With the news today that Donald Trump has ridden to the rescue of Ed McMahon, buying his foreclosure-headed home and leasing it back to him, I can't help wondering if this is a good thing. I previously took Mr. McMahon to task, as well as those who offered him refuge on their airwaves instead of criticizing him for bungling his blessed life.
Ed McMahon essentially had a rock solid civil service job, entertainment related of course, which like most such employment lasted more than a generation. He earned millions and millions from that thirty-year gig on The Tonight Show, serving at the grace of his benefactor Johnny Carson, and with the accompanying celebrity secured well-paying stints on Star Search and as pitchman for Publisher's Clearing House.
However, even with all the money thrown his way, his profligate spending style and assorted alimony payments put him in the financial position he is in today. He should be condemned, not pitied, and not catered to by an admitted non-acquaintance such as Trump, who said he felt sorry for the guy he'd grown up watching on TV.
If Donald Trump is so concerned about the woes of his fellow man or woman, why stick only to those whose names he recognizes? There are many of us who actually work in various capacities to maintain a decent living when our dreams go unfulfilled. Hey, I'll take a grant so that I don't have to work to pay my bills. Or perhaps he might finance a cheap theatrical run of my stage play or put in a million or so for a modest indie film of my screenplay, either of which might might provide a better return for his investment than the message he gives forth that millionaires who are wasteful need never worry if they can go on Larry King.
And if he doesn't want to invest in my career, how about helping ten or twenty honest, hard working folks who've lost their ordinary jobs and are on the verge of losing their inexpensive homes? True, he doesn't know these people, but are they unworthy because he's never wanted their autograph?
And if Trump responds that he gives to various charities anonymously, why didn't he do the same for Ed McMahon? Though I don't think he should have helped the man at all, he could have had a shell company purchase the property without any fanfare at all. Truth be told, if he had to do anything, he should have moved McMahon from his six bedroom five bathroom home worth $4.6 million (purchased in 1990 for $2.6 million) into a respectable two or three bedroom condominium in the Melrose Area instead of giving him the ultimate handout, one he in no way deserves. And if McMahon didn't accept, being too "proud" a man, that would have been just too damned bad.
There's no reason to feel sorry for Ed McMahon. He's not Albert Schweitzer, who'd just been evicted from his small home by a possibly dictatorial African government. Ed McMahon is a very lucky man who screwed up his own life and need not continue to bother the rest of us who have our own problems and are working them out without the misplaced and very public generosity of Donald Trump.
How can McMahon pay the upkeep on a mansion? A lot of rich bankruptcies are a way to get out of paying alimony or paying a lawsuit or a way of slipping cash to your kids, etc.
I would love to know what was owed on McMahon's mansion. If it is worth $4.6 million and was purchased in 1990 for $2.6 million, then he could have dropped the price and still came out with more than most, UNLESS he took a lot of loans against it.
It isn't theft to take tax money and spend it on the poor. It is a way to be humane and moral. None of us know what can happen in the future. We could be very poor. Besides that, if too many people have no hope, there are revolutions and war....because they have nothing to lose.
trying to make a story where there is none.
But, I'll just tell you what my daddy told me years and years ago, "what goes
around, comes around".....be careful about what you say now. It may be about
you in a few years.
He may not specifically request such aid while on Larry King, but the message is clear. He was about to lose his luxury lifestyle. The call went out. Millionaires around the world unite, we've got to help him get out of the mire McMahon himself has wrought or the Millionaire club will be interminably stained.
Look, Ed McMahon is getting a large AFTRA pension and maximum social security -- much more than the average citizen makes in a year working -- and I see no reason why we should feel sorry for him. He's better off than many legitimate people who are losing their homes or bank accounts through no fault of their own and are not able, as McMahon clearly would have been, to quietly downsize to a very, very nice albeit more modest home. He wasn't headed for the sidewalk, as some other poor souls surely are. How many TV/newspaper stories have you seen or read about folks such as these?
So he received aid from a wealthy individual, why is that bad? Trump can't pay off everybodies loan nor should he. Ed was invited on Larry King because he was a famous person who is facing a hard time. He's done plenty to be looked up to and someone who does look up to Ed and remembers him in his glory years is in a position to help. Why kick the man while he is down?
What is a legitimate person? For people who are losing their homes why is it not their fault? Who's fault is it? Is there a specific dollar figure or set of circumstances that above that level it is their fault but below that level it is not and they are worthy of our compassion?
However, to reach into someone else's pocket to help someone in need is simply theft. So Trump spends his own money to help someone else. If you feel that Trump doing so is great or not or if you feel that McMahon is worthy or not is immaterial as it is not your money. I'm hardpressed to conjure up the image of someone wanting to buy something from Trump based on his generosity.
When government comes to bailout homeowners who are defaulting on their loans or giving money to the poor in the form of food stamps, or welfare is atrocious. If a private individual forcibly took money from another person and gave that money to someone they felt more deserving would still be theft. When the government does it it is simply government sponsored theft.
While someone may not agree with who Trump chose to help or the method he chose, at least he didn't steal money away from people less deserving of the money and give it to someone he felt more deserving.
My prime concern is the hoopla the Media has created, mostly by painting McMahon in an overly sympathetic manner.
A news writer whom I know said it was the classic Cinderella Story. Perhaps, but using that as an analogy, Ed McMahon is not Cinderella. He is Prince Charming found wallowing in the gutter, having ruined his life.
I find that more pathetic than sympathetic and wonder why the Media refuses to call his plight what it is: the failure of a lucky man who did the harm unto himself.
Regarding the government "stealing" our money as you suggest to help those whose homes were foreclosed, many of those people lost their jobs in an economy fostered by the same government, so I don't agree that it in any way mirrors the muddle in which McMahon is now enmeshed.
Ed McMahon and his wife went on TV and have readily admited that their housing troubles are of their own creation. The McMahons aren't asking that the bank be prohibited from foreclosing on them, they aren't asking for a government handout to prevent foreclosure, they don't shirk the responsibility and blame predatory lenders, whomever they may be.
Instead Ed gives advice to others in the same boat. He encourages them to keep working, to not quit and to stay hopeful and optomistic. You may not have sympathy for Ed but he certainly garners respect for his willingness to accept responsibility for his situation.
Let's come up with a new term for "sorry loser," how about a "McMahon"!!
mogul--nothing more. Trump looks at everything as a money making opportunity. He may well feel sorry for McMahon, but in reality he's picking up a foreclosure property for $4.6 million that will sell for $7 million when the market turns around.
Trump's decision to "bail out" Ed McMahon was not an act of charity, it was a media buy. He'll get more press out of this event than he could ever buy for the cost of McMahon's house--and Ed's going to pay him rent to recoup his investment to boot!
Ed get's a great deal. Trump gets a great deal. The only one who's not getting a great deal out of this is you for doing The Donald's bidding for free. Wait, you got me to read it and probably thousands more like me. Now who's the sucker?
Considering that I saw the news in the Los Angeles Times, I sense that a lot more people saw it due to that than any exposure I get on the Huffington Post. Plus, I don't think discussions like ours, not to mention your take on why Trump did it in the first place, is the sort of publicity he or McMahon would want.