Jump to content

Bailouts 2020

LABEVO

By LABEVO
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11775

Posted
Posted

I’m telling you that the 2020 financial crisis that this is HAS to be handled in a way that the public sees as fair.

I would argue that the reason we have Trump is due to the fact that the 2008 financial crisis was never litigated in the public’s mind. No one held accountable. No real societal change. Yeah, maybe the legislation prevented this crisis from being worse, but there was no lb of flesh for the American public. Because of that, the resentment festered. It grew. It metastasized into Trumpism.

We have to, HAVE to only bail out industries the American public feel are essential. Maybe it’s not the cruise industries fault that this happened. Oh fucking well. Main Street needs the $. Airlines need the $. But you know what? They don’t need to be 3 -4 companies. Break’em up. Take the $ and require a timeline to stabilize and a path to transition to multiple companies.

Time for bailouts with conditions. Real structural change to put us on better footing. I’m fucking 35 years old. This is my second to third Major financial disaster if you include 9/11 as a financial disaster. That’s not fucking right. Fix the system. Millennials  have to step up And fix this boomer crisis bookaki b/c they’ve obviously shown no ability to handle the basics of leadership. 
In the words of feckless leader:

You’re fired.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3755

Posted
Posted

These moments are why corporations need to fucking pay taxes!  I see no necessity at all for cruise industry at all.  If they consolidate and go the way of the buggy whip, so be it.  Somebody new will come in, buy the assets cheap and start over. Stockholders go to zero that own the cruise lines? That's investing.

What is really interesting is to look back at the last time a GOP President shit the bed on the economy.  Many Republicans did NOT want to give $50 billion as a LOAN to the auto industry.  Today the GOP is happy to give $28 billion a year to farmers because "trade wars are easy to win" without blinking an eye. Of course last time the GOP shit the bed as a new Dem President and they could kick the can down the road, as they always do.  We had to wait for Obama to get into office for the GOP to be willing to add OBVIOUSLY more necessary stimulus, just to not make the shit sandwich handoff not have another $450 billion on Bush's tab.

A lot of folks thought I was silly when I said the Trump Presidency will the be most expensive in history.  Stupid costs you eventually.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

- Major wealth tax that would essentially function as a wealth cap (99.99% tax starting at $150M)
- Creation of the American Solidarity Fund (ASF) managed by a transparent and democratically-accountable board
- All wealth taxes in the form of holdings (stocks, bonds, land, whatever) go into the ASF
- All ownership stakes acquired via "bailouts" go into the ASF
- Dividends from the ASF paid out to American citizens

Or the fucking guillotines, I guess. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45494

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

I fully expect Trump tomorrow to announce an emergency bailout of Trump hotels

ONE BILLION PERCENT.  If he doesn't do this, the simulation is broken.  There's more of a chance of me getting a BJ from Christy Turlington than him NOT doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32337

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, horn4life said:

What is really interesting is to look back at the last time a GOP President shit the bed on the economy.  Many Republicans did NOT want to give $50 billion as a LOAN to the auto industry.  Today the GOP is happy to give $28 billion a year to farmers because "trade wars are easy to win" without blinking an eye. Of course last time the GOP shit the bed as a new Dem President and they could kick the can down the road, as they always do.  We had to wait for Obama to get into office for the GOP to be willing to add OBVIOUSLY more necessary stimulus, just to not make the shit sandwich handoff not have another $450 billion on Bush's tab.

https://stoehr.substack.com/p/trump-asks-the-democrats-for-help

 

Quote

Trump’s stimulus package is similar to the one enacted in the last weeks of George W. Bush’s presidency. By then, the housing and credit crisis was just starting. Even then, however, it was clear the Congress had to act and fast or, as Bush said then, “this sucker could go down.” It didn’t go down, no thanks to the House Republicans. Not one of them voted in support of the bill. The House Democrats were forced to rescue Bush.

