on political news, not writing securities law compliance documents or doing due diligence for investors.

[dixiegrrrrl]

239. Most of the predatory capitalism is, unfortunately, legal.

Just as a corporation is now a legal person.
Sigh.

I am rather amazed that the IMF and various governments behind it have been successfully putting one country after another into forced "austerity"
and very few have seen the pattern.

[merrily]

177. Sabrina 1, I cannot recall reading a post of yours that was not on the money, IMO.

No pun intended.

[sabrina 1]

228. I can say the same thing about you Merrily

[merrily]

235. Thank you.

[madokie]

213. It cannot be said enough

Iceland got it right, arrest them and their crooked politician puppets, prosecute and convict them, then move on rebuilding what they destroyed.

[sabrina 1]

232. Exactly, and the proof is in the results, the EU 'austerity' nations are a total

disaster while Iceland's economy rebounded. It doesn't take rocket science to know what ought to be done with criminals so we have to conclude that criminals are running things now.

[madokie]

233. Without a doubt

[Carolina]

11. Hmm,

And if China called US on our debt????????????????????????!!!!

[hack89]

23. It would destroy their biggest market and their economy

as well as blowing up a good portion of the global markets. China is not stupid.

[stevenleser]

41. Apples and Oranges. We are making our payments. That's like comparing...

a homeowner who is in default to one who is completely up to date on their mortgage payments and saying "But..but...but... what if the bank demanded immediate payment in full of the entire mortgage amount from the homeowner who is up to date on their mortgage payments."

It's an odd thing to ask that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[Dreamer Tatum]

87. And oddly enough, people seem to think that China has the right to "call debt"

and in this fantasy world, we would be beholden to pay up immediately or face the wrath
of China's warships, warplanes, and foreclosures.

Which SHOULD mean that people would support similar behavior toward Argentina, except someone
that's not allowed.

In other words, when we owe, it's a solemn debt that we will pay with our asses if necessary, but
all other countries can tell creditors to piss up a rope.

Odd.

[stevenleser]

98. well put. Mind boggling. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

107. I really, seriously don't get why people think every country on earth is entitled to free money

except us.

Is it hatred? Self-hatred? Stupidity? Insanity?

And now they shouldn't have to pay someone because they weren't the ones who loaned the money in the first place???????

Just staggering. At least adults are in charge of important things, I suppose.

[Dreamer Tatum]

85. What about the bonds they hold implies that they can "call debt?"

I really think there should be a rule about certain things.

[amandabeech]

175. US treasuries are not generally callable.

They are however, tradable, and there is a world-wide market available to all sellers.

If you don't like them, sell them.

[merrily]

186. I take your point, but China and Singer are not comparable.

China actually did lend money to us to us and started doing so when we looked really credit-worthy. Singer bought junk bonds at a relative pittance after Argentina had already defaulted on those very bonds. Singer knew what risks he was taking and is screwing the original lenders, who get no upside if he gets paid in full. Then again, they, too, knew the risks of the original loan and the nature of the deal they were making with Singer.

Risks and losses are part of the deal when you invest and/or lend. The notion that fairness and justice demand that no investor/lender ever get less than 100% of a loan someone else made to Argentina is a joke to me.

[Dreamer Tatum]

70. You have it exactly right. Certain countries, aided by certain ignorant people,

think that if you wait long enough, debt will go out of statute and it's magically forgiven.

They also think, stupidly, that if X buys the debt from Y at a discount, then at best only the
discount is owed by the counterparty. Horesfeathers - the original amount is owed, period. The
fact that the debt was sold at a discount reflects the patience and beliefs of the seller.

Pay up, Argentina.

[COLGATE4]

120. You said it much better than I have. Thanks. nt

[suffragette]

101. Singer is a vulture and part of the money he gets helps fund Republicans

He profits from human misery, globally as well as here.



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/paul-singer-elliott-republican-fundraiser

The trifecta of big checks, high-powered connections, and influence in GOP policy circles has made Singer a kind of triple threat. "Singer is the big power broker in the Republican financial world," says one operative who knows him. "He's involved with almost everything." Fortune described him as "a passionate defender of the 1%." In practical terms, notes one conservative donor, "if you write checks as big as Singer's, you can be close to anyone."

Singer got his start as a megadonor in the 2004 campaign cycle, when he helped raise Wall Street cash for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked John Kerry's war record in Vietnam. In 2007 he backed Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid, including loaning the former New York City mayor his plane. Singer also secretly funneled $175,000 into a California ballot measure to allocate the state's electoral votes on a proportional basis—a strategic ploy designed to move some of the blue state's votes to the GOP. Singer was instrumental in the selection of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a fellow fan of laissez-faire capitalism, as Mitt Romney's 2012 running mate; Dan Senor, now a senior adviser at Elliott, was one of the campaign's top foreign policy staffers. (Senor served as the Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman during the early days of the occupation of Iraq, where he once said, "Well, off the record, Paris is burning. But on the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq.&quot

