Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MzMia
Thank you for such a well thought out post. I appreciate hearing your opinion, especially since you ARE a businessman and you are employing people!
I would love to see the government actually help people like you also. The more your business grows, the more people you can hire. We actually agree on a few things, Merc.
**Waving to you and beth**
Mz Mia,
Thanks, and a wave back at 'ya.
I'm not employing as many people as I would like to but that's a function of not doing as much business as I would like to, which is a function of there are more businesses closing than are opening. I work serving and providing a specific type of financing for businesses. Currently I have 5500 accounts - all commercial, no 'Fortune 500' types, and very few that would be considered 'big business'. These are people, like me, who work. I don't talk to each and every owner, but I talk to many, and the common denominator about there business plans is that they just hope to be able to survive. Forget about growth and new jobs, they just hope to keep the employees they have busy.
Now, like you and me, my clients don't agree on every position or share the same political views, but we do appreciate the intelligence of each other and respect the fact that we share the common denominator of understanding the problems of being a business owner in these economic conditions. Yesterday's conversation was a bit depressing for them, because it pointed to yet another instance of the 'status quo' in Washington and the reality of the administration change having no impact on that fact.
It was a two punch combination. First - was all the pork in the 'stimulus' package. Nancy Pelosi is from CA and trust me, most of these guys voted for her. But for championing pork, or allowing it to be even a minor part of the plan indicates the PACs still run the House. Then there is the rhetoric. President Obama made a headline or two for pressing out the issue of bonuses being paid out by companies who are getting bailed out.
I don't think this should be a time for politics, and politicians should not be identifying the private sector businesses as villains that they hope will provide real economic stimulus. The thing is, and I'm sure the President knows this too, is that bonuses are contractual issues. As long as the company is operational if certain conditions occur it generates bonuses. Bonus payouts are part of employee contracts. I know of no employee contract that has a 'void if the company receives a government bail out' provision. If the company doesn't pay them, the resulting lawsuit costs brought by the employees, executives as well as line workers and marketers, would cost more than the payouts. In the end the employee would prevail and the bonuses would still have to be paid.
President Obama knows this, Congress knows this; most people don't. Why make it a focus other than to distract the public and create yet another 'us versus them' polarization? If anything, it provides yet another reason why those companies shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place. If the company were to file for bankruptcy, any bonus would be part of the reorganization plan or be paid at pennies on the dollar as part of the liquidation. Truth is, the 'bail out' insured that the bonuses would be paid. If you, or anyone else doesn't like the fact that they were, blame Congress and as of last week, President Obama for providing titular approval of them by sending billions of tax dollars to these companies without conditions.
Now to me, this points to the lack of distinction between the political parties, but I'm sure that there are those that will rationalize how dumb it was, or 'insider' it was when President Bush funded bonuses with bail out money, and now President Obama's hands are tied by the prior administrations policy. Me - I just see, same results under a different label. Actually the action is not as disturbing as hearing the same distracting and polarizing rhetoric. A 'quick fix'? Simple - make bankruptcy reorganization part of any bailout and that triggers renegotiation of any outstanding unsecured liability such as employee bonuses. It would also put a receiver or 'trustee' in place which would have to approve every expenditure. Is there anyone who things that shouldn't be the MINIMUM penalty for managing a business into failure that requires government funds?
However, too many people buy into the rhetoric and have been manipulated into taking sides, blinded by the reality that the only side they are really on is 'outside'; being manipulated by the 'insiders' who have 100% of our 'representatives' on the payroll. Similar to the 'company executives' they got their bonus too - reelection.
As I said in my original post on this thread. The 'con game' has no confidence. Wall Street has no confidence. Seeing the status quo coming from Washington generates no confidence. Rhetoric from the top versus plain and simple truth is generating no confidence. No confidence - no dominance (had to interject a bit of lifestyle) - no confidence - no new jobs.
|
RE: Unemployment is Up in all 50 States! What is the so... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread