Yes, they were promised a retirement benefit, and if they don't get it, it will be, in a sense, unfair.

It will be a lot more than "in a sense, unfair". Those people were offered good retirement instead of more hourly pay. If they'd insisted on higher pay they might have been able to save more for retirement. They can't get a "do-over" on those years that they worked for lesser pay. They might very well end up living in the street if they lose their promised retirement.

Will those creditors suffer a fate that is as devastating to their own lives if they don't get as much money as they want?

Now companies will be able to afford the restructuring costs incurred when they send more jobs overseas.

</sarcasm>

A lot of conservatives seem to hold the Israelis in high regard. I sometimes think that they even let Israel dictate U.S. foreign policy.

Perhaps those conservatives should ask the Israelis what they think about pursuing the perpetrators of atrocities. I believe that Israel continues to this day to pursue the perpetrators of atrocities that were committed more than 60 years ago.

What would the government do? How would they react badly? By revoking the TARP money that they have already given the insurance companies who sold the banks the CDS's?

Not necessary. Major CDS issuers such as AIG continue to require infusions of new money. The government is under no legal obligation to continue propping up these issuers. If the flow of government support stops, so do payments of CDS claims.

You have mentioned "fairness" to the creditors several times in your arguments. What about fairness to the auto company workers who have put in decades of service for their promised retirement benefits? The creditors seem to want preferential treatment: They think it's OK to screw the workers harder so they can recover more of their investment. They think they hold the upper hand because if the workers do not submit, the resulting bankruptcy will cost them their jobs and their benefits. The CDS holders who are playing hardball like this should realize that their bargaining strength depends on the government's willingness to cover CDS claim payments. That willingness might have limits if creditors push it too hard.

The simple equation is that the banks that lended to NAMs were allowed to buy out other banks.

So you're saying that some banks willingly took on suicidal loads of bad debt because they wanted so badly to buy other banks that they didn't care if it killed them?

Those that stuck to prudent lending standards were allowed to survive until they got bought out.

Hold on. How could banks stick to prudent lending standards if CRA was forcing banks to make bad loans?

Prior to the CRA the NAM default rate was the same as the white default rate.

That was a long time ago. CRA was passed and signed into law back in the 1970's. The subprime meltdown didn't happen until more than 20 years later. How do you explain the delay?

The only reason we do not know what the minority default rate is because our Government does not require anyone to keep records. Does anyone doubt that is is higher than the WASP default rate?

I think your agenda is showing. Perhaps your usual conversion partners will accept that as a compelling argument, but I don't think it will fly outside your circle of bigot buddies.

They do require banks keep records of who they lend to.

Banks keep records of who they lend to because it would be pretty hard to collect loan payments if they didn't. Or perhaps you think banks need the government to tell them this?

You have failed to explain why banks didn't use their substantial influence to get this fixed. Republicans were still in control of both houses of congress when the worst damage was being done. They would certainly have done something if the banks had asked them to, and Bush would certainly have signed the resulting bill. This didn't happen. Why not?

You have also failed to explain how CRA, which only applied to commercial banks, was able to "force" mortgage companies such as Countrywide to make huge numbers of subprime loans.

You also haven't explained why banks loaded up on the toxic products of the mortgage companies' operations. This is what really killed the banks. CRA only effects loan origination, it does not contain any provisions requiring banks to purchase securities that are backed by mortgage loans.

In fact, wouldn't it be even more unjust if the insurance companies who sold the credit default swaps are both (a) propped up by TARP money and (b) shielded from paying out on those CDS claims because the holders of those claims accepted the Government/Detroit demand of a mere 15 to 22 cents on the dollar for what they are owed?

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the situation.

The only reason the CDS's have any value at all is because the government is effectively paying the claims. The creditors are telling the government to sweeten the deal or else they'll call in the CDS's and expect the government to cover. It is conceivable that the government might react badly to being put in this situation, and the result might be the creditors get less than they expected.

That's what I meant by "pushing their luck".