So I was reading today about how President Barack Obama wants to "limit executive's pay" for those executives that have accepted bailout funds, but my question is, how can you do that?
Okay, I've made it clear, "bailout" and I do not go well together. I was never for it, I thought the idea of it was inane, and I thought stipulations should have been in place BEFORE handing the money out so willfully. But, even with that said, I do not think NOW is the time to add stipulations to companies that have already taken their funds. It's the classic bait and switch, and it smells.
Recently, at my job, I was offered a new position. During the preliminary discussions, I was told this was a "salaried position" - which is something I had been hoping for since the day I started. I was also told, it was an eight hour position (I currently work 10 hour days). So in thinking about if I wanted to accept the position or not, I took these things I was told into consideration - so I finally told my boss (after discussing the situation with my wife) that I would accept. I then, mentioned briefly, "of course, assuming all we had talked about" - so far, those eight words have saved me from suffering.
In those eight words, my boss then looked dejected, and his response to me was . . . and I kid you not, "really?" Honestly, his reaction was to ask me, "really?" OF COURSE, "really," you dimwit! Why would I accept based on what you told me in good faith, if that good faith wasn't even that good, or of faith based? Why would I accept, less hours - when I'm HOURLY - thus losing the overtime?
Anyway, I digress. I am currently still in negotiations with my work, but what about those who, in good faith, accepted bailout funds - when there was no stipulations placed upon those funds - who may now not be able to do anything about the bait and switch they are enduring? Is it fair to them, that, in good faith, they accepted these funds sans stipulation, only to have the carpet yanked out from underneath them?
I, at least, could still technically deny the new position (if it hurts me financial, it doesn't make sense to accept) - but what can the banks do? What can the executives do? Give the money back that they likely already spent for their executive Las Vegas trip (of which, has since been canceled)?
I am 100% against bailing out the free market - but stipulations were not in place in a timely fashion (i.e. BEFORE the funds were given) and I don't believe now is the time to add those stipulations. If the U.S. government couldn't foresee the greed of the banks (how could they not, isn't their greed EXACTLY what got us into this mess to begin with?), then that is on THEM, and not the executives to have to now accept the stipulations that were not in place when they should have been.
If Obama wants to add stipulations to new money, that's fine, but on past funds, I hope he would see the error in attempting to add clauses to what has already been given too freely. After all, could the banks foresee the language changing in the future of what they accepted so readily? And, if they did, should they have said the simple little phrase like I did, "that is assuming what we talked about will remain true" . . . of course it assumes what was discussed is true - otherwise, why did we even discuss it at all - just give freely, then take away - it's what you want to do anyway.
Bait and switch - it's classic.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Now Congress Wants Transparency
"Congress Moves to Crack Down on Bailout Recipients"
This is the title of an article today on the Fox News Website. The article goes on to inform us that there is no way for us to currently report on how the bailout money is being used (based on 4 questions previously asked to these institutions by the associated press). So that brings us to congress - now they wish to know where the money is going.
This is so painfully obviously something that they should have thought about LONG ago - like maybe BEFORE rushing this "bailout" through the senate the first time? Perhaps this is the reason it was not gaining steam - that is, until, as has been reported, congressmen were "bullied" into voting for the bailout on the second round of votes.
At any rate, this is something that should have ALWAYS been in place. How is it that the government thought it was a good idea to give free money to banks and institutions that have proved their greed in creating this mess to begin with? Of COURSE the greedy corporate fat cats would take their chunk and run with it - and do what they wish with it - lavish vacations, more homes for themselves, bigger and faster "corporate" jets! Yeah, good move by the government, and the very reason why I was against this bailout to begin with!
And NOW they decide "oh, we need transparency - we need to know where the cash is going" ... and all I can really say to that is DUH!!!! And all we can hope as the taxpayers - funding who knows exactly what - is that it isn't too late for the transparency to come to light; so we can finally, again see that these greedy fat cats are just a new wave of criminals.
This is the title of an article today on the Fox News Website. The article goes on to inform us that there is no way for us to currently report on how the bailout money is being used (based on 4 questions previously asked to these institutions by the associated press). So that brings us to congress - now they wish to know where the money is going.
This is so painfully obviously something that they should have thought about LONG ago - like maybe BEFORE rushing this "bailout" through the senate the first time? Perhaps this is the reason it was not gaining steam - that is, until, as has been reported, congressmen were "bullied" into voting for the bailout on the second round of votes.
At any rate, this is something that should have ALWAYS been in place. How is it that the government thought it was a good idea to give free money to banks and institutions that have proved their greed in creating this mess to begin with? Of COURSE the greedy corporate fat cats would take their chunk and run with it - and do what they wish with it - lavish vacations, more homes for themselves, bigger and faster "corporate" jets! Yeah, good move by the government, and the very reason why I was against this bailout to begin with!