 

Quote

This is important to note, because the same House Republicans would later blame Barack Obama for the bank bailout the House Democrats voted for at the request of a Republican president. They did this by blurring the difference between the Troubled Asset Relief Program (its official name) and the $787 billion economic stimulus package that the new president signed into law soon after taking office in 2009.

 

Quote

Instead of uniting to face an emergency together as a nation, the House Republicans, led by John Boehner (who became House speaker after 2010), told Obama he was on his own—whatever happened was his fault. They could have helped put out the fire. Instead, they defamed Obama and the firefighters. This was entirely in keeping with the Republicans’ No. 1 “policy goal” then: ensuring that he was a one-term president.

 

Quote

To that end, the congressional Republicans would not even debate Obama’s proposed American Jobs Act of 2011, which might have ended sooner the suffering wrought by the Great Recession. The Republicans were not going to help Obama win reelection. Sure, Republican voters would suffer, but that was a small price to pay. And anyway, they said they wanted to help, but couldn’t, alas. “We’re broke,” Boehner shrugged.

 

Quote

Trump’s gambit seems to be pushing lots of cash into the economy, propping up demand and making Wall Street happy again. Don’t expect the Republicans to balk, though. If they weren’t concerned about debt when they enriched the obscenely rich, they aren’t going to be concerned this time. Debt, after all, is a Democratic problem.

 

Quote

And unlike the Republicans of 2010s, these Democrats really would unite to face an emergency together as a nation—even if a president they impeached got the credit. This isn’t because they don’t play politics. This is because their politics is better.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10681

Posted
Posted

Also, this might have been said upthread but "bailout" is too broad a term. Low cost loan payouts is one thing and grant payouts are another because that is interest free and that is BULLSHIT. I understand that the airlines are wanting some of the money as grants. They can go fuck themselves but I'm afraid with a republican senate, they might get that. Unless we scream about it to high heaven. Low cost loan to help them keep operating is good, but they shouldn't get free fucking money from the US taxpayers EVER.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Can someone explain her #3? Why permanently? Don't companies use that to shield themselves from hostile takeovers? Is "permanently" a feasible condition?

I'm too ignorant to understand this one.  

It's one of the reasons they don't have cash on hand to bail themselves out.  They bought back their own stock, making it more valuable which benefits shareholders and   . . . anyone who is compensated with company stock.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10681

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

It's one of the reasons they don't have cash on hand to bail themselves out.  They bought back their own stock, making it more valuable which benefits shareholders and   . . . anyone who is compensated with company stock.  

Can't they issue bonds to use for loans as a way to get funds? I mean low cost government loan would be better but they could issue bonds as a way to raise money, no? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16513

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, horn4life said:

What is really interesting is to look back at the last time a GOP President shit the bed on the economy. 

A lot of folks thought I was silly when I said the Trump Presidency will the be most expensive in history.  Stupid costs you eventually.

What's interesting is to go back and look at the last time a GOP president didn't shit the bed on the economy. He tried to clean up the mess responsibly and was voted out of office (his promise was dumb though).

 

Anyone who thought that statement was silly is an idiot. That's what GOP does since Reagan. They blow trillion dollar holes in the deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
Can someone explain her #3? Why permanently? Don't companies use that to shield themselves from hostile takeovers? Is "permanently" a feasible condition?
I'm too ignorant to understand this one.  
Just remember that a hostile takeover is one that shareholders are in favor of and the board is resisting, because they'll lose their cushy jobs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

Can't they issue bonds to use for loans as a way to get funds? I mean low cost government loan would be better but they could issue bonds as a way to raise money, no? 

A bailout is probably quicker.  This wouldn't be an easy market to raise money in, particularly if the only reason you issuing is it's better than bankruptcy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31274

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

I’m telling you that the 2020 financial crisis that this is HAS to be handled in a way that the public sees as fair.