Recently, Singer has given sizable sums to the billionaire Koch brothers' dark-money projects as well as to the Club for Growth, an anti-tax group that has helped tea partiers oust several mainstream Republicans. He's also donated generously to Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, and has tapped Susan Ralston, a former aide to Rove and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, for fundraising help. Elliott Management employees are major backers of virtually every top Republican in Washington, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, as well as 2016 presidential prospects like Ryan and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

~~~snip~~~

Among Elliott's allies is Rep. Scott Garrett, the New Jersey Republican who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees the Securities and Exchange Commission. Garrett has fought to slash the SEC budget and calls Dodd-Frank "unconstitutional." In 2010, Elliott executives ponied up nearly $200,000 for two campaign committees that helped Garrett and also boosted his stature with fellow Republicans; a large chunk of one of the committees' funds went to assist other members. Singer and other Elliott execs have also opened their wallets wide for Cantor, who has led efforts to protect a massive tax break, known as carried interest, that allows hedge funders to pay very low capital-gains rates on their income.

[COLGATE4]

118. OK. So?

[KoKo]

153. Corruption...at the highest level...Politicians...and who they work for.

effecting average Americans ,Global Average Folks in their Pension Funds , Retirement Savings and Life Quality when things go bust.

Does this not affect YOU?

[COLGATE4]

162. That's all very interesting, but what, pray tell

does it have to do with the question about payment on the Argentinian bonds? Who are you saying is corrupt? The Argentine politicians who borrowed the money and then spent it on God knows what? Probably. I don't know if Pension Funds invested in those same bonds - if they did, the people having their 410K's in those funds undoubtedly took a beating when Argentina refused to pay them when they came due, offering only pennies on the dollar. For sure their default now (again) is going to affect the life quality of normal Argentines.

[treestar]

223. But a person's character does not affect the value of bonds he holds

That'd be like saying your mortgage payments should be lowered because you are a good person.

[merrily]

176. Yeah. People who buy bonds for nothing AFTER default always have the

moral high ground when they demand payment in full.



No surprise our federal courts find for them, either.

[Fuddnik]

4. Singer is a collection agency working on a mammoth scale.

He buys debt for pennies on the dollar, and demands full payment.

He's a parasite.

Maybe Operation Condor could be resurrected as "Operation Vulture".

[COLGATE4]

8. As is his right. Why shouldn't he get payment?

[griloco]

10. i cry for billionaires, too. nt

[COLGATE4]

21. Cry for anyone who lends money expecting it

to be repaid and then gets shafted. Hope it never happens to you.

[sabrina 1]

25. I have some names to give him, the actual culprits he 'trusted' to lend money to. It certainly

wasn't the people. But why would someone like HIM care about extorting money from innocent victims? He wouldn't, nor would any decent person expect him to.

[COLGATE4]

30. I think you're responding to some other poster?

[sabrina 1]

35. No I was responding to your 'he has a right' comment.

[COLGATE4]

37. Then I have to admit you've left me completely

in the dark as to what you're trying to say.

[griloco]

47. my bad. i didnt realize u just wanted them to get their pennies back nt

[COLGATE4]

52. Well, if it's so minor, why are people bitching

about paying it?

[griloco]

59. i know, right, you'd think Argentina was bitching about 15 billion

Not the 48 million Singer so desperately needs for his grandmother's operation.

[COLGATE4]

61. I don't know where you come up with the concept that

a business debt is only due if and when the debtor decides to whom it is going to be repaid? Singer is irrelevant to the discussion, just as a party with whom you may have never had contact winds up with the mortgage on your house. If you don't pay it, that person can foreclose on you. Bonds are negotiable instruments and, as such, can wind up in hands far distant from the original lenders. Nothing new or noteworthy about that, for all you tie yourself into knots trying to suggest.

[griloco]

73. my bad again! didnt realize u had dismist poor mr singer &

Were dealing in the Lofty Concept of Predatory Mortgages for which the blameless lenders paid billions in fines for creating American waifs. Hey, maybe we could set up a Waif Exchange Program with Argentina. Mr Singer could head it up, charging enough per waif to afford Grammie's operation. Whaddaya think?

[Dreamer Tatum]

74. I think you need a dictionary and a course in logic, for openers. nt

[griloco]

99. Ha ha ha, dictionary!!! That is soooo 2nd millenium. but teach me logic

o, wise one, as so often I am logicing outside the box.
like:
billionaire loots country ⊨ impoverished country ⊨impoverished families ⊨ dad's leaving home bye bye ⊨ mother's little helper od ⊨ widgets* (something considered typical or representative, as of a manufacturer's product--so cool, online definitions, soooo 3rd millennium--you oughta try it)

obviously my widget* solution needs to be logically reboxed. Please, O Learned Logician, school me in your Way of the Widget*!





*widget is more bean-county so one need not consider waifs as human lest one angst over:
"Singer then demands aid-giving nations pay monstrous ransoms to let trade resume. At BBC TV's Newsnight, we learned that Singer demanded $400 million dollars from the Congo for a debt he picked up for less than $10 million. If he doesn't get his 4,000% profit, he can effectively starve the nation. I don't mean that figuratively—I mean starve as in no food. In Congo-Brazzaville last year, one-fourth of all deaths of children under five were caused by malnutrition." http://www.gregpalast.com/romneys-billionaire-vulturepaul-singer-the-gops-baddie-sugar-daddie/

And can't have stuff like that spoiling your dreams, tatum

[merrily]

183. Maybe the same place you get the concept that justice reguires Singer to win big on a risky

investment.

Bonds are negotiable instruments and, as such, can wind up in hands far distant from the original lenders. Nothing new or noteworthy about that, for all you tie yourself into knots trying to suggest.

Nothing new about dealers in junk bonds who buy for next to nothing after the borrower's defaullt taking a loss on a a given investment, either. Nothing unjust about it, either, for all your talk of fairness. It's the nature of the transaction they enter into knowingly and of their own free will.

Don't cry for them, Argentina.

[griloco]

60. btw, u got a suggestiion for best port of entry for Argentinian waifs? nt

[brentspeak]

49. How much money did Singer loan the nation of Argentina?

Trick question: He never loaned them a dime; he merely purchased their existing debt.

[COLGATE4]

50. How does that invalidate the debt? Answer: it doesn't.

[brentspeak]

56. Perhaps you should quit disingenously

implying that Singer and his group were the ones who loaned Argentina money in the first place -- when, of course, they weren't. They are merely vultures, scum.

[COLGATE4]

63. Totally ficticious argument. WHO the bondholder

is is irrelevant to how and when the bond is to be paid.

[brentspeak]

66. The only "fictitious argument" here

is your own duplicitous implication that Singer is one of Argentina's lenders.

Perhaps you should shed some of that duplicity.

