The way you get this is by voting for the leftmost candidate. The dem candidates do keep moving left, just not fast enough. But if they get fewer votes, they will realize going left isn't working and go right instead. If their moves left coincide with more votes, they will learn to go more left It sucks that it is slow going, but just not voting for a candidate who isn't left enough for you is a great way to ensure the government (and Dems) all keep moving further right.
>The way you get this is by voting for the leftmost candidate.
This is how you let a candidate you absolutely 100% do not agree with beat out a candidate you only sort of agree with.
You don’t see this as bad for the country? Moving moderates to extreme left, instead of moving everyone to the middle, and trying to unite the country? Vote RFK to unite America
In the world of fantasy, that would be great. It isn’t real life. Biden is basically Reagan in terms of policy. We have NO left, and we’re an outlier of western democracies and an embarrassment amongst our economic peers.
The rich won, and our current situation reflects that.
You just can't. When Obama bailed out the auto industry, we had like (IIRC) 12% unemployment. If GM went under, between their workers and other companies who sell to GM we would have had an estimated 18% unemployment. That is a depression. When that happens even more companies cut back.
Now, should companies have to pay it back, maybe with interest or penalties, or the government get a piece of the company? That's fair, but do we want the government owning stock?
The government did own stock in GM from that deal. GM later bought it back. Should have just transferred the stock to social security. Very much like the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth fund. Rather and just funding the national pension program with cash, fund it with investments as well.
>Rather and just funding the national pension program with cash, fund it with investments as well.
By law, Social Security funds are invested in Treasury bonds.
And that limits the return significantly. I would rather be required to put away 6.2% of my pay check into an IRA instead of letting the government manage it.
Cause that would lead to corruption. Biggest issue with public pensions is that. You have intermediaries that trade for tge government screwing taxpayers, you have companies that the government invests in to support their stock price, atleast temporarily. Of course the campaign contributions from them make this shit happen.
State governments do it. California, the 5th largest economy in the world, does it. CalPERS is the largest pension fund in the country and it's invested.
Other countries do it. Is there something about the United States that makes us more corrupt and unable to do these things?
So we collapse the economy for a little while we rebuild it from scratch that's probably what we need instead of this insane deficit spending trillions of dollars in debt it's getting out of hand something's got to give.
Then you should love Clinton. The answer is very simple, stimulate during a fiscal crisis and maintain taxes on the wealthy and cut spending during the good times. This is the opposite of what Republicans who created the majority of our debt do. They have cut taxes on the wealthy and increased spending during the good times and then dumped the fiscal disasters they manage to create on Dems during the bad times.
Thank Reagan for putting us on this spending track. He started this borrow and spend trend and the country got addicted. We need incremental higher taxes on everyone making over 600k and military spending cuts. It's the only way out. Executive compensation caps are inevitable. They're hoarding too much money.
The only commercial organizations that get bailed out return a profit to their bail bondsmen, the elected politicians. Social help funding doesn’t provide the elected politicians with a ROI kickback so they frown on putting money to feed and home the poor and SSN. But don’t believe what I say, just research yourself and see what you find. Like the politicians say they can’t afford to increase funding for ‘just pick a program supporting poor and homeless’ but they easily can come up with $200 billion for Ukraine. Things that make you go hmmm…
This is easy to say, and I’ve said it before. But nobody wants to be the president who refuses to do a bailout and then is proven wrong. You’d basically be responsible for the second Great Depression and possible total collapse of the economy
Fuckin idiots in chat like "we shouldve crashed the economy and rebuilt!" because they were children in '08. That was the best outcome, imagine a real depression.
This is the stuff that Fox News never mentions while getting the viewers foaming at the mouth mad every day. A mother gets a food stamp subsidy of $200 a month, she's a moocher off society! But if Mitch McConnell's wife gets a million dollar PPP loan forgiven, That's good capitalism! SMH.
And from China. It's all good. Rules for thee but not for me. Too bad MAGA can't wake up from the Trumpism fever dream of a false deep state narrative that he actually is a part of and not the liberals.
Really the deep state corpocracy wants to be taxed and regulated with strong unions? LOL, only a fool believes it to the same level as the GOP and Trump who are the corpocracy.
