Jump to content
2300 Nueces

Bailouts for large Corporations???

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bateshorn said:

I guess you are unfamiliar with the way this administration has been treating low income workers for the last 3 years. 

That didn't fucking take long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

I guess you are unfamiliar with the way this administration has been treating low income workers for the last 3 years. 

Go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That didn't fucking take long...

Or really American Capitalism in general.  It was a Democrat president who eliminated Welfare. 

I’m not going to CR up this thread, but we are a nation with a thin to almost non existent safety net, relative to the rest of the world.  We mostly treat individuals with a good luck, caveat emptor attitude. I don’t know why we would treat corporations any differently.

 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

This is my point at the corporate level:  make sure companies have access to capital if they need it.  But don’t fucking give it too them.  They can borrow it like everyone else that’s having a hard time and pay it back in due time.

And nobody has mentioned "giving them" anything.  Jesus, are you having a bipolar battle with the straw man in your head?  Bailouts can mean anything from low interest  loans, incentives, subsidies in the form of tax breaks, repatriation of taxes, or even deferment of debt payments.  There are so many options available, and from what I have seen, none involve just a handout and a pat on the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bateshorn said:

Or really American Capitalism in general.  

Cloak room is one street down and two streets over.  Knock yourself out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Jesus, are you having a bipolar battle with the straw man in your head?  

requesting permission to shamelessly steal this line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And nobody has mentioned "giving them" anything.  Jesus, are you having a bipolar battle with the straw man in your head?  Bailouts can mean anything from low interest  loans, incentives, subsidies in the form of tax breaks, repatriation of taxes, or even deferment of debt payments.  There are so many options available, and from what I have seen, none involve just a handout and a pat on the back.

In Washington, D.C., bailouts mean straight cash homie. Which is why in my original post, I said bail outs, no, loans yes.

 

Most of the things your are talking about, say a subsidy in the form of a tax credit or tax free repatriation have to be paid back by somebody else. That’s a bailout. If the American taxpayer is subsidizing a credit to American Airlines to keep them in business,  that’s cash and a pat on the back. 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I guess you are unfamiliar with the way this administration has been treating low income workers for the last 3 years. 

Just this administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

In Washington, D.C., bailouts mean straight cash homie. Which is why in my original post, I said bail outs, no, loans yes.

So the major banks were NOT bailed out in 2008, glad we have you on record as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

So the major banks were NOT bailed out in 2008, glad we have you on record as such.

As I understand, virtually all of that money was paid back, to the profit of the tax payer.  
 

But I’ll grant you the semantics of the word “bail out.” Point Taken. 

I was literally on a phone call on Monday, listening to an industry rep asking for federal cash assistance to maintain short term operations.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

As I understand, virtually all of that money was paid back, to the profit of the tax payer.  
 

But I’ll grant you the semantics of the word “bail out.” Point Taken. 

I was literally on a phone call on Monday, listening to an industry rep asking for federal cash assistance to maintain short term operations.


 

 

Which is the textbook definition of a loan, as was done prior.  If there is discussions about deferring repayment, that is another topic

Edited by BabaYaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Which is the textbook definition of a loan, as was done prior

I get that.

I’ve been through this twice now.  Everyone is trying to get money for nothing right now.  Some sort of grant or credit. That’s how corporate lobbyists work. It’s only later that you move into the “The government is going to need it’s money back” phase. 
 

From what I’m seeing, the latter is already starting to happen, as the fever of Monday’s panic starts to break. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

The American taxpayer did just fine by TARP, even if it was a universally despised idea at the time. 

In many cases back then, the government took a stake in the companies and eventually sold out its position for a gain after things calmed down.  Cheap loan or give up a stake in your company, fine... here's some cash.  Free money with no strings attached... get fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only twice?  Rookie...

10 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

The American taxpayer did just fine by TARP, even if it was a universally despised idea at the time. 

Adjusted for inflation, it was a loss, but to your point not the boondoggle many made it out to be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

There are so many options available, and from what I have seen, none involve just a handout and a pat on the back.