[COLGATE4]

68. I have now told you three times in as plain language

as I possibly can that WHO holds the bonds now is totally irrelevant to whether and how they are to be paid. There is no requirement that only the original bondholder can redeem the bonds. If that concept still eludes you, you might want to Google "negotiable instruments" to see how things like this actually work in real life. Once again, it doesn't matter if Singer, Elvis or Kubla Khan happen to hold the Argentine bonds right now. Whoever holds them, so long as they were not obtained by theft is entitled to their repayment as originally stipulated. Trying to continue a red herring about it being Singer or anyone else does not affect that question in the slightest.

[brentspeak]

69. Can you explain to all of us here

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

why you have dishonestly implied that Singer is one of Argentina's lenders?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5302731

COLGATE4 (5,816 posts)

21. Cry for anyone who lends money expecting it

to be repaid and then gets shafted. Hope it never happens to you.

When you are done coming up with some bull$hit explanation, you can then attempt to explain why you think furiously backpedaling by misrepresenting my responses to your BS has somehow supported your position.

[Dreamer Tatum]

88. Breathtaking. You are an amusing person. nt

[Common Sense Party]

189. I bought a house. ABC Mortgage Lender loaned me the money. Two months later, they sold my

loan to DEF Bank, who a few months later sold the loan to GHI Financial. My mortgage payments now go to GHI Financial.

GHI is not the entity that loaned me the money.

Does that mean I can stop sending mortgage payments to GHI? That's awesome!

[brentspeak]

237. No, but you might want to enroll in some basic

reading comprehension classes, and maybe some coursework in how not to stupidly employ logical fallacies, as well. That is because I never claimed at all that Argentina is legally off the hook because the vulture funds are now bondholders rather than original lenders; I simply called out the earlier tool who tried to make it seem as if Singer really was Argentina's original financier and not just a piece of filth vulture investor who purchased Argentina's debt on the second-hand market.

There are fifth grade children with a better grasp of logic -- and ethics -- than what has been displayed on this thread among the GOP sugar daddy Singer defenders.

[Carolina]

12. I repeat

If China called US on our debt????????????!

[COLGATE4]

20. What do you suppose would happen?

[COLGATE4]

29. See post #23. It already answered your question.

[Carolina]

46. I won't bother responding to you.

Bravo to Sabrina 1 who's doing a good job of that.

[COLGATE4]

53. Best non-response of the day.

[msanthrope]

76. Props to you for an injection of reality. Best of luck. nt

[COLGATE4]

122. Every so often I am (painfully) reminded of

the old saying 'trying to argue legal issues with a non-lawyer is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't get you anywhere and all it does is irritate the pig'. My bad for forgetting that.

[msanthrope]

123. I get reminded that every day here. I get accused of not being a lawyer

whenever I correctly point out the law that bursts the illusion bubble. Or I get called stasi or paid troll.

[COLGATE4]

125. I hear you. I had one poster refuse to believe I actually

practice law even after I privately e-mailed him a copy of my bar credentials. Told me i could have 'gotten it anywhere'. Go figure.

[msanthrope]

126. Steve Leser had me on his show election night....I had the Black Panther

precinct in Philadelphia as part of my beat working as an election monitor/attorney on behalf of the Obama campaign.

I've represented DUers.

I've challenged posters to report me to admin if they think I'm lying.

And I still get challenged.... jberryhill, too.

[COLGATE4]

127. Yep. Jberryhill handles it extremely well. I

envy him/her his patience sometimes.

[msanthrope]

133. He is an expert on the legal aspects of birtherism...He turned me on to The Fogbow.

In my Free Republic troll account, I've used some of his work.

I guess if you can successfully debate birthers, you must have the patience of a saint.

I can't wait for the next Haas v. Romney filing, though....

[Sgent]

206. What are you talking about

US Debt is generally not callable (other than Savings bonds issued in small amounts to citizens).

[sabrina 1]

15. Lol, poor, poor vultures, they are people too. Sorry, you won't see many people crying for that

particular heartless opportunistic Corporate vulture. I am hoping they all end up in prison where they belong before they do any more harm to the people in all the countries where they pulled off what has been called 'the biggest heist in history'. I don't cry for robbers no matter what title they give themselves.

[COLGATE4]

19. Call it anything you like but it's the law, as recognized

in both Argentina and the U.S. Or do you suppose that institutions lend money on the vague hope that perhaps someday it will be repaid? Be realistic. the world doesn't work that way.

[jwirr]

39. I think that the Argentina government was installed by the lenders not the people - or at least

it was back when the money was borrowed. They made sure that it could never be paid back by the people who got the money - the government officials who represented only the rich in their country. Sound familiar?

[COLGATE4]

42. OK. So, your 'theory' is

1- The Argentine government at the time the bonds were issued were merely puppets installed by greedy capitalistic money-grubbing lenders, not the people.
2- The Argentine government knew from the get-go that they money they got from issuing their government bonds was really only going to go to themselves (although they are supposedly representing the Argentine 'rich' people who didn't get the money) and somehow worked it so the money would never be repaid. In other words, they attempted to defraud the lenders.

Didn't work.

[jwirr]

45. If you want to put it that way but you are on the side of the crooks. Read the book I suggested

above. I am not by any means the only one to think that this is a criminal conspiracy. As someone else in this thread said Iceland did not fall for their lies and instead put the bankers in jail.

We are seeing much the same thing with the mortgage fraud in housing right now. The bailouts were to keep the banksters (lenders) from going broke. Today many of these banksters are being fined by the courts because they made faulty loans to homeowners who got nothing but long term debt and bad credit out of the loss of their houses.

[COLGATE4]

54. Your lack of understanding of how laws work

is only trumped by your lack of understanding of how the housing market collapse actually happened. (Hint: it's not a conspiracy).

[think]

82. Some history for perspective perhaps?:

US involvement with the Junta

Despite the fact that at least six US citizens had been "disappeared" by the Argentine military by 1976 and the fact that the US embassy in Buenos Aires had been pushing Argentina's government to respect human rights, high ranking state department officials including then Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger had secretly given their approval to Argentina's new military rulers.[178]



7 August 1979 US embassy in Argentina memorandum of the conversation with "Jorge Contreras", director of Task Force 7 of the "Reunion Central" section of the 601 Army Intelligence Unit, which gathered members from all parts of the Argentine Armed Forces. Subject: "Nuts and Bolts of the Government's Repression of Terrorism-Subversion." Original document on the National Security Archives' website.