And NOW they decide "oh, we need transparency - we need to know where the cash is going" ... and all I can really say to that is DUH!!!! And all we can hope as the taxpayers - funding who knows exactly what - is that it isn't too late for the transparency to come to light; so we can finally, again see that these greedy fat cats are just a new wave of criminals.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Recession? What Recession?
Well, it's been a month since I last posted, so I figured I owed my readers something - unfortunately, there isn't much of significance.
Sure, I could post about the bailout of the auto industry - a bailout, that if you read any of my past posts, you would know, I do not support. If they truly had issues with running their company, they should do what the individuals in this economy are being forced to do - foreclose - file for bankruptcy protection and move on with their day. And sure, I could rant about their usage of private jets to fly to Washington D.C. to beg for the $25 billion they think is owed to them, but honestly, A) that's old news - it is reported they will drive the next time and B) what will my ranting do, except upset me?
Oh sure, Ford now says they can "manage" without the government bailout - all they'd ask is for $9 billion be "set aside" for them "just in case" they need the cash. I could easily write about how they came up with that dollar figure - I mean, honestly, 9 BILLION DOLLARS? What makes them think that is what they'll need - even though they "say" they can "manage without it?"
Yes, I could write about all of that, but instead, I will focus on something more broad - the economy as a whole - as you may have read or seen on television - we are now "officially" in a recession - a recession that started, or so they now say, a year ago.
The problem I have is with the "official" report, well, first off, individuals aren't in a recession unless their job has been lost or their mortgage payment has become unmanageable. It is a very sad fact, but also very true. For those that can make their mortgage payments and are currently still holding down jobs - well, for those people, there is no recession - and that has been made evident with the stronger than last year's (when the recession has now been said to have "officially" began) "Black Friday" sales numbers. I read that the "average" consumer on Black Friday has spent $372 on that day this year - which is up from last year. Leaving me to ask, what recession?
Secondly, why has it taken a full year for the government to finally report that, yes, we are in a recession? It seems the same thing they did with the mortgage crisis - ignore it, it will eventually go away; if not, well, we can always go back and say when the "real crisis" began at a previous date. Why is it they (the government officials) feel so compelled to lie to the American people about things such as this? Why not shoot the average person straight (we all know Cheney is a good shot anyway)? Those with half a brain can see the stock market (for whatever reason this is the benchmark most economist use to measure such things as a recession) is dropping - and that the economy, at the very least, is dropping - likely into recession-like-figures.
But then, I am reminded by my first paragraph - is it truly a recession unless you, or I, or Joe Average Citizen is in one individually? Does the whole of the economy really plunge us all into a recession if we can still afford our bills, and we still have jobs? Sure, we can feel fear at the prospect of losing our jobs; and we can even feel fear that we might not get that Christmas bonus or that raise this year - but we have jobs, and the price of food (or gas - trust me, it will go back up again) hasn't gone up nearly enough to devastate those that are fiscally responsible - and, of course, assuming they still have their jobs in place.
So where does that put us? Are we truly in the recession that is now "officially" being passed along to the citizens? Are all those people that have spent more freely this year over last on Black Friday increasing their credit card balances - hoping that all will work itself out if they just ignore it? - or are people truly spending more freely because they actually HAVE more free cash?
Perhaps they are simply ignoring the "economic indicators;" perhaps they all are now of the mentality that "it doesn't matter." After all, all their hard earned income - all of it is taxed - and those taxes are used to fund the crooks in the big business. Maybe, just maybe, the average citizen is deciding for once to live for today - to enjoy what they have now - before the government or the crooks of the big banks take everything they have once and for all.
Recession? We don't need no stinkin' recession!
Sure, I could post about the bailout of the auto industry - a bailout, that if you read any of my past posts, you would know, I do not support. If they truly had issues with running their company, they should do what the individuals in this economy are being forced to do - foreclose - file for bankruptcy protection and move on with their day. And sure, I could rant about their usage of private jets to fly to Washington D.C. to beg for the $25 billion they think is owed to them, but honestly, A) that's old news - it is reported they will drive the next time and B) what will my ranting do, except upset me?
Oh sure, Ford now says they can "manage" without the government bailout - all they'd ask is for $9 billion be "set aside" for them "just in case" they need the cash. I could easily write about how they came up with that dollar figure - I mean, honestly, 9 BILLION DOLLARS? What makes them think that is what they'll need - even though they "say" they can "manage without it?"
Yes, I could write about all of that, but instead, I will focus on something more broad - the economy as a whole - as you may have read or seen on television - we are now "officially" in a recession - a recession that started, or so they now say, a year ago.
