The BAILOUT!!
What should we do with these yahoos who are running all the companies that the government has bailed out?
How about Fannie & Freddie’s separate bailout?
Should they be allowed to do business as usual with our taxpayer’s money? Given huge signing bonuses, incentive packages and private perks that are just part of the status quo with these high power jobs.
I say NO WAY. The government is on the right track by limiting pay and incentives for the highest executives, but I contend they do not take it far enough. The executives running all of the companies, from AIG that received $69.8 billion to Citizens First Wholesale Mortgage Company that received $20,000, receiving any amount of the bailout should be subject to stringent spending regulations.
The executives are the obvious ones to start with, but this should trickle down through the whole company. Give the executives great pensions tied to the success of the company. Stock options equal to the pay they think they deserve that must be held for 5 years after they leave the company. No company jets and spa days allowed. Maybe true team building retreats where the whole company is invested in its’ success and all can benefit with stock options if the company benefits. Even the file clerk could have a great idea that may make copiers almost obsolete for the company and result in thousands saved!!
If end of fiscal year is coming and there is money left in the budget, it should be rolled into next year, not spent on a bigger and better unneeded Widget! Or useless conferences.
These companies need their feet held to the fire. Even if they are under new management they need to be held accountable and penalized if appropriate. Their incentives need to be tied to their success rather than given money for just saying yes to the job!
I say go government and reduce their pay, be a watchdog, attempt to regulate them and make them accountable for one of the biggest financial wrecks in modern times.
Maybe this won’t happen again. Who am I kidding, it may not be today or tomorrow, but some oafs are out there with money, power, connections and the knowledge already planning how they can scam a greater amount of people and profit while watching the mess implode on itself.
BUT for now, lets play smart and realize this is real money and not monopoly money and make those who borrowed it accountable by not allowing them to be given any more significant financial incentives unless we see results!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Rush Speaks for All Republicans…Really??
I reviewed a blog by Mary Shaw posted on The Smirking Chimp sparked by President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The author goes on to point out some of the more absurd comments made by “hysterical right-wing” supporters. Some of the more absurd quotes note the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for affirmative action, or should have gone to the tea party goers of the 9-12 Project. The final straw is when Rush Limbaugh states that he and the Taliban agree that Obama does not deserve the prize.
The blogger goes on to support that Republicans and the Taliban are similar because they believe women “should be kept in their place,” giving examples from Glenn Beck who compares Hilary Clinton to a naggin’ wife and Ann Coulter saying women should not be given the right to vote. It goes on to put Rush Limbaugh in an unfavorable light pulling sexist comments he has made about women.
The final points refer to theocracy being similar in Republicans and the Taliban as well as a bonding tie of wanting President Obama to fail.
Where to start... What a wealth of points to be able to poke holes through!! Let’s just go to the all the people chosen to quote, THEY GO FOR THE BIG REACTION. When the sound bites, the analogy or the ideas are more absurd - the public response is more enthusiastic. This equals more followers. Which eventually means more money, and the cycle continues. Maybe some of these people who are delegated large amount of airtime really believe the swill they spew, but I believe most of it is to reinforce the ranks.
Who really believes the Nobel Peace Prize is for affirmative action, should go to the 9-12 Project, women should not vote, that Hilary Clinton comes off as a nagging wife or that Republicans and the Taliban go together on their views. Really this is attention getting at its best or slandering the “competition” at its worst.
I am a conservative who realizes that when the "sides" are taken, whoever can make the other side look more ridiculous, unintelligent, unpatriotic, too patriotic, sexist, racist, or socially unacceptable WINS.
While I do not believe President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize at this point in his presidency - I believe that his words calling for delaying military strikes without support of outcomes, increasing hospitable democratic policies in the world, and not pushing democracy down everyone’s throat points in the direction that he may be deserving of such an award in the future.
Too bad the committee chose to not wait to see if his actions can match his speeches.
The blogger goes on to support that Republicans and the Taliban are similar because they believe women “should be kept in their place,” giving examples from Glenn Beck who compares Hilary Clinton to a naggin’ wife and Ann Coulter saying women should not be given the right to vote. It goes on to put Rush Limbaugh in an unfavorable light pulling sexist comments he has made about women.
The final points refer to theocracy being similar in Republicans and the Taliban as well as a bonding tie of wanting President Obama to fail.
Where to start... What a wealth of points to be able to poke holes through!! Let’s just go to the all the people chosen to quote, THEY GO FOR THE BIG REACTION. When the sound bites, the analogy or the ideas are more absurd - the public response is more enthusiastic. This equals more followers. Which eventually means more money, and the cycle continues. Maybe some of these people who are delegated large amount of airtime really believe the swill they spew, but I believe most of it is to reinforce the ranks.
Who really believes the Nobel Peace Prize is for affirmative action, should go to the 9-12 Project, women should not vote, that Hilary Clinton comes off as a nagging wife or that Republicans and the Taliban go together on their views. Really this is attention getting at its best or slandering the “competition” at its worst.
I am a conservative who realizes that when the "sides" are taken, whoever can make the other side look more ridiculous, unintelligent, unpatriotic, too patriotic, sexist, racist, or socially unacceptable WINS.
While I do not believe President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize at this point in his presidency - I believe that his words calling for delaying military strikes without support of outcomes, increasing hospitable democratic policies in the world, and not pushing democracy down everyone’s throat points in the direction that he may be deserving of such an award in the future.
Too bad the committee chose to not wait to see if his actions can match his speeches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)