State Department documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act show that in October 1976, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and high-ranking US officials gave their full support to the Argentine military junta and urged them to hurry up and finish their actions before the US Congress cut military aid.[178]

On 5 October 1976 Henry Kissinger met with Argentina's Foreign Minister and stated:

“ Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better... The human rights problem is a growing one. Your Ambassador can apprise you. We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help.[178]....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War#US_involvement_with_the_Junta

The source:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm

KISSINGER TO ARGENTINES ON DIRTY WAR:
"THE QUICKER YOU SUCCEED THE BETTER"

Washington, D.C., 4 December 2003 - Newly declassified State Department documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act show that in October 1976, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and high ranking U.S. officials gave their full support to the Argentine military junta and urged them to hurry up and finish the "dirty war" before the U.S. Congress cut military aid. A post-junta truth commission found that the Argentine military had "disappeared" at least 10,000 Argentines in the so-called "dirty war" against "subversion" and "terrorists" between 1976 and 1983; human rights groups in Argentina put the number at closer to 30,000.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm

Book launch: "Outstanding Debts to Settle:The Economic Accomplices of the Dictatorship in Argentina"

Horacio Verbitsky and Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky bring together contributions, from more than twenty specialists, in this book that aims to reveal complicity that existed between economic and other private actors and the dictatorship in Argentina.
The cases of business collaboration that are discussed range from the role of private companies, to the financing role of banks and the mass media. The book also discusses economic illegal appropriation of business, the role of lawyers, business organizations, economic think tanks, the Catholic hierarchy, and scholars. Theoretical questions on the economy of authoritarian governments, rational choice, transitional justice and accountability of non-state actors for their involvement are also addressed.
The book accomplishes the task of gathering substantive information on civil and economic complicity that was previously scattered. In achieving it, the book contributes to the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence...

~Snip~


http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/library.nsf/(httpLibraryTalksByYear_en)/9F42A66750B90238C1257CAC0049FAFD?OpenDocument&year=2014&navunid=A3609D61BE9ADE32C125792500519C47

Alternate link as the top link does not work unless copied and pasted:

http://goo.gl/kngbPz

[Louisiana1976]

95. Why, oh why, does Henry Kissinger merit such respect when not only did he support the

Dirty War in Argentina, he was also behind the Pinochet coup in Chile? Kissinger ought to visit Argentina--then he'd get to see the inside of an Argentinian prison.

[COLGATE4]

124. I fail to see what this has to do with the question

we're discussing here. Did Argentina have (a whole series of) corrupt governments? Undoubtedly. Did they manage to screw up their economy time after time? Absolutely. Did they ask for and receive million upon millions of dollars from lenders all over the world? Yep. Did they have the right to solicit and incur that debt? Sure. And are they now required by law to pay it back? Absolutely.

The rest is interesting historical analysis, nothing more.

[think]

128. Kissinger's involvement in installing a ruthless dictator has no bearing?

Did members of the US government help install a ruthless dictator who oversaw the murder and or dissappearances of tens of thousands of Argentinians and then racked up huge debts or not?

Does high level collusion have any place for context in the situation for you?

If someone helps someone break into your house and that person then lends that person money on one of your accounts should you be required to pay back the person who helped the intruder?

Just curious....

[COLGATE4]

129. Nope. No bearing at all. The Argentine government

that undertook these loans was a legitimate government placed in power by the Argentine people. That government issued bonds in an attempt to raise additional monies, just as governments do all over the world, including ours. Kissinger had nothing to do with issuing the bonds nor setting the terms for their repayment. Payment on these bonds is now due. Any other political backstories or side stories are irrelevant to the issue.

[think]

130. Set up a puppet govt and anything your puppet does is legit. got it.....

[COLGATE4]

131. If you have facts that the Argentine government

that incurred the debt was a puppet government, I'd love to see them. Please provide links and cites showing that.

[think]

132. I gave you the information. Ignore or refute as you like.... /nt

[COLGATE4]

134. So the answer is "none". Got it.

[think]

135. Nice try. Who gave the dictator military aid after the coup? China? Seriously.....

Bold added for emphesis

US involvement with the Junta

~Snip~

The US was also a key provider of economic and military assistance to the Videla regime during the earliest and most intense phase of the repression. In early April 1976, the US Congress approved a request by the Ford Administration, written and supported by Henry Kissinger, to grant $50,000,000 in security assistance to the junta.[179] At the end of 1976, Congress granted an additional $30,000,000 in military aid, and recommendations by the Ford Administration to increase military aid to $63,500,000 the following year were also considered by congress.[180] US assistance, training and military sales to the Videla regime continued under the successive Carter Administration up until at least 30 September 1978 when military aid was officially called to a stop within section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act.

In 1977 and 1978 the United States sold more than $120,000,000 in military spare parts to Argentina, and in 1977 the US Department of Defense was granted $700,000 to train 217 Argentine military officers.[181] By the time the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program was suspended to Argentina in 1978, total US training costs for Argentine military personnel since 1976 totalled $1,115,000. After the onset of the US military cutoff, Israel became Argentina's principal supplier of weapons.[182] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Israel earned more than $1 billion a year selling weapons, many of them originating from the United States, to the military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. "Thus while Argentine Jewish newspaper publisher and human rights advocate Jacobo Timerman was being tortured by the Argentine military in cells painted with swastikas, three Israeli generals, including the former armed chief of staff, were visiting Buenos Aires on a 'friendly mission' to sell arms."[183]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War#US_involvement_with_the_Junta

[COLGATE4]

136. Making a political decision to support a given government

is done every day, by every country. There are dozens of countries around the world that receive military aid from the US every year. Or are all of them our 'puppets'?

[badtoworse]

137. You're doing a great job on this and I agree with everything you've posted.