 

Ahem...

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

subsidies in the form of tax breaks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

 

Ahem...

 

Allowing a company to keep more of their own money is not a handout or "free money"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

The American taxpayer did just fine by TARP, even if it was a universally despised idea at the time. 

The GOP is so schizophrenic.  Corporate handouts left and right, yet they opposed TARP.  This rudderlessness, or fecklessness is why I contend they latched onto Trump as having an electoral appeal they could not muster by staggering and lurching between policy positions.  I suppose the democrats are having a somewhat similar problem.

Even though TARP apparently did not fiscally injure the treasury or the taxpayer, the lack of accountability for the excesses of the mortgage crisis still rankles, as pointed out by DNAguy.  And fiscal accountability is not enough.  There should have been some Warren-style structural changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There should have been some Warren-style structural changes.

Or just re-implement glass steagall 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That and some more. 

This is a lesson in extrinsic, intrinsic, and perverse incentives 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, VABuckeye said:

To be clear small business, and I mean truly small businesses, will have irreparable harm done to them if nothing is done.  I know the title is about larger corporations but truly small businesses are going to need help. 

The issue to me is a little deeper. Small businesses pay pretty high taxes and have higher expenses for things like benefits. Large corporate entities love having lower costs than their smaller competitors and the more small competitors they can drive out of business, the higher their profits and the higher they can raise prices on consumers. So, fuck large corporate buyouts. Help small businesses who are more innovative and drivers of the economy and stop being whores to the lobbyists and your country club buddies. And as far as the president and senate goes, small businesses are the backbone of your voting constituency, and they are getting sick of being on the short end of the stick. It is the small business that is taking the brunt of the shutdown as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

The issue to me is a little deeper. Small businesses pay pretty high taxes and have higher expenses for things like benefits. Large corporate entities love having lower costs than their smaller competitors and the more small competitors they can drive out of business, the higher their profits and the higher they can raise prices on consumers. So, fuck large corporate buyouts. Help small businesses who are more innovative and drivers of the economy and stop being whores to the lobbyists and your country club buddies. And as far as the president and senate goes, small businesses are the backbone of your voting constituency, and they are getting sick of being on the short end of the stick. It is the small business that is taking the brunt of the shutdown as it is.

100%  This is a nuanced conversation not helped by blanket statements.  There is a symbiotic relationship between the large and small players.  Yes the large one tend to utilize all chapters in their playbook to stifle competition.  But so do the smaller players.  It's just not making the headlines.  I agree with the sentiment that we have to align the financial landscape with the current markets to allows both large and small to continue to operate.  Think of it as an ecosystem - you don't just burn back the big trees and think it doesn't impact the whole forest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The GOP is so schizophrenic.  Corporate handouts left and right, yet they opposed TARP.  This rudderlessness, or fecklessness is why I contend they latched onto Trump as having an electoral appeal they could not muster by staggering and lurching between policy positions.  I suppose the democrats are having a somewhat similar problem.

Even though TARP apparently did not fiscally injure the treasury or the taxpayer, the lack of accountability for the excesses of the mortgage crisis still rankles, as pointed out by DNAguy.  And fiscal accountability is not enough.  There should have been some Warren-style structural changes.

???  Paulsen engineered TARP and it was pushed heavily by W. Obama (smartly) decided not to impose Warren-style structural changes. The banking system is very well capitalized and will support us through this recession. Having Warren-style structural changes would have been disastrous. She is a walking disaster. Worse than Sanders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Allowing a company to keep more of their own money is not a handout or "free money"

CR is that way, Mr. "Taxation is theft"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

???  Paulsen engineered TARP and it was pushed heavily by W. Obama (smartly) decided not to impose Warren-style structural changes. The banking system is very well capitalized and will support us through this recession. Having Warren-style structural changes would have been disastrous. She is a walking disaster. Worse than Sanders. 