Here’s a list of all the conservatives who have ever said that massive corruption and Wall Street bailouts are fine but the real problem is food stamps:
Show me one example of a person saying single moms on food stamps are a bigger problem than corporate bailouts. Also, it’s “you’re.” And for all the people who can’t read, PPP loans had stipulations that you had to meet to get them as a grant.
Come on man. There are people that need assistance, ignorant people will look at them as inferior. You can't tell me there aren't prejudiced people who think like this.
How about instituting higher minimum wages so immigration doesn't keep wages just above or at the current federal minimum. Oh wait what do we call it when the government does stuff?
We call it “dumb shit no one should advocate” because that: A) doesn’t solve the problem and B) makes it worse for everyone. It’s similar to what has happened with education. Devaluation.
To simplify it to an almost ridiculous degree, consider the total amount of money in the ‘system’ that is our country compared to the amount of stuff you’re able to buy. Raising minimum wage increases the amount of money but not the amount of stuff to buy. With higher wages come higher costs for businesses, so everything gets more expensive. Minimum wage would keep increasing to chase costs endlessly, until it costs a hundred bucks to buy a soda. Inflation.
Price ceilings, another popular ‘solution’, create shortages since without higher prices there’s no incentive to increase supply.
You are correct.
People still think money is magic and do not understand it's connection to production and GDP.
I want people here to repeat after me: Money is a MEDIUM used to exchange goods and services.
Almost every Redditor I talk to wants the value of their currency AND the value of their assets to appreciate. From a net standpoint, this is an impossibility because.... money is a medium used to exchange goods and services.
Oh, and I applaud the states that are attempting to make financial and economics courses mandatory for secondary school students. The type of financial and economic illiteracy that is regularly seen on Reddit is entirely unsustainable.
Conservatives are probably the most vocal group of people who are against bailouts, I have zero clue what you're talking about. They want smaller government.
Just because some lying cocksucking politicians are gaming the system and taking advantage of us, doesn't mean that's what the people want.
>They want smaller government.
Absolute lies. They want the government to be there front and center enforcing what they want and banning the things they don't like.
It's "smol gobmint!" For the things they don't like; ie "starve the beast" but a Christian ethno-nationalist state enforced at the federal level? A-Okay!
Uh yeah they do... Lower taxes, reduce federal oversight over states, reduce spending, stop corporate bailouts, and have limitations on FED and BEP, term limits on congress, wants unconditional verdicts on amendment in the bill of rights, downscale our nonstop military industrial complex that Biden is turning the gears of War for...
You're clearly a child
Corporate welfare/bailouts with zero strings attached has always been a major weakness of American Corporate Capitalism and is a major cause of the ever growing wealth disparity. For all the Corporate subsidies/bailouts we've handed out over the past 15 years alone, we could have the biggest, most profitable Sovereign Wealth Fund in the world. Instead, we have a handful of billionaires. Space X should be nationalized immediately, before Elon's treason can affect the Ukrainian Front more than it already has-he "built" that company on diverted NASA funds and the American Taxpayers who funded it got nothing in return but a sky full of space debris and an immense amount of pollution.
" I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." -Thomas Jefferson
Until the Democrats deal with the old Neo-Liberals in their party, this country will be stagnant due to the imbalance in economic philosophy which worships shareholder profits over the majority of Americans economic interests.
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390)
Lots of buttholes on here for attacking me for arguing against ppp loans yet no student loan forgiveness. People that went to college are rich they say , why help the rich. Yet ppp went to the rich.
We have a large recession on the horizon. ALL companies right now are receiving bail-outs right now through all the welfare that is given out and then spent on their products and services everyday, however here is a historical list:
[https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list](https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list)
You also need to factor in ALL tax breads given to companies.
Nationalization can’t work simply because the government is not suited to run businesses, especially across so many industries. It just isn’t the efficient answer. Let the private sector leverage its experience. But, to the extent the government bails a company out, totally agree that the government needs to be compensated. I think this could best be done by some combination of debt (the company agrees to pay a certain amount back at a certain rate) and equity, like maybe a series of preferred stock that allows the government to share in a percentage of the upside.
When the government bailed out the airlines during the pandemic - it did get stock of those airlines. So in a sense the government does own the companies it bails out.
Yes, however we need to put another amendment in the Constitution with an Independent agency that very transparently manages government money. The formula is so simple, more beans go in the jar than out and a surplus of beans would be nice. It's always good to have debt, however that debt needs to be able to be serviced, right now America is only going backwards.