I've been tempted to jump in but I haven't for fear of being repetitive. I think it's worth observing, however, that the same people who are saying Argentina shouldn't have to repay all the bonds, would be screaming if Argentina defaults (again) and the banks and other investors refuse to buy their bonds except at usurious rates.

[think]

139. So if China supported a military coup against America

and the new dictator got loans from China and it's friends; and then proceeded to blow that money on whatever they want; America would still be required to pay the debt in full once it gained it's freedom again?

Is this your argument?

[badtoworse]

140. The coup was in 1976. Argentina elected Alfonsin in 1983.

I don't see how your question is relevant, unless you consider every Argentine government after Isabel Peron illegitimate.

[COLGATE4]

141. Thanks. You are absolutely correct.

I never fail to be amazed at the outpouring of unthinking love for a country that is unable to keep its own finances in order. There is apparently a 'mercy rule' in international finance that states that, if the person holding the debt is judged as unacceptable by some (whose actual knowledge of the problem and its causes is generally not very impressive) then it's only "fair" that the debt should be forgiven, because..., well, because.

[merrily]

182. Nothing like thinking you're making a point by pretending you know how people you've never met

would post in the future about an entirely different set of facts.

[badtoworse]

212. Some things on DU are predictable. Blaming the banks for everything is one of them

[merrily]

215. Funny, I never saw DUers blaming the banks for everything.

Their role in the mortgage backed securities crisis, yes.

Their role, and that of government, in getting released from many of the wrong things they did during that frenzy, yes.

Everything, no.

[badtoworse]

218. OK, maybe I exaggerate sometimes.

[merrily]

222. Respect. Not many people make admissions like that on a message board.

I have a few times, but I, too, succumb to the wrong temptations.

With no trace of snark or sarcasm, respect.

[badtoworse]

225. Thanks!

[ms.smiler]

234. COLGATE4, if you have at any point in time graced the DU community

with your non-conspiratorial understanding or explanation of the housing market collapse, would you kindly provide or direct me to such an intriguing read?

[COLGATE4]

28. Why shouldn't he? Because you say so?

[Faux pas]

13. ...

I'm shocked! NOT. They're predators. Slick willy proved that he was a long time ago. Birds of a feather do flock together and you do get fleas laying down with dogs and you're known by the company you keep.

[dsc]

16. funny I read the entire, whole, complete article

and can find nothing, nada, nihil, about any Clintonite doing any suing or helping any suing. It is almost like the site should be named falsedig.

[questionseverything]

36. from the article

But the people who head up the main lobbying organization behind Singer’s current campaign, the American Task Force Argentina (ATFA), sit on the high councils of the Democratic Party and would likely be part of any Hillary Clinton administration.

The task force is essentially a front for several vulture funds, conservative and libertarian business groups, and agricultural organizations, like the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, which would like to damage Argentina’s cattle export business. And its executive director is Robert Raben, former counsel for liberal Congressman Barney Frank, Democratic counsel for the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration.

ATFA’s two co-chairs are Clinton’s former undersecretary of commerce, Robert Shapiro, and Clinton appointee to the United Nations Nancy Soderberg. Shapiro was an adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and a senior adviser to Al Gore’s 2000 run for the White House. Soderberg, who served as a senior foreign policy adviser to Sen. Edward Kennedy, was also a member of Clinton’s National Security Council and an alternative representative to the U.N. with the title of ambassador. She is currently a Democratic Party activist in Florida and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Raben, Soderberg and Shapiro have written numerous opinion pieces on Argentina using their Clinton administration credentials and, depending on the publication, have not always disclosed their lobbying ties. The three snookered the progressive Huffington Post into running opinion pieces until journalists Christina Wilkie and Ryan Grim uncovered their ties to ATFA. HuffPo subsequently removed the articles from its website.

[dsc]

40. please point out where they are suing or helping people sue

They say nothing at all about what they are lobbying for. Do you have any idea what the lobbying is? I sure don't and there is no way to know from reading this article. He didn't even bother to provide any description of the oh so naughty articles.

[stevenleser]

44. It's an extreme reach to the point of being dishonest. A desperate try to attack the Clintons

Singer apparently is affiliated with former low ranking members of the Clinton administration and the author of the piece wants to attack the Clintons, so, the author creates a sensational title, quickly mentions the supposed connection and quickly moves on to describe how terrible Singer is in her estimation, hoping you will forget that the connection between Singer and the Clintons is so thin you can see right through it.

[wyldwolf]

80. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025304049

[stevenleser]

97. + infinity nt

[xchrom]

17. du rec.

[truedelphi]

31. It is no surprise that the Clintons are about The Vultures - just look at Hillary's actions

With regards to the Brazilian troops fighting the poor in the Honduras. And if she is elected, that will make it twelve years of this shit.

What a nation. The citizens have the right to vote in a "free election" of such limited choice that voting is a joke. Sadly we mostly have to vote for the Democratic vultures who let everyone have the right to get married, and who oppose the Republicans and their whacky ways, even as the Democratic vultures help the Republican vultures destroy the economy for all but the rich, and those who are part of the new dot com bubble.).

Or we can vote for the Republicans, who would end not only LGBT marriage, but a woman's right to reproductive health.

[Louisiana1976]

96. Hillary was behind the coup in Honduras in 2009 that overthrew Manuel Zelaya and caused

things to go to hell in Honduras. The lawlessness that Honduran kids have been fleeing ensued. But at the end of the day, if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, I'll have to hold my nose and vote for her because I know a Republican administration would be much worse.

[truedelphi]

138. Yep, you' re saying what I am saying. And yet we call this

"freedom."

The ability to choose between a shit sandwich on rye, with a side order of people's civil rights, or a shit sandwich on wheat, that has no civil rights as a side order.

[Laelth]

65. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[wyldwolf]

78. SPINdig...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025304049 LOL!

[Dreamer Tatum]

83. Here is the attitude of many posters, brought down to a level anyone can understand.

"Hey, man, can I borrow $20. I'll, like, pay you back with interest and shit."

"OK. Just sign this and make sure you make your payments on time."

"Whatever, dude. Thanks for the $20."

(months pass)

"Um, hey? About that $20...you haven't been making payments. Can you maybe get caught up?"

"Whaaaaaaat? Dude, that was like, months ago. I spent that money, man. It's been a real hassle lately. Anyway