And House Republicans torpedoed it once and voted against it twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And House Republicans torpedoed it once and voted against it twice.

That was incredibly dumb and they were playing up to the populist/Tea Party narrative. I’m as conservative as it gets, and TARP was not only greatly needed but highly successful. I was living and breathing it at the time. That had the potential to be far worse than what we are going through now, I bet, when we look back at Q1/Q2 with hindsight.  Further, House Republicans were highly aware they could use the legislation and hang it over probable POTUS Obama  

But my point remains: Paulsen, Bernanke, and Geithner and team concocted this, and had W’s full support. Those four men knew the gravity of the situation and were not playing politics at the time. IIRC, McCain was playing politics, Obama was merely listening probably in awe, and House Repubs were being moronic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

That was incredibly dumb and they were playing up to the populist/Tea Party narrative. I’m as conservative as it gets, and TARP was not only greatly needed but highly successful. I was living and breathing it at the time. That had the potential to be far worse than what we are going through now, I bet, when we look back at Q1/Q2 with hindsight.  Further, House Republicans were highly aware they could use the legislation and hang it over probable POTUS Obama  

But my point remains: Paulsen, Bernanke, and Geithner and team concocted this, and had W’s full support. Those four men knew the gravity of the situation and were not playing politics at the time. IIRC, McCain was playing politics, Obama was merely listening probably in awe, and House Repubs were being moronic. 

Yes, W was the smart one compared to Obama 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Captainant said:

CR is that way, Mr. "Taxation is theft"

Dafuk are you babbling about?  You and your straw man need to kiss and make up.  The context was "giving" corporations free money.  Subsidies came up.  As we all know, there are two main types of corporate subsidies.  My point, and the most common subsidy for corporations, are tax breaks, ergo the company simply pays less in taxes.  So nothing is being "given" to the corporation other than the ability for them to keep more of what they make to continue to run their operations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

That was incredibly dumb and they were playing up to the populist/Tea Party narrative. I’m as conservative as it gets, and TARP was not only greatly needed but highly successful. I was living and breathing it at the time. That had the potential to be far worse than what we are going through now, I bet, when we look back at Q1/Q2 with hindsight.  Further, House Republicans were highly aware they could use the legislation and hang it over probable POTUS Obama  

But my point remains: Paulsen, Bernanke, and Geithner and team concocted this, and had W’s full support. Those four men knew the gravity of the situation and were not playing politics at the time. IIRC, McCain was playing politics, Obama was merely listening probably in awe, and House Repubs were being moronic. 

It was.  I'd split hairs on it being "highly successful" in terms of a definition.  Psychologically, absolutely.  Structurally, yes as well, but up for some debate.  I was chest deep in it as well.  I keenly remember how partisan flares were always in the air.  Bernake, I actually sat across from him in 2010.  Across the FOMC table, warned by his aid (I"m taller than most) about the little white button under the table being the alert for the guys with guns and big, scary dogs that we walked past to get in.  My point is he did explain how stabilizing the markets was critical, but at a cost.  

Sure they had W's support.  He's not a macro econ guy.  He's a horse trader.  It got partisan soon after.  Pelosi was so adamant to get it passed at the end of W's tenure, setting a new baseline on spending that has never dropped down to pre-crisis levels.  Nor will it ever.  Giving rise to the "Taxed Enough Already" crowd which like Antifa, was quickly hijacked by the loons and sent cascading into the bar ditch of public sentiment.  

Edited by BabaYaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

Yes, W was the smart one compared to Obama 🤔

I blame neither, the crisis would’ve happened under any President, and Obama did a phenomenal job administering through the crisis and out of it, with the perfect blend of anti-bank rhetoric for his base and lack of follow through on that rhetoric that would’ve crippled the industry during its time of recovery. I’m not sure where you drew the conclusion quoted above from my post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It was.  I'd split hairs on it being "highly successful" in terms of a definition.  Psychologically, absolutely.  Structurally, yes as well, but up for some debate.  I was chest deep in it as well.  I keenly remember how partisan flares were always in the air.  Bernake, I actually sat across from him in 2010.  Across the FOMC table, warned by his aid (I"m taller than most) about the little white button under the table being the alert for the guys with guns and big, scary dogs that we walked past to get in.  My point is he did explain how stabilizing the markets was critical, but at a cost.  

