[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 81°F  
High: 91°F ~ Low: 67°F
Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Rewarding the guilty at our expense

Posted Thursday, November 13, 2008, at 4:08 PM

What are your thoughts on the bailouts at taxpayer expense?

I think the government is in the process, as usual, of rewarding those who have been the basic cause of many of the problems we are facing now.

Ridiculous mortgages, young people practically bilked into those mortages was too often for amounts totally beyond their reach in a less than the peaches and cream world that is painted for them.

Dishonest developers should bite the bullet alone.

To what extent should we be ordered to bail out the auto industry? While the auto industry is a key part of out overall economy, they haven't helped themselves at all by building vehicles for show and not much else. I think General Motors, Ford and Chrysler all build a ridiculous number of models, too many of which are exactly the same thing with a different window dressing.

To what extent do you feel the auto industry and, yes, the UAW, should be asked to help in this problem rather than putting ever more on our backs?

How can the government even think of asking us to fork over billions in our tax money to help save many giant corporations, including those in the financial businesses, who are losing money yet paying multi-million dollar bonuses to top executives? Why? For lousy business practices?

Rewarding the greedy unscrupulous and irresponsible at our expense is tragic.

Where would you draw the line?


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Now that's sweet. :)

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Nov 21, 2008, at 1:32 PM

I would say we probably have more in common than we let ourselves believe. Its like Ive said all along we can disagree, even passionatly at times and still get along.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Nov 21, 2008, at 9:21 AM

Wow,I am in total shock and may have to go lie down. You and I are in total agreement, lol. :)

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Nov 20, 2008, at 9:00 AM

And when I left for work this morning I knew I would come home to see a comment just like that... HAHA! ;)I know, shocking. Just proves that of all the differences we may have, there is always "some" common ground to be had.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Nov 20, 2008, at 7:21 PM

Will giving the Auto Industry 25 Billion Dollars make any difference anyway? It won't make people have the money to go out and purchase a car. It won't make banks be willing to loan money for the purchase of a car. Will it stop the workers from losing their jobs? NO I think not.

700 Billion has not helped the housing market, homes are still being foreclosed on, banks still are not giving mortgage loans, home sales at a 20 year low, construction of new homes slipping further and further down the hill.

So why should we give them money when it is not going to help the source of the problem? As long as American's can not spend money then everyone is going to hurt.

Our government must realize by now throwing money at the top of the problem will not be the answer, the bottom is what feeds the top.. and right now the bottom can not feed themselves much less take care of the top also. Just look at the Billions of dollars we have handed AIG and it is still about to go Belly-up. We will never see a dime of that money back into our treasury department.

On another short note :Beware of Gift Cards this Holiday Season many stores are in big financial trouble and closing many stores. If the company you purchase a Gift Card on goes bankrupt you have lost your gift card.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Nov 20, 2008, at 10:57 AM

Wow,I am in total shock and may have to go lie down. You and I are in total agreement, lol. :)

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Nov 20, 2008, at 9:00 AM

Agreed. GM, Ford and Chrysler were churning out gas-guzzling SUV's and trucks like madmen up until early 2007. Why? Because those vehicles still represented a disproportionate profit of their overall line of vehicles? Instead of being a proactive company, they all those to be reactive.

Nissan, Honda, Toyota and a few others saw the trend coming, saw the gas prices relentlessly rising and realized that even when gas prices fell, they mindset of consumers would be to live within their means and not waste so much time on the road, doing absolutely nothing!

The Unions, by and large are a huge problem, irrespective of our opinions, Unions no longer simply "protect" workers, they have created loopholes and frankly ridiculous by-laws that mandate an employee get paid (including benefits) anywhere form $50-75 dollars an hour, EVEN when the lines are down.. Yes, GM, Ford and Chrysler can literally send people home for the day, say 4 hours early, but they still get paid for 4 hours of non-production. That is not what the Unions were designed to do, and that is precisely why they have such a bad image.

I say, let them file Chapter 11, restructure their entire organizations, and if they can't do it without government help, then perhaps they should just dissolve... Other car companies will eventually grow and those 3+ million employees will have a job, perhaps through a Japanese, German, Korean or a new American auto maker, that pays them for the work they DO, instead of the work they DON'T DO!

The audacity of CEO's flying into Washington D.C. on private jets, while asking for $25 billion is sickening. The simple fact that none of these companies are willing to effectively change, or none of their CEO's are willing to step down for their disastrous behavior is baffling. They all agreed to change their salaries to $1 per year in order to prove their need for the money... My, if only the guy at the local soup kitchen needing food for the winter was in such a position to say that.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Nov 20, 2008, at 7:28 AM

I guess I should have worded it better, I didnt mean to sound like it was all the unions fault. They play a big part, but these companies should have better business sense than to pay a CEO 28 million per year and then throw a bunchof expensive perks at him too. It sounds like poor business management all the way around to me. My main point is we shouldnt be giving these companies welfare.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Nov 19, 2008, at 5:09 PM

Well maybe it is the other way around, the actual workers may think that if the Greedy CEO's can make 28 Million a year they can afford to pay them a little more.