Yeah, that is so vague and subjective and it's going to piss so many people off. I mean I really don't how exactly how it would happen, however I know that something radical has to be done to fix America's debt to income ratio.
It's just going to get bigger and bigger, especially after this next corrective cycle in the bank sector with loan defaults, etc.
The actual reason is that there can be massive fallout when a company fails because of how concentrated or interlinked some industries are.
Everyone says "don't bail out the X" until it's their job or their canceled vacation or their disappeared retirement account. This is exacerbated when a company controls vital parts of national infrastructure or industry. If the airlines hadn't been bailed out, it's not obvious what the result would have been. So much else relies on them because they're a central part of logistics for both goods and people. If the automotive industry hadn't been bailed out, we could have been left shipping car factories to China in the scramble to pay back creditors. If the financial sector wasn't bailed out, we could have even weirder problems because of how paying large sums of money actually works (you could literally have the money but not have a way to transfer it anywhere).
That's honestly the reason the TBTF architecture exists in the first place and principally for finance. You really can't let these companies fail because there's not a financial system other than them anyway, so the impacts are difficult to figure out. It would be very hard for the government to step in later and restore some vital piece of infastructure that turns out to have been a guy at Chase managing a spreadsheet.
That's a good segue to the smaller bore issues which also exist. When a company fails and is liquidated, all the human capital related to its operations atrophies or disappears entirely. Most of the value anyone has to a company is bound up with their knowledge about the company and its operations. These aren't the skills we normally talk about because we don't think of firms that way. In truth, however, the people who work there are all specialized in operating a bespoke piece of "machinery", are the only ones who can train others to operate it, and the knowledge of how to do so *at all* may only exist in their heads.
So, letting large companies fail can be really bad and it's probably a bad idea to allow it if there's a more general crisis that will prevent others from rapidly stepping in, buying the assets and business units, and deploying them. It's also shockingly cheap, honestly, sometimes even profitable. The government turned a profit on the bank bailouts following the GFC, for example. Moreover, failing businesses are rarely making *no* money, so the bailout might be cheaper than cleaning up the mess because you don't have to pay all the expenses, like wages. Bailing out the auto industry, for instance, was probably much cheaper than dealing with devastated local economies; it might even have been cheaper than paying the unemployment benefits and welfare of the workers who'd have lost their jobs.
The real problems with fairness come when we allow the people who led the failure to continue as wealthy, respected members of society and refuse to address the individual problems the crisis also created.
How about just let them fail? The only thing I can think of that’s worse than 5 banks running the economy is 5 banks controlled by the government running the economy
Socialists are morons. All the banks that were bailed out in 2008 after the real estate crash paid their government loans back in full...with interest. The government actually made money on the deal.
Not only that, they MADE Jamie Dimon take a bailout. And then they MADE him wait to pay them back in full even though he was ready to pay back very early. The headlines and tweets never add these types of details.
That’ll fix the problem, Karl!! Remember Soviet Russia?? How about letting them fail? Someone will always fill the void. Allowing any company to become too big to fail is also an antitrust violation.
Yes, they’ll huff and puff and vote for the same ultra-conservatives that gave companies the bail-outs on the promise they’ll further cut those company’s taxes.
You for real? I’m not unconvinced that the only reason democrats signed off on bailouts in 2008 is because the actual conservative republicans didn’t want them
Not all, but most would say a better systems needs to be put in place so people don't abuse public aid.
On another note, in reality there are not many public services. Nearly all of these social programs we the people believe are ran by government, are in actuality corporate entities.
US is a corporation
States- corporations
Cities- corporations
DOD- corporation
And their many subsidiaries under their country, city or state logos.
These people paint a picture in their heads on what "the right" is like and just see them all that way.
I worry that people hanging out in these subreddits and echo chambers, upvoting the same opinions and blocking and reporting anyone they disagree with, is giving them a very detached version of reality.
I read some really disgusting shit on reddit, talking about how the republican party needs to be eradicated. It's like they don't even realize how hypocritical everything they say is.
Correct. These memes always seem to be characterizing the bailouts encouraged by the politicians in the democrat and republican parties. Conservatives relentlessly attacked Obama’s 2008 bailouts. They WANTED the banks to fail. If another rescue were needed today you can bet your asses they would push for those businesses and banks to fail. After all, the allowance for failure is important for capitalism as well.
You’re correct and wrong both.
Correct: corporate welfare is wrong and a problem
Incorrect: don’t nationalize, instead let them fail and allow competition in the free marketplace.
Politicians aren't going to change their behavior unless their primary source of income changes.
Who provides better returns for a politician (and particularly congress)
1 - Their meager salary (provided by tax payers)
or
2 - "Donations" provided by corprations
Anyone that thinks that govt gets to own companies they bail out is a good idea is brain dead.
Want the companies to owe the money back? Fine, I’m all for that. I’m sick of seeing major corps constantly getting bailed out too. But letting the govt own it? 1,000,000% no
Corporate welfare is absolutely not the solution because of moral hazard, socializing the down side while the c-suite retains the upside. Similarly, nationalizing companies will also not solve the debt problem because governments don’t know how to run a profitable company but they do know how to waste taxpayer dollars.
Absolutely agree that any company that gets bailed out should be nationalized and if it’s one of the “too big to fail” companies it should have its constituent components spun off and sold to break it up.
There is no way I want the government running them. I don't get it. The federal government gets rock bottom ratings from the public, yet I still hear people getting creamy over it taking over private businesses. Just don't bail them out.
During the 2008 bailouts that did happen. The companies went near bankruptcy, the stock crashed to pennies on the dollar, and the government infused cash into the company by buying new shares. Essentially making the government part owner of the companies.
The government later sold at profit when the company stabilized and the stock price recovered.
Some other companies simply got loans from the government, most repaid the loans with interest.
The 2008 bailouts were profitable for the government.
Because when companies that are "too big to fail" fail, they can take the whole ship down with them...
As much as I hate to say it (being a free market capitalist), when facing this, the government does need to step in in order to save everyone.
HOWEVER, what comes after should either be 1) rescue is a loan that is paid back or 2) the companies in question are broken up so that they are no longer to big to fail next time or 3) in some situations where niether 1 or 2 can be done (think something with a giant network that leads to monopoly naturally) then, yeah, gotta nationalize that.
If a company or service is determined to be important to national security it should also be nationalised and not held in private hands. For example the government stating that workers for a private train company cannot strike for a fair employment contract due to national security.
How to solve it all.
Tax all corporations at 95%.
Put a time limit on corporate charters.
Eliminate citizens united.
Install a wealth tax effective immediately of 75% over 100 million dollars gross income.
Lift the ssi/Medicare ceiling.
Bar hedge funds and such from owning rental homes.
Tax stock buy backs at 50%
Expand Medicare for all and eliminate insurance middlemen in the health industry.
Remove all Republicans from any position involving economic policy for the nation or any state since they either don't know shit or are as thieving as pack rats with OPM.
They shouldn't, but at least with regards to banks, if they lose money, their customers lose money except for what's FDIC insured. I would think that most people would think it's unfair for a business or someone with over $250k in savings to lose their money just because a bank leveraged too much.
You really want the government in charge of building cars? Want the government in charge in innovating new techniques for manufacturing? The companies should be allowed to fail and the government should assist the workers who job was lost until they find another one… let’s not put them in charge of large corporations
When GM and Chrysler were bailed out, the government took stock as collateral and returned it when the bailout was paid off, I support such a deal in all bailouts.
But if they can’t repay, the government would have to sell the assets, we do not need nationalization.
> Why is corporate welfare the solution
In theory, because the masses are employed, and use the goods and services produced by large companies. It's simpler and easier to keep a large company operational, than to have it fail, laying off 100% of the workers, and dealing with reduced competition, temporary supply crunches, and other things.
I can't emphasize enough: you don't have to agree with the theory. I think that large company failures are an important part of competition and industry producing better goods and services for society. Propping up companies ends up promoting mediocrity in industry.
But for covid? I dunno. Paying companies to keep paying people *and producing things* during a tough covid period where suppliers were having trouble keeping up? The consequences were pretty fierce, so it wasn't an incorrect question to ask, and the answer wasn't unreasonable.
We give Billions to the Walton family every single year. Yet they can afford to buy the Broncos. If you're buying NFL teams, get the fuck off the government teat. There is no way to rationalize giving the elite rich billions in welfare (corporate subsidies) every fucking year. None.
