Bailouts for Lawyers

One of the many proposals in our government right now that we don't know about is a bailout for trial lawyers.  In some states it is legal for trial lawyers to provide loans for their clients in a person injury case.  Under the law now if at the end of litigation the loan is not repaid, or the case doesn't win so the attorney cannot collect, the attorney is allowed to deduct the amount of the loan from taxes.  The new proposed plan would allow them to deduct at the time of the loan being made.

Loans of this type started a long time ago when personal injury cases sought a more modest amount.  I believe the general intention to start was to cover the costs of the clients current medical bills and the fees of the court case.  Then if the client won the case at a the required the attorney would get the loan back plus a "modest" fee.  This of course leads the attorney to try and seek more and more in damages and not the client. 

Most states don't even allow these loans to be made in a personal injury cases, much less would they allow these cases to be basically government funded by our taxes.  Some litigation in injury cases now can be millions of dollars for each case.  Perhaps if our business and corporations paid more in taxes each year instead of finding ways out of it we could start to pay off this national debt that we keep accruing.  

Too Quickly

When Obama was running for president and after he won he told Americans that it would not be easy to get America back on track.  In fact he said that everything would have to get worse before it got better, a statement that many of us choose to ignore.  We can't bail out every industry and person that has trouble and not expect that there will be chaos and huge problems eventually for our government.  

One of the main problems that our government is dealing with today is how to "bail out Americans with no health care" by providing a universal health care plan.  While I am all for the ability of every person to get help when they are sick, I am very afraid of how quickly this plan is going through our Congress, and how little we all know about it.  The house has already passed the health care plan.  The proposed plan is a thick stack of pages all written with a ton of legal jargon that even the best and most schoolery lawyers have trouble reading and understanding.

The phrase "Rome wasn't built in a day" springs in to my head.  I would much rather our country take its time with health care and come up with a really good plan that would benefit our country then make this crazy push to put something through most Americans and most members of Congress probably don't even understand.

Tennis

I didn't realize quite how far the idea of bailouts had gone. It started with our banking and real estate industry and spiraled out of control. I suppose you can't blame people for trying. They see the government issueing handouts to buisnesses in trouble and think "hey, why don't you give me some too"

Its all over the world now. We have Japan airlines asking their government for bailouts to keep going, England and Scottland bailed out their banks too, and even a womens tennis tournament in Hong Kong asking the government for a 700,000 dollar bailout.

I suppose I can understand why we bailed out the banks, and even maybe why we might consider an airline. But when we get to Hustler and tennis tournaments requesting our tax dollars for funding I think it gets a little out of control. Of course I think the main question is who is going to bail out our government will its multi trillion dollar deficit.

"Healthy"

When the bank bailout was passed our government stood before us and told us that there were nine banks they were going to loan millions of dollars to.  Nine banks they considered "healthy" enough businesses to be able to take the money loaned to them and increase lending, thus stimulating our economy and improving the banks earnings.  After all this time that still hasn't really happened.

Now an inspector, Neil Barofsky, has reviewed the bailouts and reports that the "federal officials weren't entirely honest with the public about the health of the first 9 financial firms that got federal bailouts." 

First of all, if any of these institutions were "healthy" why would they need several million dollars in bailout money?  And why would only months later a couple of the banks be already asking for more millions of dollars?  And isn't it funny that when the public is watching, and seeing all these banking executives get their big bonuses and fly on their private jets, but lending isn't increasing and they still are needing more money, the government comes out and says "oh, its cause they weren't really as well off as we thought"  

related stories

Newspaper Bailouts

We all know how hard our newspaper industry is struggling.  Every day when I pick up the Dayton Daily News it seems to get thinner and thinner with fewer and fewer hard hitting news stories.  Almost all of them come from the Associated Press because we can't afford to hire people to do the job.  Sales are down for every single paper across the country, thanks to television and the internet.  Journalism has changed drastically.  Lets face it, America would rather read gossip and the Enquirer.  It's a little disheartening that we spent weeks seeing nothing but Octomom on every single news station.  Was there nothing else newsworthy going on in the world?  Really? 

With the bailouts already in place for banks, the auto industry, and wall street why wouldn't the newspaper industry present a request as well.  Thus was born the "Newspaper Revitalization Act"  This bailout would help out the newspapers by allowing them to become non profit organizations similar to public broadcasting networks.  The president has already stated his willingness to consider the bill.

 

The main argument being used to push for this bailout is that the constitution guarantees freedom of the press and that if we lose our newspapers, there would be no one to "act as a watchdog over federal bureaucracy"  This is true and I firmly believe that if newspapers were allowed to become nonprofit organizations there might be a lot more true journalism, which our country definitely needs.  But at the same time we have to ask ourselves when does it end.  Our government cannot bail out everyone that isn't the point of our government.  So where do we draw the line?

The Auto Industry

In a capitalist society the main point is that business is privately owned.  Everyone has a chance to build up a product, sell it, and make money, but what if that product isn't as good as everyone else's.  In the case of GM, Chrysler, and Ford the business fell behind and the companies hit financial trouble because the money was misused and the product just wasn't there.  So why should we have bailed them out.

It was insulting when all of the business execs for the auto industry showed up to ask Congress for money on their private jets.  Any company that can afford to fly on a private jet can afford to make some cut backs in that department and in the salaries of their executives.  Perhaps the real money to bail out the auto industry should have been found in cutbacks.

Also technology wise American car companies are behind.  Foreign car industries have designs and are already selling lots of more energy and fuel efficient cars.  Even with our bailout money the industry have yet to show us what they are going to do to make themselves competitive in todays market.  Without a competitive edge, or even some idea of how to compete with these other car industries we can be pretty sure that our auto industry could be right back where they started in a very short amount of time.

Bailouts

The Federal Reserve is now apparently trying to create more regulations for our bankers.  Ever since the big bank bailout to save the banking industry and help our housing market the public has gotten more and more outraged at the way bankers are using their bailouts.  From over the top bonuses, to corporate jets, and simply buying each other out nothing is being used as it was intended, at least as the people thought it was intended.

Nine of the banks that had received some of the largest amounts of bailout money reported more than 5,000 employees that got over a million in bonuses.  How can an industry that requires so much help from the government be able to pass out bonus money of such magnitude?  Where is all this money coming from?  Certainly a company in so much financial trouble could not afford that.

Another great issue at this time is the risks the banks are again beginning to take with the money.  Supposedly finally getting back on their financial feet, why would they choose to continue down the path of risky investments.  Risky investments are part of what brought them to such a "financial crisis" to begin with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8N7NBHQHW4