I do not know anybody who workers inside a Union or non Union Factory building cars making anywhere close to 28M a year.

Ford CEO Mulally's corporate jet is a perk included for both he and his wife as part of his employment contract along with a $28 million salary last year.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Nov 19, 2008, at 4:14 PM

Greedy CEOs are part of the problem, I agree, but not the only problem. There are a lot of things wrong with these companies and the govt has no business giving them welfare. But, to say the unions have nothing to do with the failure of the big 3 is just naive. They have to add on about $2000-$2500 per car over foreign (if a car made in america with a foreign name can be called that) automakers just to pay for the ridiculous union wages and benefits. So if the workers can be greedy I guess the CEOs can too. There are concessions everyone in these companies can and should make to help the company, before asking for a govt handout. They need to learn to run an efficient company with a competetive product, if they cant well then thats not my fault.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Nov 19, 2008, at 3:47 PM

This is the scoops on your Big 3 and has NOTHING to do with the Unions!!

Greedy CEO's are the problem.

Why auto executives won't fly commercial

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Nov 19, 2008, at 3:24 PM

Our "big three" have let themselves be backed up into a corner by the unions, and on top of that they no longer build as good a product as the foreign companies.

Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Nov 18, 2008, at 12:39 PM

That says just about everything that needs saying.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Nov 18, 2008, at 12:50 PM

Just like at the poverty level, corporate welfare or "bailouts" will do little to help these companies, and it will also send signals to other weak companies to just sit back and wait for a handout. Why would these companies want to cut expenses or invest in more research and development to create a better product, when they know Uncle Sam is going to cut them a big fat check. Our "big three" have let themselves be backed up into a corner by the unions, and on top of that they no longer build as good a product as the foreign companies. So if they cant compete in the marketplace that means they are not a successful company and should go out of business. This is not the time or place for govt interference, instead the govt needs to do a little expense cutting itself.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Nov 18, 2008, at 12:39 PM

tax payers should not bail out businesses! These businesses should have cut the executives saleries and such before they went belly up.

They are in that place becasue of greed.

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Sun, Nov 16, 2008, at 2:34 PM

I would rather them bail out the auto industry with stipulations over better vehicles, but emmissions and fuel efficiency; and then place mandates on 40% of the new vehicles being alternative energy vehicles by a certain date.

But to bail out banks, credit card companies and insurance companies? Come on, they were foolish with their money. Why the hell are we paying for their mistakes. Their job is to manage our money yet they need a bailout? Isn't this kind of like bailing out the giving the trashman our garbage and then dumping it in our frontyard to clean up? It is ridiculous.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 8:49 PM

We should never have bailed out anyone. There were many conservative lenders that were doing okay because they practiced sound lending practices all along. Had we let the foolish ones fail, the stronger would have arisen from the ashes, but now we are facing the possibility of further bailout and ,I fear, a slower recovery.

Yes, to not bail them out would have caused a sharp crash, but likely would have allowed for a sharp recover (and quicker too, sort of a "V" on the graphs or maybe a "u" in a less disirable case). Some have suggested the graph will now look like an "L". Delayed, but drastic crash, a longer term zero growth).

-- Posted by gottago on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 5:36 PM

Ohhh really. Then why in the hell did you pick Norton as a lawyer?

-- Posted by Vindicated on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM

Vindicated,

I wanted a brilliant mind that knows how to gather and present the facts in the proper order at the proper time.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 5:10 PM

"Before you go calling out on party, you should get your information straight. In the Senate most of the republicans did vote for the bail-out including both Tennessee Senators. The vote was as follows"

sorry; i didnt make myself clear.

that bailout vote was before the election,

and i was (admittedly) speculating as to the future votes. (do any of us think the last industry has gone to congress pleading for a bailout?)

the opportunity is there when the new congress is seated for the republicans to feign opposition, without fear of hindering future bailouts. given the tremendous popular opposition to bailouts, that would seem to be an expedient course of action.

please dont mistake me for having any greater love for repubs or demos, as i consider them to be two faces of the same coin.

-- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 10:31 AM

Vindicated . . . glad to see the only way you know how to contribute to a discussion is to personally attack someone. Sad really!

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 9:35 AM

For a party that spent this past election campaign deriding the policies of Bush to fix the economy, the Democrats seem very eager to follow the same practices of the Bush administration with another stimulus package and bailouts. Maybe it is because they have no clue on how to fix the economy and Obama's campaign has basically just been blowing a lot of hype and hot air. Why are wanting to bail out a company like Chrysler that has been bailed out before but never learned any lessons from that. If you continue to bail out these companies then they never learn the consequences of bad management and greed. These companies kept building vehicles that didn't fit the demands of what the American people were wanting and that has caused some of their downfall. Also, it might give these auto unions a little perspective about demanding too much.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 7:24 AM

As for me, just give me the cold hard facts. No sugar coating needed.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 7:06 AM

Ohhh really. Then why in the hell did you pick Norton as a lawyer?

