Spin a little more, because you spun so fast you completely missed my point.

In my point, I separated the bondholders into two classes: the distressed debt hedge funds of the like that AL referred to in the first link, and other investors.

I then noted that these are DISTRESSED debt hedge funds, the vultures that swoop in on companies in trouble. They pay cut rate prices for the debt, and then do everything in their power to get more than they paid for the debt. They're gambling (with other people's money) that they will make more than they paid.

Their gamble did not pay off, so they blame the government. Their gamble did not pay off, so they launch a PR campaign. Their gamble did not pay off in court, so they turn to the court of public opinion with their honeyed words to snare some erstwhile "Business" man into trumpeting the cause of Free Market Capitalism (NOW WITH EXTRA-PATRIOTISM!!!). I don't blame them for doing so, I'd expect nothing less in high profile cases.

Despite your UAW herring, this isn't a discussion about unions. And despite Republican attempts to paint it that way, I am not of the mind that Chrysler failing, GM failing, or Ford's troubles has anything to do with unions, other than they are another cost center to executives. I am not talking about the hedge funds that got in ahead of things.

So, if your attempt to paint this as "Agillious hates money" so he must be a "whacko/lefitst/union organizer" makes you feel better about greed, use it.

In the end, you have vultures whining because the ambulance arrived to save the patient.

As soon as one of the hedge fund defenders explains why the distressed debt funds, the hedge funds that Andrew is referring to, are entitled to never lose at gambling I'll roll over and play dead for Wall street. The bankruptcy court already decided against the funds, and it seems like the bigger funds thought it was a gamble, and decided to take the loss.

This is not the class warfare that hedge fund defenders want it to be. This is a nation asking financiers to prove they're worth what they claim to be. Andrew this series on Chrysler has been very informative. From their reactions I glean the vulture fundies don't like it when they're not worth the paper they wrote their latest derivative on.

That personal opinion aside I would like to make a different observation. I wonder if current (non-distressed debt, non-real estate) hedge fund employees have contacted any moderate Islamic groups to discuss how to avoid being tarred with unfair descriptions?

I'll cheer and champion an enlightened capitalism, that sees human capital as far more interesting and valuable than naked greed. But what (aside from books, education, regulation, history, and everything else we had at our disposal before this latest financial crisis) will protect us from the very smart people that want to make a lot of money, at our expense?

How do we, the market, protect ourselves from individuals that want to take advantage of people playing the game? How do we encourage the "best and the brightest" to play nice when not playing nice makes so much more short-term wealth? There is a fundamental issue with the persuasive power of greed. We idolize it.

My apologies to the atheists out there, but America worships at the altar of success. That's our cult devotion. In business and to regulators it seems success is sacred. To save or worse, fail, is to sin. If we don't live in this world, I would love for someone to disabuse me of that belief. Thanks.

Is there where the AtlasShruggers come on board and tell us that the monetaryclass is rising up, and thence cometh the financial revolution?

They cannot be looking for sympathy for their "plight", so is this just petulant tantrum throwing, the hedge fund equivalent of I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home trading? The more articles like this, Andrew, that you call my attention to the more that sector of America looks like they want all the profit of the industry they're in with none of the risks.

I have a request for the right wing: I need someone from that side of politics to explain to me why GOP policy and spokepeople only begins to resemble reality when examined from a Victim's point of view. I have been trying to puzzle it out, but it did not make sense under George Bush's presidency and it still does not make sense. Does being in the GOP mean one must constantly view oneself as a victim? What a self-esteem problem the party must have if it needs to refer to itself as a victim, over and over again, to persuade people.

Victimization and Fear. These are the two words I use to describe Republican/Conservative policies. Whichever Democratic party marketer that decided to use "Hope" in president Obama's campaign deserves plaudits.

Create a government entity in America and I swear, by the time the ink has dried there's a "businessperson" lined up to take advantage of it.

That aside, rationally, I cannot justify where Fanny and Freddie fit into this story on the SEC going after Angelo. At the very least it is possibly the most tangential thing written, not directly referenced in the writing, and simply used as an opportunity to bring up a tired, beaten right-wing talking point. However, I suspect, it is simply another smokescreen, obfuscation technique employed by would-be swiftboaters.

The proprer response to bringing up Fannie and Freddie, when discussing Angelo, is to remind everyone that George was in power, so let us blame him. (Let's bring up Angelo, in regards to the SEC, but since he sold his product to Fannie and Freddie, the big, bad, business tycoon CANNOT be prosecuted by those dirty, low-life muckrakers, because FANNY and FREDDIE, FANNY and FREDDIE.) Makes me want to scream ABU GHARIB anytime anyone mentions George is human.