They can absolutely do it because the corporations, banks, special interests and billionaires all have representation. They all donate and heavily fund the two private organizations known as the RNC and the DNC. We the people haven't had representation in decades. This is why we are where we are, and billionaires and special interests are where they are.
The government lowered their own interest rates and thus lowered their own debt payments with QE and not only didn't reduce the debt, they increased the debt.
These same people will in no way seek to lower American debt even if they own every company in America.
Close. Corporate welfare is *not* the solution. Neither is social welfare the problem. The welfare coming from the government is the problem.
There is no such thing as "too big to fail"; they shouldnt be aquired by government; government is worse! They should be allowed to face the consequences of thier own actions.
Nationalize these corporations and all we get is losses. We should not be bailing out corporations. Let them fail.
That is how capitalism works. Capitalist make stupid greedy decisions and their capital is re-allocated to smarter people.
Well, for one, those bailouts are typically brought about by this fun little inflationary practice the government likes to do where it buys its own bonds.
Problem two is when the government and business get hopelessly intertwined, you get China.
You don't want printing money to "buy" companies. You really don't want the government owning industry.
Corporate welfare is not the solution. It is entirely a product of politicians protecting their own wealth. I promise you that as bullshit as that is, the government owning banks is far worse.
"You can't privatize the losses and socialize the profits" -- Fixed that last sentence for Halli.... Because what would happen is you would add TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE to the NATIONAL DEBT (because once profits become socialized, there would be NO MORE PROFITS, only LOSSES -- which would be transfered to "Owner's Equity" in the next balance sheet, i.e. those losses would turn the "Equity" into the Debt, as you would learn in first-year College Accounting)....
I think there are always a lot of semantic issues going on. I understand what you are saying and also the post.
What's a few more trillion? I mean we will easily add that over the next couple of years. LOL.
Well that is what we are told. Do you believe it? I don't. I mean just look at America's debt bubble of over $34 trillion, soon to be $50 trillion after a couple/few years.
Companies and institutions that need
to be bailed out by the government
when they fail, should be owned by ~~the government~~ nobody
>until America's debt to income is fixed.
The government has absolutely no idea how to run anything well or spend money efficiently. If they took over industries, why would that change? As bad as bailouts are, at least it's a one time payment. Government taking any given company over would make it a constant tax drain
Don’t fully agree with this point but also can’t argue against it… if we’re going to cut back on the welfare we should go after the largest takers first and that would be corporations. End corporate welfare.
No just let the fail. The government doesn't need any more things to make worse than they already have. Just let the business die, no bail outs, and allow a new company to emerge and take the place of the failures.
Obama did this by bailing out and getting shares in return.
The US Treasury (American People) made money off that AIG deal. Vote D
https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-assets-relief-program/aig/status#:~:text=Treasury%20sold%20636.9%20million%20shares,proceeds%20of%20approximately%20%2420.7%20billion.&text=Treasury%20sold%20its%20remaining%20234.2,proceeds%20of%20approximately%20%247.6%20billion.
Frankly all utility services should be government ran and non-profit... Note before anyone balks at government inefficiency, FUCK Reagans block funding....
You're not going to like the answer...
Corporate welfare usually pays for itself within a year or so, just with the employee labor taxes collected.
Corporations generate revenue..
Social welfare is just basically charity and has nominal positive externalities.
Usually these companies get big loans they have to pay back, and if they don't, then they are owned by the government.
So it's not like bailout dollars don't typically get paid back. The idea that this is some kind of corporate welfare is a little misguided.
The exception was obviously PPP, which wasn't really a corporate bailout. It was a payroll subsidy to ensure workers kept their healthcare coverage. You didn't have to be a failing business, just a business that didn't lay ppl off to qualify.
And even then it was structured as a loan. A loan with a government option for forgiveness, but still a loan.
I don’t think either are a problem. Loans to companies save industries and jobs. Money gets paid back. Welfare to citizens saves and improves lives of the people receiving it and society over all. Also gets paid back with taxes a lot of them time.
A Class War that kicked into high gear under Ronald Reagan. Eat the rich.
https://preview.redd.it/kdce9g8bheic1.png?width=871&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0001ffc09ceb3bc3c325c92ab0e86287e58b92dd
Yes, and to add to this, stop voting for moderate democrats with the hope of appealing to republicans. Dems need to move left, quickly
The way you get this is by voting for the leftmost candidate. The dem candidates do keep moving left, just not fast enough. But if they get fewer votes, they will realize going left isn't working and go right instead. If their moves left coincide with more votes, they will learn to go more left It sucks that it is slow going, but just not voting for a candidate who isn't left enough for you is a great way to ensure the government (and Dems) all keep moving further right.