The problem I have is with the "official" report, well, first off, individuals aren't in a recession unless their job has been lost or their mortgage payment has become unmanageable. It is a very sad fact, but also very true. For those that can make their mortgage payments and are currently still holding down jobs - well, for those people, there is no recession - and that has been made evident with the stronger than last year's (when the recession has now been said to have "officially" began) "Black Friday" sales numbers. I read that the "average" consumer on Black Friday has spent $372 on that day this year - which is up from last year. Leaving me to ask, what recession?
Secondly, why has it taken a full year for the government to finally report that, yes, we are in a recession? It seems the same thing they did with the mortgage crisis - ignore it, it will eventually go away; if not, well, we can always go back and say when the "real crisis" began at a previous date. Why is it they (the government officials) feel so compelled to lie to the American people about things such as this? Why not shoot the average person straight (we all know Cheney is a good shot anyway)? Those with half a brain can see the stock market (for whatever reason this is the benchmark most economist use to measure such things as a recession) is dropping - and that the economy, at the very least, is dropping - likely into recession-like-figures.
But then, I am reminded by my first paragraph - is it truly a recession unless you, or I, or Joe Average Citizen is in one individually? Does the whole of the economy really plunge us all into a recession if we can still afford our bills, and we still have jobs? Sure, we can feel fear at the prospect of losing our jobs; and we can even feel fear that we might not get that Christmas bonus or that raise this year - but we have jobs, and the price of food (or gas - trust me, it will go back up again) hasn't gone up nearly enough to devastate those that are fiscally responsible - and, of course, assuming they still have their jobs in place.
So where does that put us? Are we truly in the recession that is now "officially" being passed along to the citizens? Are all those people that have spent more freely this year over last on Black Friday increasing their credit card balances - hoping that all will work itself out if they just ignore it? - or are people truly spending more freely because they actually HAVE more free cash?
Perhaps they are simply ignoring the "economic indicators;" perhaps they all are now of the mentality that "it doesn't matter." After all, all their hard earned income - all of it is taxed - and those taxes are used to fund the crooks in the big business. Maybe, just maybe, the average citizen is deciding for once to live for today - to enjoy what they have now - before the government or the crooks of the big banks take everything they have once and for all.
Recession? We don't need no stinkin' recession!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Historical Day
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the way the media throws around the term "historical day" for every election, but today is certainly different.
Today we have a chance to dictate history through our election selection - whether it be the first black president or the first female vice president.
Whoever wins today's election will have a lot of work ahead of them in fixing the disaster that was the past eight years. Hopefully, we the people can elect the better leader, the leader that will implement change - someone that will bring back the stability that the American people have grown so fond of and have lacked dearly during the Bush administration.
Today is a historical day, indeed - but more than that, it's a vote to make a change in this country; a change this country badly needs right now in its time of uncertainty. Today is not about the history of the election, but about mending the future. Hopefully, the right candidate for the nation as a whole can come out victorious - for America needs some stability in the Commander in Chief and as a nation.
Today we have a chance to dictate history through our election selection - whether it be the first black president or the first female vice president.
Whoever wins today's election will have a lot of work ahead of them in fixing the disaster that was the past eight years. Hopefully, we the people can elect the better leader, the leader that will implement change - someone that will bring back the stability that the American people have grown so fond of and have lacked dearly during the Bush administration.
Today is a historical day, indeed - but more than that, it's a vote to make a change in this country; a change this country badly needs right now in its time of uncertainty. Today is not about the history of the election, but about mending the future. Hopefully, the right candidate for the nation as a whole can come out victorious - for America needs some stability in the Commander in Chief and as a nation.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Reverse Robin Hood?
So I was reading this article the other day, and I have to wonder - are they stealing from the poor to pay the rich?
The premise of the article states that of the $125 billion of taxpayers money used for the bailout thus far - approximately $50 billion of that is being used for ... executive bonuses!!! Not creating new credit lines, not to those mortgages at high risk of foreclosure, and not for anyone that might, actually NEED the money - but for the executives - to, as far as I can tell, make sure they are still wholly compensated for their drowning business and sinking stock prices.
Which leads me to the point - is this the exact opposite of everything Robin Hood stood for? Think about you, we are all taxpayers, that's true, but why are the majority poor being forced to fund the minority rich in this nation? Oh, sure, the article argues (and quite satirically, I do assure you) that the executives surely cannot be forced to endure a life on a mere $80,000 per year, and thus require these additional fundings for their bonuses. Yeah right, tell that to the single mother of three that brings in $25,000 a year and is barely managing to keep food on the table. Yet, this mother of three is the one who is being forced to continually fund the extravagant lifestyles these highly overpaid executives have grown accustom too - and it is a true travesty that we, the "regular Joe's" (i.e. the MIDDLE CLASS and BELOW) must be the ones to fund these executives compensation packages, when in every one's estimation, they are the greedy individuals that prompt this "credit crisis" to begin with. It seems they robbed the poor to get rich by selling subprime mortgages, only to rob the poor to bailout "their company," or more plainly, to bailout their compensation as their stock portfolio's decline in value - and all thanks to these crooks. Glad the government is truly looking out for the people - oh wait, I'm sorry, they aren't, they are looking out for the next great paycheck themselves - the lobbyist. It's a shame.
