Sean Adkins: December 2008 Archives

Michael Ohl, of Red Lion, took out a $58,000 home equity line of credit from Sovereign Bank during the summer to install a pool in his backyard -- something he had wanted since building his house in 1994.

Taking out the line of credit made Ohl eligible for Sovereign's sweepstakes, which he won.

The prize: $50,000 toward his home equity line of credit, meaning he'll only have to pay back $8,000.

Imagine that -- taking out a hefty loan, only to find out later that you only have to pay back a small portion of it.

What would you do in a situation like that? If you could take out a $50,000 loan, knowing you wouldn't have to pay it back, how would you spend the money?

*

In other business news today, Sean Adkins reports on fines levied against the York Casket Co. by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

By now, I'm sure you've heard that President Bush has thrown both GM and Chrysler a lifeline in the form of a $17.4 million federal bailout.

A week ago, the U.S. Senate rejected a similar bailout because it wanted more concessions from the auto workers union.

What Bush has done today is to tell the American people that the decisions made by their elected officials don't count for anything.

Even if members of the U.S. Senate took two months to haggle over an auto bailout and still reached the same decision it did last week, it wouldn't have mattered.

Bush would still have approved a bailout for an industry that has no hope of succeeding without the help of taxpayer money.

Also, are you going to buy a car from a company that begged for taxpayer money claiming that if it didn't get billions of dollars it go under within weeks?

I know I wouldn't. The next time I buy a car, I'm going with an import.

For the last few weeks, our lawmakers have a made a good show out of grilling the CEOs of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. I believe they could give many a seasoned Hollywood actor a run for the Academy Award.

But, let's allow those lawmakers to beleive that they are actually fooling us with their "tough" questions and "proposed" strategy as they "work" to save the domestic auto industry from collapse. After all, it's the holiday season.

What I mean to discuss today are the auto companies themselves. Most of us have either read or heard that if these companies do not get their hads on billions of our tax dollars, they will run out gas and crash into bankruptcy.

Let's say the government does give Ford, GM and Chrysler our money. Would you still feel good about buying a car from one these on-the-edge companies?

I mean, what is the difference if you buy a car from a company that's in bankruptcy or one that is on life-support thanks to a bailout?

Today, the Government Accountability Office will meet with members of the U.S. Congress to discuss the progress of the $700 billion bailout, oh sorry, financial rescue plan.
As I recall, the whole point of this bailout plan was to get banks to start lending money again and, in turn, give people the cash they need to buy big ticket items like cars and houses.
Maybe its just me, but I find fault with any industry that requires a person to go into debt to buy its stuff.
At any rate, last weekend I heard what I believe to be the best definition of the $700 billion bailout: Our government takes our tax money and gives it to banks. Banks, in turn, take that tax money and lend it back to us, at interest.
Well, isn't that thoughtful? And to think that I was skeptical of the whole bailout plan. Shame on me.