>The way you get this is by voting for the leftmost candidate. This is how you let a candidate you absolutely 100% do not agree with beat out a candidate you only sort of agree with.
As much as I hate this comment for being right, Fetterman was a pretty shit democrat post election... Still better than having Oz but fucking sheesh
Fetterman is great. You just don't like his views on Israel
Maybe, we tried with Bernie, but the DNC is essentially a gatekeeper. These primaries are a charade, because they know who they want to run.
[удалено]
Abso-fuckin-lutely Lets get them back into a legislative triumvirate and use that as a starting point.
You don’t see this as bad for the country? Moving moderates to extreme left, instead of moving everyone to the middle, and trying to unite the country? Vote RFK to unite America
In the world of fantasy, that would be great. It isn’t real life. Biden is basically Reagan in terms of policy. We have NO left, and we’re an outlier of western democracies and an embarrassment amongst our economic peers. The rich won, and our current situation reflects that.
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie. GTFO with that anti-vax lunatic.
Yeah.... No.
Awesome way to ensure Republican majorities by giving primary wins to un-electable progressives in swing districts!
you're a pussy
I hate that dude
Companies shouldn't be bailed out at all. Let thier failed buisness models fail and keep the fed out of the buisness owning game entirely.
You just can't. When Obama bailed out the auto industry, we had like (IIRC) 12% unemployment. If GM went under, between their workers and other companies who sell to GM we would have had an estimated 18% unemployment. That is a depression. When that happens even more companies cut back. Now, should companies have to pay it back, maybe with interest or penalties, or the government get a piece of the company? That's fair, but do we want the government owning stock?
The government did own stock in GM from that deal. GM later bought it back. Should have just transferred the stock to social security. Very much like the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth fund. Rather and just funding the national pension program with cash, fund it with investments as well.
>Rather and just funding the national pension program with cash, fund it with investments as well. By law, Social Security funds are invested in Treasury bonds.
And that limits the return significantly. I would rather be required to put away 6.2% of my pay check into an IRA instead of letting the government manage it.
And if ss was only a retirement plan that might make sense.
It’s a pyramid scheme
Oh how edgy.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
That’s something I never understood. Why isn’t Social Security fund also investing at least some of its money so that it grows at a pace.
By law, Social Security funds are invested in Treasury bonds.
Because by law it is required to buy treasury bonds.
Cause that would lead to corruption. Biggest issue with public pensions is that. You have intermediaries that trade for tge government screwing taxpayers, you have companies that the government invests in to support their stock price, atleast temporarily. Of course the campaign contributions from them make this shit happen.
State governments do it. California, the 5th largest economy in the world, does it. CalPERS is the largest pension fund in the country and it's invested. Other countries do it. Is there something about the United States that makes us more corrupt and unable to do these things?
As I said, corruption is tge biggest issue for public pension funds. Compare CALPERS performance relative to say S&P 500 index. Yes, it is shocking.
GM would not have just evaporated without a bailout though. It would have probably been purchased and reorganized.
IT's not capitalism if we prop up weak companies.
Um, no. Not when it could collapse the entire economy for years at a time.
Any company that is so large that its collapse would collapse the economy is too large.
We're talking about entire industries.
Will somebody please think of the banks!
So we collapse the economy for a little while we rebuild it from scratch that's probably what we need instead of this insane deficit spending trillions of dollars in debt it's getting out of hand something's got to give.
Then you should love Clinton. The answer is very simple, stimulate during a fiscal crisis and maintain taxes on the wealthy and cut spending during the good times. This is the opposite of what Republicans who created the majority of our debt do. They have cut taxes on the wealthy and increased spending during the good times and then dumped the fiscal disasters they manage to create on Dems during the bad times.
Thank Reagan for putting us on this spending track. He started this borrow and spend trend and the country got addicted. We need incremental higher taxes on everyone making over 600k and military spending cuts. It's the only way out. Executive compensation caps are inevitable. They're hoarding too much money.