-- Posted by Vindicated on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 7:13 AM

docudrama,

Good to see someone that truly relies on facts. Facts paint the true picture. However there are many on here than can and have been deceived into not being able to clearly see facts when they are presented and will rely on half baked opinions of some news story instead. Your comment on Nancy Pelosi is a classic example of a news story that the mesmerized Ones will listen to and adhere to over plain cold hard facts that present reality.

As for me, just give me the cold hard facts. No sugar coating needed.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Nov 14, 2008, at 7:06 AM

the recent elections provide at least one break for the republicans. as the minority party, they will be able to pretend to object to the handouts, with the assurance that the handouts will still occur.

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 4:54 PM

Before you go calling out on party, you should get your information straight. In the Senate most of the republicans did vote for the bail-out including both Tennessee Senators. The vote was as follows

74 Senators voted for the bail-out while 25 voted against. Of the 25 that voted no 15 were Republicans and 8 were Democrats.

In the House (Congress) there were 263 votes for the bail out. 172 were Dem. and 91 were Rep. Our Representative Bart Gordon was among the Democrats. There were 171 votes against the bail-out. Of these 108 were Republicans and 63 were Democrats.

If you go to the congressional and senatorial web sites you could educate your self to the fact that the Republicans can sit back and with confidence say that they opposed the bail-out at least in the congress. Know what you are talking about before you speak, for knowledge is a far sharper weapon than ignorance.

And you know with the numbers there for the public to see, I find it reprehensible that Nancy Pelosi should stand in front of a nation and have the gall to say that the republicans in the house forced this bill down the democrats throat. When in fact the numbers show the Democrats leading us down the road to the bail-out hand-outs. Just yesterday Barney Frank (D-MA), a Democrat stating that he will propose a 25 Billion dollar bail-out of the auto industry. When will the Democrats stop digging into our back pockets. Now the Credit Card industry is getting in line with their hands out, American Express being the first in line. When the congress and the senate voted this bill into law they opened a Pandora's Box. Bend over America and get ready this is not going to be pretty.

-- Posted by docudrama on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 11:47 PM

I think stardust was being sarcastic . . . any tax cuts no matter what income level is the worse kind of mistake to make at this point. Evidently some people dont understand simple economics(incuding the president-elect).

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 9:14 PM

If we get tax cuts as Obama has promised, then how will these bailouts be funded?

-- Posted by stardust on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 5:44 PM

Do you really think that we Tax Payers will get the tax cuts that Obama has promised?

There is no way it will happen and mark my words now, when that time comes he will say that President Bush left everything in a mess and now he is unable to follow thru with his PROMISE.

That is how Obama will fund the bailouts.

-- Posted by redcat00 on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 6:55 PM

No we should not BAIL OUT big business, but what else can we do; its out of our hands as tax payers. We lost control of our tax dollars when we elected the people who have let this happen.The only way I see to stop it is to form some kind of grass root project to stop big business from getting the bail out, and then going off and having a hug party and laugh at our expence; like AIG has done.This company has been cought on tape spending money on expensive get aways for their higher ups,when I'm sure there are lots of hard working people who would love to take a nice vacation but can not.

But don't fear tax payers...Mr.Obama will take care of it all.

-- Posted by redcat00 on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 6:47 PM

If we get tax cuts as Obama has promised, then how will these bailouts be funded?

-- Posted by stardust on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 5:44 PM

not all of their business practices are foolish. buying congressmen has turned out to be a really good investment.

personally, i think all those good folks who have been crying out for a free market economy should have gotten it. turns out that all those good "conservative" republicans and "liberal" democrats are very much in favor of welfare...

if they are in the pockets of the recipients.

the recent elections provide at least one break for the republicans. as the minority party, they will be able to pretend to object to the handouts, with the assurance that the handouts will still occur.

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 4:54 PM

We the taxpayers should never have to bail out private businesses. These same banks that our taxes are bailing out are the very same banks that took people's homes when they were faced with raising mortgage cost. Now those people who lost their homes are paying their hard earned taxes to keep these banks afloat. The banks should have been made long ago to help the lenders that were in trouble before this got out of hand. There should be some kind of cap on the amount of interest banks and financial institutions can charge. I saw an advertisement on TV a few nights ago about borrowing money, the small print at the bottom stated interest was 99.9 percent. It seems to me I could get a better rate from a loan shark than that. The problem with these type of places they prey on people who have no where else to turn, people with less than perfect credit.

We should not even consider bailing out the Auto Industry but let me assure you it is coming.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Nov 13, 2008, at 4:53 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
Just Some Thoughts
(82 ~ 9:43 PM, Jul 22)

Iraq...Again
(40 ~ 5:53 AM, Jul 11)

Recreational Marijuana
(42 ~ 9:30 PM, Jun 26)

Shelbyville Mills School
(757 ~ 10:07 PM, Jun 25)

Gift Of Life
(2 ~ 12:25 PM, May 27)