Sure they had W's support.  He's not a macro econ guy.  He's a horse trader.  It got partisan soon after.  Pelosi was so adamant to get it passed at the end of W's tenure, setting a new baseline on spending that has never dropped down to pre-crisis levels.  Nor will it ever.  Giving rise to the "Taxed Enough Already" crowd which like Antifa, was quickly hijacked by the loons and sent cascading into the bar ditch of public sentiment.  

Facing what we were facing, and what the government recouped, it worked splendidly. It was so unpopular at the time that that fact will never be prevalent. I know you said splitting hairs and mostly agree, but by any metric it worked. Psychological and structural benefits were really all that mattered to stabilize. The returns the government made on their preferred equity investments were gravy, and they got a lot of gravy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Obama did a phenomenal job administering through the crisis and out of it, with the perfect blend of anti-bank rhetoric for his base and lack of follow through on that rhetoric that would’ve crippled the industry during its time of recovery. 

 

Definition of backhanded compliment

 

: a compliment that implies it is not really a compliment at all
 
For you libtards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

Definition of backhanded compliment

 

: a compliment that implies it is not really a compliment at all
 
For you libtards

Yep.  As you could also make the case, as the study from UCLA intimated, that while he did navigate the crisis, post policies strangled the recovery and strung it out for years past when the anticipated bounce was supposed to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

Definition of backhanded compliment

 

: a compliment that implies it is not really a compliment at all
 
For you libtards

I don’t know what side of the aisle you’re on and can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. It wasn’t backhanded. Sometimes being politically deft is key, and we saw it with Obama (we haven’t seen it since). Bankers were scared bonuses - not multi-million in one year, but bonuses for top producers at commercial banks that expect an annual payment of their salaries, which is why they chose the profession - were going to disappear or be clawed back.  Based on Obama rhetoric. That would’ve left the industry bereft of talent that didn’t cause the mess in the first place. That never materialized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Yep.  As you could also make the case, as the study from UCLA intimated, that while he did navigate the crisis, post policies strangled the recovery and strung it out for years past when the anticipated bounce was supposed to happen

Dodd Frank was disastrous piece of shit legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Dodd Frank was disastrous piece of shit legislation. 

I saw with my own two little eyes as I sat in on the Derivatives Clearinghouses and Exchanges commission meetings.  Watched the feckless politicians adjust their glasses as their aids scurried back and forth running documents rife with talking points back and forth behind them like tennis ball boys.

Listen to the finance guys in their fancy suits explain to these idiots:  listen, nobody knows what the fuck is in this dogshit bill, let alone how it all works together.  And you want us to make major, structural decisions in less than 6 months?  How about fuck you.  How about we pull all out offices out of NY and set up shop in HK.  In 6 months, yeah we can do that.

It was hilarious.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I saw with my own two little eyes as I sat in on the Derivatives Clearinghouses and Exchanges commission meetings.  Watched the feckless politicians adjust their glasses as their aids scurried back and forth running documents rife with talking points back and forth behind them like tennis ball boys.

Listen to the finance guys in their fancy suits explain to these idiots:  listen, nobody knows what the fuck is in this dogshit bill, let alone how it all works together.  And you want us to make major, structural decisions in less than 6 months?  How about fuck you.  How about we pull all out offices out of NY and set up shop in HK.  In 6 months, yeah we can do that.

It was hilarious.  

Would love to hear more anecdotes from those conversations. That stuff - grandstanding from senators that know nothing of business and then getting destroyed - makes me happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when someone said to the banks in 2009 - I stand between you and the pitchforks. 

pitchfork-installation-simon-birch-9.jpg

Hubris is a hell of a drug.