And now, McCain has been bashing Obama for his alleged "socialist" views, but McCain supports action similar to what is being spoken about above. At least Obama wants to tax those wealthy individuals more and tax the MAJORITY poor less. Why that is not a good plan, is beyond me, but the Republican party has resorted to smear campaigning in calling Obama every name under the sun (socialist, Marxist, even Muslim and terrorist - see Bill Ayers, etc., etc.). Yet, all McCain wishes to do is give a free tax-ride to those who invest in the stock markets - so essentially, those already stealing so much from so many "regular" taxpayers will be able to continue stealing from those taxpayers, as their investments increase in value, and their tax bills diminish due to not having to pay a capital gains tax. Sounds fair to me? How about you? Obviously, I am being facetious, but honestly - we do need change, and I feel Obama may be able to provide such change.
It is a true shame that this bailout was essentially force fed to the American people - and to the senators and congressman that voted on the bill. No one had a choice but to pass the bill, and on the second vote no less - in the court systems, a second vote on matter of guilt or innocence is called double jeopardy, and it is illegal, yet in our highest office, it is, apparently, normal practice. And all for what? To bailout the rich, to keep them living the life they know and love - the majority poor in this nation would give anything for a chance to just not have to worry about where the next meal is coming from, but the executive crooks can't even bear the thought of giving up their private jets and champagne parties. A travesty that needs to be corrected.
So a day before the election I call for change - who will stand with me?
The premise of the article states that of the $125 billion of taxpayers money used for the bailout thus far - approximately $50 billion of that is being used for ... executive bonuses!!! Not creating new credit lines, not to those mortgages at high risk of foreclosure, and not for anyone that might, actually NEED the money - but for the executives - to, as far as I can tell, make sure they are still wholly compensated for their drowning business and sinking stock prices.
Which leads me to the point - is this the exact opposite of everything Robin Hood stood for? Think about you, we are all taxpayers, that's true, but why are the majority poor being forced to fund the minority rich in this nation? Oh, sure, the article argues (and quite satirically, I do assure you) that the executives surely cannot be forced to endure a life on a mere $80,000 per year, and thus require these additional fundings for their bonuses. Yeah right, tell that to the single mother of three that brings in $25,000 a year and is barely managing to keep food on the table. Yet, this mother of three is the one who is being forced to continually fund the extravagant lifestyles these highly overpaid executives have grown accustom too - and it is a true travesty that we, the "regular Joe's" (i.e. the MIDDLE CLASS and BELOW) must be the ones to fund these executives compensation packages, when in every one's estimation, they are the greedy individuals that prompt this "credit crisis" to begin with. It seems they robbed the poor to get rich by selling subprime mortgages, only to rob the poor to bailout "their company," or more plainly, to bailout their compensation as their stock portfolio's decline in value - and all thanks to these crooks. Glad the government is truly looking out for the people - oh wait, I'm sorry, they aren't, they are looking out for the next great paycheck themselves - the lobbyist. It's a shame.
And now, McCain has been bashing Obama for his alleged "socialist" views, but McCain supports action similar to what is being spoken about above. At least Obama wants to tax those wealthy individuals more and tax the MAJORITY poor less. Why that is not a good plan, is beyond me, but the Republican party has resorted to smear campaigning in calling Obama every name under the sun (socialist, Marxist, even Muslim and terrorist - see Bill Ayers, etc., etc.). Yet, all McCain wishes to do is give a free tax-ride to those who invest in the stock markets - so essentially, those already stealing so much from so many "regular" taxpayers will be able to continue stealing from those taxpayers, as their investments increase in value, and their tax bills diminish due to not having to pay a capital gains tax. Sounds fair to me? How about you? Obviously, I am being facetious, but honestly - we do need change, and I feel Obama may be able to provide such change.
It is a true shame that this bailout was essentially force fed to the American people - and to the senators and congressman that voted on the bill. No one had a choice but to pass the bill, and on the second vote no less - in the court systems, a second vote on matter of guilt or innocence is called double jeopardy, and it is illegal, yet in our highest office, it is, apparently, normal practice. And all for what? To bailout the rich, to keep them living the life they know and love - the majority poor in this nation would give anything for a chance to just not have to worry about where the next meal is coming from, but the executive crooks can't even bear the thought of giving up their private jets and champagne parties. A travesty that needs to be corrected.
So a day before the election I call for change - who will stand with me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
