Welcome to PatsFans.com

A troubling trend in America

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    There is a very dangerous trend going on in America where politician are threatening businesses to bend to their wishes. We need companies to manage their business prudently and responsibly, not cater to politicians.

    In Illinois, the governor and other local politicians are threatening Bank of America to keep credit open to a company called Republic Windows & Doors. It is a failing company and BOA has cut off credit to them as they should. But these politicians are saying if BOA cuts off credit, they will stop doing business with BOA.

    Sadly, Obama has made a statement supporting this action. NO, this must stop now! Our businesses have no social responsibilty to pay workers of a company that has is failing. Obama can not support such foolishness. Businesses are in business to make money, not lose it.

    "Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s threat to halt the state’s dealings with Bank of America Corp. over a shut-down factory in Chicago extends a “dangerous” trend of politicians meddling with commerce, a former general counsel of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said.

    Blagojevich, a Democrat, yesterday said the biggest U.S. retail bank won’t get any more state business unless it restores credit to Republic Windows & Doors, whose workers are staging a sit-in.

    “They’re absolutely right,” Obama, who gave up his U.S. Senate seat from Illinois last month, said over the weekend. “These workers, if they have earned these benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agOFtufX.FXQ

    No Mr president elect, you're wrong here. If the workers owed money, it is the company they worked for that owes it to them. I support Obama on most of his plans so far, but this one is ridiculously wrong.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  2. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    So BOA, which is getting bailed out by those workers, is entitled to do business any way it wants

    while the state of Illinois, which isn't being bailed out by anyone, is not entitled to decide who it will do business with?
  3. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,466
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +290 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    PR, your argument would have greater weight if BofA wasn't being KEPT ALIVE by taxpayer dollars.

    Ya take the loan, ya hear the groan.

    That's the way it works.
  4. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    Businesses MUST be run to maximize profit. That's the way it's always been and supposed to be. We bailed them out because if our financial system failed, out economy would have collapsed.

    "PEOPLE" can do business with whomever they choose. but as individuals, not politicians threatening a company. If we allowed things like this to happen, no company would survive. Companies going bankrupt is a fact of life. I worked for one such company and no one paid my salary that was owed to me. Why should these people?

    Again, it's a fact of life that is going to happen more and more as this down-turn deepens. But sadly, the only one who "owes" workers is the company they worked for...think about it.
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    The loan is irrelevant to how BOA should operate. We NEED these companies to operate more prudently than before, not become a source of social welfare.

    shmessy, you and I both know that although the people have the right to complain, BOA's responsibilty is to do what's best for their business.

    Like I said in my previous post, I worked for a company that went bankrupt in 2001 (Marketing Specialists, LLC, MKSP) and still have money owed to me. We had 8,000 workers so imagine if our financiers were told to pay us! We both know it doesn't work that way, nor should it.

    Marketing Specialists files for bankruptcy - Dallas Business Journal:
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  6. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,466
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +290 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Did your company receive billions in dollars from a federal bailout?

    Again, you are missing the point. You are comparing apples to orange juice.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,793
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +288 / 4 / -2

    What do those billions have to do with that window company? So if I default on my mortgage, I guess ABC Mortgage has to let me stay in my home, or live for free, since they took federal money, and I'm a taxpayer. That's ridiculous. PR is right here.
  8. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    For once.....I'm right! :rocker:

    At least that's RW's opinion which I've always respected greatly. :D
  9. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    Ok then, please spell out exactly how you believe the banks that received federal "bailout" money should operate moving forward.

    Being the investment guy you are, I'm very curious to read your reply.

    My POINT is that bankruptcies are still bankruptcies...nothing has changed in the laws. If I didn't get any money from my former company's bank, neither should these people. Our laws haven't changed. And if you think BOA owes the workers money over the failed company, then this country is indeed in big trouble....

    Read my lips ;)

    It is not the BOA's responsibility.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  10. Born_a_Patriot

    Born_a_Patriot PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    I agree with PR on this based on what we know about the situation. The bailout and our empathy for the workers may get in the way of our judgment. I hate to see people lose their jobs, but we have to be careful how we go about resolving these types of situations.
  11. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Not that you greatly respect my opinion :D , but...........

    I concur......... and absolutly agree. Apparently the FBI does as well, as it turns out the good Mr. Gov. is playing dirty politics accross the board. Politician may vote to bail out, perhaps provide some minimal oversight (to make sure they are not getting screwed). But no way should dictate who, and who that company should do business with. WAY TO MUCH ROOM for shady business to get dun.

    It somewhat akin to why MOST judicial positions are appointed rather then voted. Too much room for "gimme this, and I'll get you that".

    The decision to bail or not to bail does not give the taxpayer executive power in a company. It shouldn't anyway.
  12. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,924
    Likes Received:
    276
    Ratings:
    +544 / 4 / -13

    #87 Jersey

    There's lots more you won't be happy about ... hunker down PR ... the gullible have been FLIM-FLAMMED. :rolleyes:

    Perhaps the same people who cry at the end of sad movies perhaps.:cool:

    Anybody here who grew up a bit poor and/or in rough neighborhoods will tell you.
    We all grew up seeing this over and over ... we can spot a BS artist a mile away ... he's your next President.
    Actually better for me really ... he's turning into a moderate ... a right side moderate at that. :cool:
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    What are you saying here IcyPat? First you say he's a bs artist and then you say you're happy about the direction he's going.

    Keep in mind I'm a moderate with fairly conservative economic leanings. I don't like bailouts at all, but if the alternative is hundreds of thousands more without jobs and suffering, then I'll live with it.

