Should we bail out Enron Employees? : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

I heard on the radio yesterday that the government may be trying to get us taxpayers to bail out the people who worked at Enron, because they had 401-k plans that had mostly company stock.

Now that it appears the company will not survive, we will soon be hearing from candidates for the next election telling us that this should be done, since it was not their fault the company went broke. I understand that maybe it was not fair to the employees that the upper management looted the stock before it tanked, but I don't think we as taxpayers should subsidize them for poor management. Poor management is what got them into trouble in the first place.

What do you think?

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (, December 15, 2001


While I feel sorry for these folks, it really isn't our fault that the corporation they worked for couldn't manage their funds, so NO, I don't think the taxpayers should bail them out. No one is going to bail me out if I can't manage my affairs, and no one should.

-- Doreen (, December 17, 2001.

Exactly. If we do not have to have any responsibility to research how the company is handling our money, then why can't we just invest in anything and have everyone bail us out?! Think of all those dot coms that went under! Admittedly, who would have expected Enron to go bad, but it happens and I shouldn't have to pay more for someones retirement than what they take for social security. If I have to pay for them, then they should take a national vote before investing the money! Ha ha. And live at my standards for retirement!

And Enron was not an "accident" or terrorist problem. (the reason why the Gov't is bailing out the airlines) It was just poor management. I suppose now every failing business will want the Gov't to pay for it's mistakes. The airlines were doing poorly before 9-11, but money will not help if they do not restructure. It is healthy for businesses to go under every now and then. Especially when those businesses are no longer profitable and the up- keep costs the public more than letting it go under. (what is the incentive to operate in the green?) Just my two cents.

-- notnow (, December 17, 2001.

ditto. . . if the employees hadn't sunk ALL of their money into their own company, this wouldn't have happened to them. It would hurt, but not like total a total financial loss.

The same basic thing happened about 15 years ago to one of our local banks. The bank went under, and their depositers were screwed. The bank was not FDIC, never advertised as FDIC, but had better interest rates then others. So people went with them. Same answers as above. Sorry, but tough nuggies.

-- j.r. guerra (, December 17, 2001.


I'm not sure if the employees had a choice. Perhaps the company matched them only if they bought company stock. This would be a great incentive to buy company stock. This is a common corporate practice. Either way they are broke. Diversify, diversify, diversify. That is how we all need to invest. Not all your eggs in one basket.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (, December 17, 2001.

In my opinion, one of the largest energy companies in the world going belly up in less than a year goes way beyond mismanagement. There is something fishy going on here.

The rank and file employees hurt by this might deserve help, but as for the top executives that basically grabbed their millions and ran, no.

-- Nexar (, December 17, 2001.

I agree, Nexar; something smells very bad here. All this money was lost, right? Did it just "disappear"? I don't think so. I think some of the top players are laughing all the way to the bank, and one of them has a brother who pulled a very similar stunt with the S&L scandal. Where's what's his name--Neil??-these days? In jail? Don't think so.

-- joj (jump@off.c), December 17, 2001.

Should not the rank & file who got screwed gather together and go after those golden parachutes?

What a huge stench!

-- Jim-mi (, December 17, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