why do you want the money back? Dude, don't you already have some? Why do you want, like, more?"

"I just want what you agreed to pay."

"Looks like you're doing OK already. I'm not paying, man."

(months pass; debt is sold at a deep discount)

"Hi. I own the debt you owe. Can you pay me per the contract?"

"No way. I didn't even borrow the money from you. Looks like you have a new Camaro Berlinetta with a
Blaupunkt, man. I'm not giving you squat. In fact, you give me some."



And so forth.

[griloco]

100. That's the kind of logic I'm talkin' about! (you just left off the part threatening his kids)

oh, and, this part

"Guys like Singer don't pay taxes like you and I do. While we pay taxes on income, the profits from vulture speculation and arbitrage are often recorded as "carried interest," effectively not taxed for years, then when collected, only at a low rate. It's a billion-dollar benefit for the billionaires, and every Republican candidate has sworn to keep this loophole open and make sure you and I pay Singers' taxes for him."
http://www.gregpalast.com/romneys-billionaire-vulturepaul-singer-the-gops-baddie-sugar-daddie/

And I'm proud to do it, aren't you?

[Dreamer Tatum]

102. What do his taxes have to do with anything?

What the fuck kind of dumbshit logic is that? The debtor shouldn't owe or pay because the debt holder has tax advantages?

Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?

[griloco]

103. Exactly what I said!!! WTF

BTW is your failure to have a solution for widgets* an example of your superior logic?
(remember, I'm here to learn from the Master)

*waifs

[Dreamer Tatum]

104. This matter is about a million times simpler than you demand it should be

1. Argentina issued debt.
2. Someone acquired the debt.
3. Argentina owes the debt.


And no other misdirection or irrelevant complaint is going to do a goddamned fucking thing about #1-#3 above.
My solution? Argentina pays its fucking bills. Pretty simple.

[griloco]

108. Gosh, when you put it that way. You should call Argentina* and tell them. Simply

But still, O Legendary Logicatron, what of the Widgets**?
Do tell if ignoring broken Widgets** is your logical solution.
Ya know, it is just so glorious to be in the presence of genius.

BTW, dismist
1.(obsolete) simple past tense and past participle of dismiss

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dismist
See, you can toss that old 2nd mil book now. Online is soooo cool.

*
Nation President Office of the President President: Dr. Cristina Fernandez. Vice President: Mr. Amado Boudou Balcarce 50, floor 1. (1064) Autonomous City of Buenos Aires Telephone: [phone]


**waifs

[Dreamer Tatum]

109. Glad the lithium is working for you. nt

[griloco]

112. Thank you for your concern. But lemme see if I got your Brilliant Logic...

Your concern is for one (1) nontaxpaying, Widget*starving, countryimpoverishing Paul Singer,
not the 41446246 people of Argentina.

So avoid dealing with the reality of the results.

Gosh, that is brilliant! Having no Widget* solution.

Has anybody ever acknowledged what a great Human Being you are!!!


*waif

[griloco]

113. BTW, how did President Dr. Cristina Fernandez respond to your Logic? nt

[merrily]

194. Months pass. Borrower, who has defaulted on debt in the past, defaults on this debt, too.

In light of the borrower's past history, no one is, or should be, very surprised by the default.

Junk bond dealer, who knew or should have known the risks involved with buying this debt of this borrower pays peanuts to those who actually made 100% of the loan, and sues to collect in full, in accordance with the original terms of their loan. The court awards him the remedy he seeks. For some reason, some DUers sympathize with him, anyway, saying how unfair and unjust any other outcome would have been to him.

Maybe, fairness and justice would require that he get back what he originally paid for the debt, if anything?

NO! He paid for the prospect of great gain.

Did he really, though?

And if he did, did his pricing not also reflect the very high possibility that he could lose his entire investment?

So, why is only the outcome that is the best possible scenario for him the only fair and just outcome? For that matter, why does fairness and justice to Singer not also require that he share the upside with the people who actually did give Argentina billions of dollars (knowing Argentina's prior history of defaut)?

Look, the court may have acted in accordance with the letter of existing law. Not a single post on this thread that I have read so far argues that the decision violates existing law.

You want to argue letter of the law? You'll get no argument from me. I'll even side with you.

However, when posters lose me is when posters start throwing around words like "fair" and "should" in connection with awarding Singer all the upside and zero of the downside of a clearly VERY risky transaction, a risk he undertook knowingly and voluntarily, and probably eagerly. The entire junk bond business has precious little to do with fairness and justice. For that matter, neither does a lot of our legal system or our economic system.

Getting sarcastic about posters who don't agree that Singer occupies some kind of moral high ground as to the nation of Argentina, the people of Argentina, the original lenders or anyone else simply is not reality. Is the law on his side? Yeah, but what the law currently says has nothing to do with the disagreements on this thread.

[Louisiana1976]

92. They're called "vultures" for a reason. If Argentina can't afford to pay them off she

shouldn't have to.

[COLGATE4]

143. I hope you handle your mortgage in a different

fashion that what you're advocating here.

[Louisiana1976]

155. I don't have a mortgage--I pay rent. And I pay it first thing every month. But with

countries it's different--I doubt a country can be foreclosed upon or evicted through non-payment of bills.

[COLGATE4]

158. And when you don't pay your rent, do you believe you should

not be evicted because you say you can't pay? There is nothing exotic about borrowing money, whether is be $100 or $100 million. If and when you don't pay money that's legally due there are unpleasant consequences. Argentina has already defaulted at least twice in recent history - they seem to make a habit of it. Sort of like what some people here used to do by filing bankruptcy on a fairly regular basis (until the last reform of the bankruptcy laws).

[tularetom]

93. Um, theres a reason Singer was able to buy the debt so cheap

And that reason was whoever he bought the bonds from had a pretty strong suspicion that they were never going to get repaid.

It really doesn't matter what some judge says, he rolled the dice and lost. No sense in him being pissed off at Argentina, he knew their bonds were worthless when he bought them. If he wants to be pissed off at somebody he should look at the people who sold him all that worthless debt.

This thing is far from over, and Singer may have outsmarted himself. The matter of divvying up the debt is almost certain to go back to court and if it does, Singer won't be at the front of the line, he'll have to get his share of the dwindling pie along with all the other bond holders.

[COLGATE4]

144. "It doesn't matter what some judge says"

Brilliant. I think you ought to advise Argentina about your legal theory right away, since in all the other instances the arguments the Argentines have advanced seem to be going against them, including being turned down on appeal by the Supremes. Argentina really has no way out other than reaching some accomodation with Singer, as well as any others who didn't turn in their bonds for pennies on the dollar years ago. I think he'll probably do well.

[merrily]