I would argue that the reason we have Trump is due to the fact that the 2008 financial crisis was never litigated in the public’s mind. No one held accountable. No real societal change. Yeah, maybe the legislation prevented this crisis from being worse, but there was no lb of flesh for the American public. Because of that, the resentment festered. It grew. It metastasized into Trumpism.

We have to, HAVE to only bail out industries the American public feel are essential. Maybe it’s not the cruise industries fault that this happened. Oh fucking well. Main Street needs the $. Airlines need the $. But you know what? They don’t need to be 3 -4 companies. Break’em up. Take the $ and require a timeline to stabilize and a path to transition to multiple companies.

Time for bailouts with conditions. Real structural change to put us on better footing. I’m fucking 35 years old. This is my second to third Major financial disaster if you include 9/11 as a financial disaster. That’s not fucking right. Fix the system. Millennials  have to step up And fix this boomer crisis bookaki b/c they’ve obviously shown no ability to handle the basics of leadership. 
In the words of feckless leader:

You’re fired.

Truthiness.  Somehow, Trump managed to convince large swaths of the American public that he wasn't allied with or part of the big banks and Wall Street.  I guess by talking like a dipshit and tweeting a lot.

9/11 wasn't a disaster in and of itself.  That plus the dotcom bubble made a disaster.

In addition to corporate malfeasance, you have the financial services sector (Banks and Wall Street) making exorbitant fees on increasingly risky and useless transactions and inventing more of them every day to tempt corporations into further malfeasance.  It is going to be hard to get ahead of Wall Street, but we need to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31274

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Can someone explain her #3? Why permanently? Don't companies use that to shield themselves from hostile takeovers? Is "permanently" a feasible condition?

I'm too ignorant to understand this one.  

Share buybacks are not inherently corrupt.  As you note, they could be used to fend off a hostile takeover, or other reasonable purposes.

But, they are not essential to corporate governance or finance.  They're just an arrow in the quiver, so to speak.  So, I don't see a problem with permanently banning them from doing it.

@Beau Vine is probably the board's expert on pros and cons of corporate finance tools.  Perhaps he could weigh in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted

I don’t see how this isn’t a both sides issue.  I lean right, and think that Warrens ideas (the first 6 or so I read) are great (would have let them buy back stock after 20 years in lieu of never but whatever).  There are some businesses that the public needs, but even then, there should be some teeth to whatever “bailout” they get.  Don’t let them fail and leave the public in a lurch, but let’s make that fucker sting for awhile so they can remember.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaysOff

DaysOff 7851

Posted
Posted
Nah nah nah, Boeing ain’t in the shit because of this virus. They’re in the shit because of their own ineptitude.

Fuck off, Boeing.
But realize there are 2 million jobs connected to the Boeing supply chain. It is the country's biggest exporter and probably the most important company in this discussion. A whole big scary world outside of bama lama.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I know. I read the Boeing thread on DT.

 

I think he has alerts set up whenever someone bad mouths daddy.

 

But, ya know, we don’t know nuthin about the big mean scary world here so I’m itching for him to explain these airoplaney doohickeys to little ole me.

 

People?? Flying in the air??? I do declare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54001

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Share buybacks are not inherently corrupt.  As you note, they could be used to fend off a hostile takeover, or other reasonable purposes.

But, they are not essential to corporate governance or finance.  They're just an arrow in the quiver, so to speak.  So, I don't see a problem with permanently banning them from doing it.

@Beau Vine is probably the board's expert on pros and cons of corporate finance tools.  Perhaps he could weigh in.

Nothing inherently wrong with buybacks -- they're basically an optional dividend for shareholders, and about the easiest way to unload excess cash for the firm.

But yeah, if you're unloading excess cash, either through buybacks or increased dividends, that should make you ineligible for a bailout IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

But, ya know, we don’t know nuthin about the big mean scary world here so I’m itching for him to explain these airoplaney doohickeys to little ole me.

 

People?? Flying in the air??? I do declare!

Well, y’all certainly are more well educated and travelled than the folks of Mississippi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...