Mimievans’s Blog

MSNBC is reporting this morning that CitiGroup is still having problems staying afloat, despite recent layoffs and budget cuts. CitiGroup’s CEO, Vikram Pandit is seeking additional funding. Yeah, good luck with that one, just ask the Big Three.

So since Congress bailed out Frannie, Freddie and AIG, will they also bail out CitiGroup? And if so, why not the Big Three auto makers?

Pandit is definitely in the fight of his life as others are watching and waiting for the possibility of a takeover or merger after the company’s stock plummeted 50% this week, down under $4.00 a share after receiving a vote of “non-confidence” from the market, Fixed-income investors see a huge risk.

At least Pandit has not flown his private jet to Washington to beg for a bailout. One has to admire the CEO for trying to resolve his company’s issues through sweat, sacrifice and hard work. I am sure it will pay off and CitiGroup will rebound.

So as Barack Obama begins the tedious process of choosing his highest and most important cabinet members, the buzz is all about former first lady and NY Senator Hillary Clinton. Apparently a “leak” to the press is rumoring Obama to choose Hillary as his Secretary of State.

Hillary’s camp is saying that it is unsure that she even wants the daunting task, others stating that she is her own person and will find it rather difficult to conform to the Barack policies. But whatever Hilary must be thinking, Obama certainly has some serious considerations to make before officially offering the position to the Senator and former rival.

There has been much talk from supporters of Hillary being named Secretary of State about her past accomplishments. But really, what are they? Seems I am not the only one asking that question.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251786/Op_Ed_Hillary_Clinton_the_Can_Do_Candidate_

If it is not enough that Hillary’s “past accomplishments” seem a tad vague to most people, how about Bill? The question that has to be asked is does Obama really want the drama, being called “No Drama Obama” and all, and the extra baggage that is Bill Clinton so closely to his operation?

So let’s weigh the pros:

*Hillary is an exceptionally dynamic political figure, love her or hate or.

* Hillary is well known in the international world

*Hillary is known for working for the people, i.e. health-care issues, women’s rights

* The influence and connections that former President Clinton has may prove to be useful to Obama

But now let’s look at the “woes”:

* The same global relations that Bill has may actually end up hurting Obama in the future, depending on any “promises” made by Clinton.

* Hillary has openly stated that she will “bomb Iran” if things don’t go as plan, calling Obama and his call for diplomacy “naive”. Can she work with him now? (tehe)

* The Clintons have openly stated that Obama will get “two for the price of one”. Ok…Two Clintons for the price of one. Oh joy.

* Although Hillary is known in the international arena, she is most certainly is not a diplomat and after her “bomb Iran” tirade, will probably not be accepted by that portion of the world.

* As her supporters have already mentioned, she is independant and likes making decisions, how then can she come under Obama and actually pay a spat of attention to anything he is telling her to do or suggests?

* The same people who endorsed Obama throughout his entire campaign have now a very bitter taste in their mouths with the possibility of Hillary coming on board, not to mention Senator Lieberman keeping his post after his disgraceful acts. Won’t this cause a lot of confusion and contempt for the new president?

So the ultimate question is, with all the leakage in the press of Hillary being chosen, what will Obama do? Hopefully, he will weigh the facts as I have and make a decision based on what is best for the position and not what she, the media, or Hillary supporters would like to see.

As I have sat here over the past week watching the major new channels, I am astounded by a couple of things:

1. How could this castrophe of an American economy have happened?

2. Why would the government bail out the banks and insurance companies?

3. If this was a good move, then why not bail out the Big Three automakers?

It just seems to me that if if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. The auto industry is such an important aspect of our American economy. If the Big Three were to file bankrupcty, sure the companies would have an overhaul of mananagement which is sorely needed when the three boss hogs have the nerve to fly to Washington on their private jets to beg for more funding, but what about the 3 million job losses this bankruptcy would cause? What about the US losing any hope of becoming the formidable automobile maker it use to be against the ever present Japanese and German automakers? Can we say “from recession to depression?”

Sure I am totally against these huge bailouts, particularly for those companies who haven’t a clue what to do with the funds they have been given. But at what cost to the country do we decide to al of a sudden “yank the wallet away” at a crucial point such as this? The government does not want to bail out the Big Three, so are you then willing to pay billions in unemployment claims?

Not bailing out these companies would prove to be disastrous to an already delicate economy, but the executive management of these three companies should be ousted as fast as their private jets can fly. A bail out should come with major stipulations that will help the company find new and improved ways of manufacturing more cost friendly, and environmentally friendly vehicles.

The way I see it, it is just fine for the “tax payers” but to bail out the white collar groups even though their CEO’s are just as obnoxious and greedy, but the blue collar groups, once again, are left in the cold. Afterall, it is the blue collar workers who actually puts these cars together on the line that will lose everything. I am quite sure that the CEO’s will walk away with a nice “golden nugget” if they are fired, perhaps more then their actual compensation, so are they really worried?

As far as I hear, the bail out is most likely not to take place. So my fellow Americans, begin preparing for an even tougher time of it over the next few months as millions begin losing their jobs and filing for unemployment. Either way, the tax payers lose, but I would much rather pay to help keep millions of jobs and avoid driving us into depression, then to pay for unemployment. The choice is ours, or is it?