    Right now, I'm focusing more on leadership to take this country in a positive direction and thus far, I like what I see.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,793
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +288 / 4 / -2

    There's a first time for everything pal. :p
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    From this day forward, December 9th will be remembered for all time!

    at least by me!:D
  16. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,466
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +290 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Know what? I agree with the point about BOA having no responsibility at all to help the window company operating from this day forth.

    However, those workers are owed money for which they ALREADY WORKED. Not paying them for work ALREADY DONE is akin to a corporate mugging of those workers.

    BofA had no "inalienable right" to the $25 billion of taxpayer funded federal bailout money either. That money should have SOME social responsibility attached to it. If BofA wanted to practice the totally "free hand of capitalism" it should NEVER have had the nerve to reach out for the federal handout with the other hand.

    The few hundred thousand dollars to pay those 250 workers for what they ALREADY earned in their final 2 weeks is the point - - not keeping a failing business open into the future.

    Note what Obama said "“They’re absolutely right,” Obama, who gave up his U.S. Senate seat from Illinois last month, said over the weekend. “These workers, if they have EARNED (emphasis mine) these benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.”

    Is it 100% BofA's responsibilty? No way. But should BofA, with its' (previous to 2008) unprecedented $25 billion federal handout, help to coordinate some kind of effort with the company (either through its liquidation proceedings, etc) some sort of FAIR payout to those workers for their FAIRLY earned last two weeks that they ALREADY EARNED? Yes, that I believe.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    I think our political/economic philosophies are pretty similar and I understand the spirit with your statements above. but this is like reducing the principal on mortgage holders in trouble. We can't allow that to happen because it sets 2 standards for mortgage holders. One where a certain set of home owners are treated differently from others.

    I have 3 weeks pay still owed to me from the company I worked for that went bankrupt and it's STILL in legal process of paying out the money 8 years later. But it seems you think these workers should be treated differently and that's your right. but what about the 100's of other companies that will go bankrupt in the coming years? Should we evaluate if the financing bank was given bailout money and then decide who should pay, how much the banks are liable for and how quickly the former employees should be paid?

    Meanwhile, we have millions of people who have been through bankruptcies over the last 25 years who basically got nothing to pennies on the dollar (Polaroid?). Bankruptcy laws still need to be applied as they have always been. Unless you propose we change these laws.

    Also, keep in mind that the Illinois company probably already owes BOA plenty of money that they'll never see.
  18. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,466
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +290 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    "but this is like reducing the principal on mortgage holders in trouble."

    Unless the mortgage payer is 2 weeks away from paying off the mortgage, and has sent in a check (fulfilled his/her obligations per the contract) then your comparison is horrible here.

    "I have 3 weeks pay still owed to me from the company I worked for that went bankrupt"

    Once again, your company and their sugar daddies screwed you, no doubt about it - - I hope you get your fairly earned money. Did their creditors, one month PREVIOUS to the screwing, get billions of taxpayer money to keep them afloat and help the economy?

    "Bankruptcy laws still need to be applied as they have always been. Unless you propose we change these laws."

    Yes, I DO propose bankruptcy laws be changed somewhat. Especially after FEDERAL taxpayer money went to the pockets of the sugar daddies who cut the credit.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,094
    Likes Received:
    215
    Ratings:
    +325 / 6 / -8

    Let's leave aside the particulars. I believe one of PR's most heartfelt points here is that govt should not tell a business who to lend to. They are in business to make money, period.

    Here's the thing: we nationalized the banks. Think about the conversations about the auto bailout: oh yes, yes, they don't know what they're doing. Force them to run their company right. There must be strings attached.

    Ditto the banks, but moreso. The banks don't have a cash crunch because their transmissions were based on bad underlying assets. The Auto companies DO have a liquidity problem because (in large part) the financial sector went down. It was the proximate cause, at least. I don't know of any car or truck that was the proximate cause of the banks failing.

    So why can we tell the auto companies what to do, and what to build, and point them at green vehicles, and essentially think of them as a public works program.... but not the banks?

    Now, given the Ill. governor's dealings, and the fact that he's involved, you have to wonder: Is there something more than the principle of "don't tell business what to do" at work in this case? As in, "don't favor a specific company over competitors"?

    In other words, if there's no corruption (kickbacks/favoritism) at play, I say screw it. We can make the financial sector do whatever the hell we want, as is the case with the auto companies.

    It may be unwise, but you can't cry about the principle. Businesses "should" be in business to make money? They should have thought of that before their latest strategy became borrowing it from me and my neighbors, while our home values and retirements are evaporating.

    Wahhhh, BoA.

    PFnV
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Ratings:
    +180 / 2 / -10

    Ok, so now I know where you stand. You fail to see this from the perspective that all victims of bankruptcy need to be treated equally. I am no less deserving than the people who work for this company. And the people who work for a company that is financed by a local bank that never received bailout money are no less deserving of getting their money.

    You're saying that someone who works for a company that goes bankrupt next week doesn't deserve the same consideration if their former company's financing bank never received bailout money. That may make sense to you, but not to me.

    The "Fairness" in this situation that needs to be applied is to workers of companies that go bankrupt. I highly doubt we would make different laws for these situations or even if it would be constitutional.

    It's like when congress tried to tell banks "hey we lent you money, now you need to start lending it out" Ah...No they do not. We want these companies to lend more prudently than they have in years if this is to work. The reason the banking system almost collapsed is because they were lending to people with too much risk. That means only those with the best credit should be lent to.

    Our gov't doesn't have a clue how to run a business and you know that.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>