195. Clearly, "It doesn't matter what some judge says" was never intended to state a legal theory.

Jaysus. Lawyers never seem to get over the fact that they have a legal degree, do they?

Good thing all of them are right about the law 100% of the time, too, or some clients of some lawyers would lose lawsuits, after spending years and millions in legal fees.

Yoo and Bybee were 100% right about domestic and international law, too.

But again, there is not always perfect congruence between justice and the letter of the law.

[COLGATE4]

214. Your astute reasoning is amazing.

You do understand that, in any given lawsuit there are TWO parties, both of whom are represented by lawyers. Since only one can win, that would seem to explain your breathtaking observation that "some clients of some lawyers would lose lawsuits, after spending years and millions in legal fees."

"Justice" is an amorphous, subjective concept reflecting whatever you personally believe.The law is intended to provide (at least to the degree humanly possible) clarity, objectivity and predictability to disputes.

[merrily]

217. So is your contempt for the intelligence of other DUers.

You do understand that, in any given lawsuit there are TWO parties, both of whom are represented by lawyers. Since only one can win, that would seem to explain your breathtaking observation that "some clients of some lawyers would lose lawsuits, after spending years and millions in legal fees."

Yes, I do understand all that, Condescension, Esq.. I also understand that that not every case breaks new legal ground. In at least some of litigation, at least one client should probably have been advised that litigation was probably not a good idea for that client.

The point was, though lawyers seem to place a very high value on simply having degree, the degree does not endow them with infallibility. And not everyone who has a degree is a good lawyer.

The law is intended to provide (at least to the degree humanly possible) clarity, objectivity and predictability to disputes.

Yes, so. The law is intended to do a lot of things. The law also changes from time to time, whereupon the new law also supposedly provides predictablity. What's your point as to Singer?

[COLGATE4]

224. I think you're giving lawyers way too much credit.

Changes in the law do occur but these are infrequent and almost always occur at the Appellate, not the Trial level. The fact is that lawyers often advise a client against undertaking litigation. But the decision (barring issues like outright illegality) is up to the client. People are emotionally invested in litigation for a multiplicity of reasons, many of which most of us would not consider particularly pressing. Still, each of them has a right to his/her day in court if that's where they decide they want to go.

The basic purpose of the law, especially in commerce is to try and provide as much predictability as possible. That does not mean that the law can never change. if it does, then someobe went from having a winning case to having a losing one. But then, for as long as it doesn't change (which should reasonably be a relatively long time) there is predictability.

My point on Singer is that he has legally exercised his rights as a creditor of the Argentine government and he is legally entitled to be paid. Whether or not he is an attractive person is no reason for him not to.

[merrily]

226. Inasmuch as I haven't given them any credit at all, it's hard to see how I am giving them too much.

BTW, you do not have to school me on general things about law. Ditto most DUers. I disagree with clients being invested in litigating. Maybe a small minority would insist on litigation after a lawyer tells them they are very likely to lose, but not the majority. Indeed your claim to the contrary is stunning.


No one argued with you about what the law stated and no one exhibited any ignorance of what applicable law stated anyway.

My point on Singer is that he has legally exercised his rights as a creditor of the Argentine government and he is legally entitled to be paid. Whether or not he is an attractive person is no reason for him not to.

No, your position on this thread was not that dispassionate. Go back and read your posts, starting with Reply 3. You framed the issue in terms of fairness. You kept describing him as the original lender and squelching anyone who pointed out he wasn''t the original lender.

You scorned and condescended to posters who disagreed with you.

I have said that no one disagreed with your statement of the law and that is so. Yet, many posts on this thread disagreed with you. Had your position been what you now say it was all along, as quoted above, your posts would not have drawn any disagreement at all.

[COLGATE4]

231. OK. Let's see:

1- "Maybe a small minority would insist on litigation after a lawyer tells them they are very likely to lose, but not the majority. Indeed your claim to the contrary is stunning."

My exact words: "The fact is that lawyers often advise a client against undertaking litigation. But the decision (barring issues like outright illegality) is up to the client. People are emotionally invested in litigation for a multiplicity of reasons, many of which most of us would not consider particularly pressing. Still, each of them has a right to his/her day in court if that's where they decide they want to go."

Please point to where I said a 'majority' did anything. I said lawyers often advise clients against litigation. Some clients take the advice. Some don't.

2- "You kept describing him as the original lender and squelching anyone who pointed out he wasn''t the original lender."

My original response to the OP (#3):

..."Eventually some of the bonds held by those who did not agree to receiving pennies on the dollar were sold to other investors. Those investors now want the bonds to be paid in full"

I thereafter exchanged several posts with a DU'er who kept insisting that Singer was not the original bondholder and that I had somehow mislead him/her. This poster believs that since Singer was not an original bondholder he should not be entitled to payment.

All my further posts were in continuation of my description of the transaction in my first post which clearly indicates that we are now talking about secondary, not original bondholders. More importantly to the overall discussion, Singer's status or non-status as original bondholder had absolutely no relevance to whether or not he should be paid. It is a non-issue.

3- "Had your position been what you now say it was all along, as quoted above, your posts would not have drawn any disagreement at all."

Sure. Have a good day. I'm done with you.

[nationalize the fed]

110. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:

How America Really Took Over the World (2005)

[Ilsa]

174. ^^^This.^^^

Thank you for posting.

[NuttyFluffers]

115. kick for greater exposure.

we need to share the light to end this.

[NCTraveler]

121. If you are going to borrow money.

Understand that lenders might want it back.

[COLGATE4]

142. This is apparently a very difficult concept

for some on this thread to grasp.

[ClarkeVII]

152. Exactly

They have the money to repay as well

[merrily]

184. If you are going to buy junk bonds for peanuts after a borrower defauts,

Understand you might get less than 100% of the original loan, or lose your peanuts entirely, or make a ridiculous return on your paltry investment. It could go any which way.

something I am very certain Singer understood very well when he eagerly put his peanuts on the table to buy out the ones who lent money to Argentina. The actual lenders took their losses long ago and Singer knew the risks as well as the potential for huge upside. The moral high ground is not his, nor was he the lender. I am pretty sure even the original lenders (or the people who put the deal together) knew the risks, too.