Probably better to help Main Street this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Would love to hear more anecdotes from those conversations. That stuff - grandstanding from senators that know nothing of business and then getting destroyed - makes me happy. 

It was a thing of beauty.  I forget the actors, but essentially a panel of pontificating politicians grandstanding in front of a panel of financial executives.  You are given a sheet (almost in a way, like a playbill) outlining the topics of discussion.  Who everyone is, etc.  I know JPMorgan was there and other big trading firms.  In suits that cost more than my first car I ever bought.  Such a contrast of archetypes.  The bundling politician seeing documents as they are run back and forth and trying to score points.  The glamorous businessmen everyone wants to hate.

Still, their (biz guys) point was valid.  A giant bill that should have been rolled in stages, instead shoved down everyone's throat like the giant shit sandwich that it was.  Impossible to read.  Understand.  Then react to in such a contracted period of time.  An impossible task, and they said as much.  Even so far as to insinuate that moving their major trading offices to HK made more sense....watching the politicians faces get red at such a "preposterous" suggestion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The National Small Business Association has a conference call with the President at 3:45. I'll be on that call (listen mode I'm sure). Hopefully some good information will come out of the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

That was incredibly dumb and they were playing up to the populist/Tea Party narrative. I’m as conservative as it gets, and TARP was not only greatly needed but highly successful. I was living and breathing it at the time. That had the potential to be far worse than what we are going through now, I bet, when we look back at Q1/Q2 with hindsight.  Further, House Republicans were highly aware they could use the legislation and hang it over probable POTUS Obama  

But my point remains: Paulsen, Bernanke, and Geithner and team concocted this, and had W’s full support. Those four men knew the gravity of the situation and were not playing politics at the time. IIRC, McCain was playing politics, Obama was merely listening probably in awe, and House Repubs were being moronic. 

See, schizophrenia.  Republicans aren't conservative.  They don't know what the fuck they are other than behind Trump 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for a Fortune Top 50 company.  To my knowledge, it has never taken bailout money. They don't get everything right, but the effort to improve has manifested itself bigtime in the last decade. It stepped up in very significant ways for our people during Harvey; making an indelible memory of that investment  in everyone's recovery- from the customer, to the consumer, to our employees.

We just good some news overnight that  our rank and file employees will be eligible for up to $600 for the next 4 weeks in addition to their regular pay, just for showing up.  They also put out confirmation that anyone being quarantined will receive full pay for 14 days. Anyone needing to care for a loved one being quarantined will also get that coverage.

For as popular as it is to hate giant corporations, my employer has made some moves that I will not soon forget, in a positive way. 

FWIW I am pretty much anti-bailout.  I do believe if bailout monies are granted, that some pretty damned significant strings need to be attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I paid my corporate landlord double rent this month as a thank you just for being a great corporation. I love them so much and they do so much good for America and I don’t know why more people show their appreciation. If corporations are people, like my friend Mitt says, then why can’t we have a corporation as president? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my notes.  I don't care about politics.  I'm just sharing the information from the call.



Just got off the call. It moved quickly. Here are my notes. The president and a few cabinet members spoke.

The goal is to keep small and medium sized businesses whole.

Two primary goals

1) Keep worforce employed and help workforce. Payments for the general population are being negotiated. The number $3000 was mentioned on the call.

2) Defer payroll taxes, corporate taxes and income taxes for businesses.

There is a relief package coming. Immediately 3 billion is being made available. This part was a little vague.

Billions for disaster relief loans being signed today. Economic disaster relief loans are already available in 47 states and soon to be all 50 states. Economic disaster reliefs loan will have 1 year deferred payments. Economic disaster relief loans may ultimately be forgiven. Criteria for disaster relief loans will be less stringent that criteria for regular SBA loans.

Regular SBA loan payments may be deferred up to 6 months.

Sick leave and medical leave for employees at no cost to employers. Dollar for dollar tax credit.

There was a little more but it went so fast that I don't want to put something inaccurate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...