Investing and lending carry risks. That's why people do due diligence.

[dembotoz]

164. never did understand the pedestal dems place the clintons on

don't think i ever will

[marions ghost]

167. Hmmmmmmmmmm

There are those who continually repeat, "it's the law..."

And those who see the bigger context and bring their best evidence to bear.

----------

The two types of thinking are well illustrated in this thread.

[wyldwolf]

168. I think the two types of thinking better illustrated on this thread are...

* Repay your debts, honor your word

vs.

* all reason, logic and laws are off the table if we can somehow twist something to make the Clinton looks bad.

[marions ghost]

169. Oh come on

this issue goes beyond the Clintons.

There have been a lot of other good arguments put forth in this thread to refute the simplistic "repay your debts."

[wyldwolf]

170. Look how the OP was framed

The OP didn't bother to point out that these people were also advisers to Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Al Gore and others. He had to mention that they were also associated with the Clintons. If there had not been that angle this thread would not exist.

The OP doesn't give a shit about Argentina. He just wants to make the Clintons look bad.

And what other good arguments are you referring to? To me it boils down to a country who is capable of paying their debts but has decided they don't want to pay their debts. It really is that simple no matter how many progressive platitudes you could apply to it.

[marions ghost]

171. Sorry, nope

I learned a lot more about Repuglicon Paul Singer in this article than about the Clintons, who definitely have a major sleeze component. I don't feel any worse towards the DLC Clintons at reading it. Par for the course for them. Hardly big news. The writer used the Clinton reference to get people to read the article. Mission accomplished.

I see where you're coming from... we have no common ground obviously.

[merrily]

196. And despite the headline of the thread, all the posts on the thread were about Singer, not

full of Clinton bashing. For that matter, even the headline says "Clintonians," not Clinton.

True, some of us just don't love New Democrats, aka DLC, aka neo-liberals, aka Third Way; and Clinton was the first President endorsed by the DLC and his successful bid for the Presidency resulted in a sea change in the Party that some of us don't like at all.

But the posts on this thread were about Singer, Argentina and the loan, until you claimed they were about Clinton-bashing.

[wyldwolf]

198. except they weren't

The headline itself was designed to attract Clinton bashing.

"It is no surprise that the Clintons are about The Vultures - just look at Hillary's actions." - post 31.

"But the people who head up the main lobbying organization behind Singer’s current campaign, the American Task Force Argentina (ATFA), sit on the high councils of the Democratic Party and would likely be part of any Hillary Clinton administration... " - post 36

"never did understand the pedestal dems place the clintons on" - post 164

"Hillary was behind the coup in Honduras in 2009." - Post 96

The only reason the thread filled up with so many subthreads on Singer was because Colgate4 came in and argued against the actual point of the piece.

[merrily]

201. 200 posts on this thread, some of them long, and you claim 4 sentences make the thread only about

who loves Clinton and who doesn't love Clinton, versus about Singer and his loan?

And I am not supposed to LOL at your perspective? okay.

[wyldwolf]

202. because someone dared to get the 'progressives' off their game by arguing against the real point...

... of the piece.

If the article/thread wasn't designed for Clinton bashing, why the headline?

When post #3 hit, most of your were so flabbergasted someone would dare argue against "progressive" economic orthodoxy heads started spinning - and the original purpose of the OP was long forgotten by most.

[merrily]

203. I had the mixed blessing of coming to this thread late and reading from start to finish.

Until I got to your post, I did not see it as divided into two kinds of people, those who love Clinton and those who do not. I saw it as simply plutocrats vs. populists Nothing new there.

If your orginal comment were simply that the headline (truthdig's headline) bashed Clintonites, which is another way of saying neoliberals, I would not have disagreed with you. Had you said that the thread was divided into neoliberals vs. traditional Democrats, or something along those lines, I would not have LOL'd. But, when you said this thread was divided by who loves Clinton or who doesn'ts, I had to LOL.

And I'm sorry if you don't see the similarity between your post and people who think everything on this board and in America is about Obama, but it seemed inescapable to me.

When post #3 hit, most of your were so flabbergasted

Thanks for lumping me into your unusual view of everyone on this thread and four sentences, but, as I said, I never saw this thread when post 3 hit. Maybe even not until after post 103 hit.

Do I like Cinton? I never think about it that way. Do I like what neoliberals have done to the Party and the country? No. Did that have a thing to do with how I feel about junk bond dealers and Singer? No.

I realize nothing I say is going to change your odd view of this thread, though. So, keep cherishing it, for whatever pleasure it's giving you.

[wyldwolf]

204. So did I

The Clinton reference in the headline was my first clue.

Thank Darwin someone saw the folly in the piece and took the clinton bashers off their game.

[merrily]

205. We seem to be going in circles. You've made that same point several times

and I have already responded to it several times.

[wyldwolf]

207. As have you

[merrily]

208. Um, I said "we."

[wyldwolf]

209. That's right you did

[merrily]

210. At least we managed to agree on something!

[merrily]

193. LOL.

That was intended as humor, right?

I guess if everything isn't about Obama, it must be about Clinton.

Not about Singer and the nature of junk bond dealers and junk bond deals . Not about the 1% (or 10%) like Singer versus the rest of us, including the poor people of Argentina. Just about Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

197. LOL

That was intended as humor, right?

THAT was intended as humor, right?

I guess if everything isn't about Obama, it must be about Clinton. Not about Singer and the nature of junk bond dealers and junk bond deals . Not about the 1% (or 10%) like Singer versus the rest of us, including the poor people of Argentina. Just about Clinton.

Strawman.

[merrily]

199. Your post was such an "accurate" description of the posts on this thread that it demanded an LOL.

I could but submit to the demand.

and you did make this thread all about Clinton, while no other poster did.

The shoe fits, even if you are embarrassed to wear it.

[wyldwolf]

200. your post was such a perfect example of strawman reasoning, it deserved a LOL

[merrily]

211. Nope And even if the part you quoted fit that description, which it didn't,

that was only a portion of my post anyway.

FYI, raising straw men is not reasoning. It's "refuting" a point the other person never tried to make.

[wyldwolf]

229. Yep, a perfect strawman

I guess if everything isn't about Obama, it must be about Clinton.

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.

Obama wasn't an issue in this thread. No one claimed everything was about Obama, which makes your conclusion false. A perfect straw man.

[LWolf]

236. Uh Oh.

You pushed the button.

[woo me with science]

238. K&R