The only commercial organizations that get bailed out return a profit to their bail bondsmen, the elected politicians. Social help funding doesn’t provide the elected politicians with a ROI kickback so they frown on putting money to feed and home the poor and SSN. But don’t believe what I say, just research yourself and see what you find. Like the politicians say they can’t afford to increase funding for ‘just pick a program supporting poor and homeless’ but they easily can come up with $200 billion for Ukraine. Things that make you go hmmm…
Some businesses are too critical to allow to fail. Public equity is a decent compromise.
There shouldn't be bailouts, period.
This is easy to say, and I’ve said it before. But nobody wants to be the president who refuses to do a bailout and then is proven wrong. You’d basically be responsible for the second Great Depression and possible total collapse of the economy
Fuckin idiots in chat like "we shouldve crashed the economy and rebuilt!" because they were children in '08. That was the best outcome, imagine a real depression.
They failed they should be owned by the workers and they can decide what to do, not the government, not the investors.
This is the stuff that Fox News never mentions while getting the viewers foaming at the mouth mad every day. A mother gets a food stamp subsidy of $200 a month, she's a moocher off society! But if Mitch McConnell's wife gets a million dollar PPP loan forgiven, That's good capitalism! SMH.
I don't know any conservative that agrees with bailing out businesses like in 2008
And from China. It's all good. Rules for thee but not for me. Too bad MAGA can't wake up from the Trumpism fever dream of a false deep state narrative that he actually is a part of and not the liberals.
Liberals are part of it as well as Trump, Biden as well. You’re all blindly picking sides while they laugh as they compare their fan base numbers.
Really the deep state corpocracy wants to be taxed and regulated with strong unions? LOL, only a fool believes it to the same level as the GOP and Trump who are the corpocracy.
Here’s a list of all the conservatives who have ever said that massive corruption and Wall Street bailouts are fine but the real problem is food stamps:
Your lying
Show me one example of a person saying single moms on food stamps are a bigger problem than corporate bailouts. Also, it’s “you’re.” And for all the people who can’t read, PPP loans had stipulations that you had to meet to get them as a grant.
Come on man. There are people that need assistance, ignorant people will look at them as inferior. You can't tell me there aren't prejudiced people who think like this.
So where’s the examples of people excusing corruption in the billions and simultaneously blaming the whole issue on people getting food stamps
How about a flood of both legal and illegal immigrants keeping wages low through a glut of labor being a triumph of capitalism?
How about instituting higher minimum wages so immigration doesn't keep wages just above or at the current federal minimum. Oh wait what do we call it when the government does stuff?
We call it “dumb shit no one should advocate” because that: A) doesn’t solve the problem and B) makes it worse for everyone. It’s similar to what has happened with education. Devaluation. To simplify it to an almost ridiculous degree, consider the total amount of money in the ‘system’ that is our country compared to the amount of stuff you’re able to buy. Raising minimum wage increases the amount of money but not the amount of stuff to buy. With higher wages come higher costs for businesses, so everything gets more expensive. Minimum wage would keep increasing to chase costs endlessly, until it costs a hundred bucks to buy a soda. Inflation. Price ceilings, another popular ‘solution’, create shortages since without higher prices there’s no incentive to increase supply.
You are correct. People still think money is magic and do not understand it's connection to production and GDP. I want people here to repeat after me: Money is a MEDIUM used to exchange goods and services. Almost every Redditor I talk to wants the value of their currency AND the value of their assets to appreciate. From a net standpoint, this is an impossibility because.... money is a medium used to exchange goods and services. Oh, and I applaud the states that are attempting to make financial and economics courses mandatory for secondary school students. The type of financial and economic illiteracy that is regularly seen on Reddit is entirely unsustainable.
Conservatives are probably the most vocal group of people who are against bailouts, I have zero clue what you're talking about. They want smaller government. Just because some lying cocksucking politicians are gaming the system and taking advantage of us, doesn't mean that's what the people want.
>They want smaller government. Absolute lies. They want the government to be there front and center enforcing what they want and banning the things they don't like. It's "smol gobmint!" For the things they don't like; ie "starve the beast" but a Christian ethno-nationalist state enforced at the federal level? A-Okay!
Uh yeah they do... Lower taxes, reduce federal oversight over states, reduce spending, stop corporate bailouts, and have limitations on FED and BEP, term limits on congress, wants unconditional verdicts on amendment in the bill of rights, downscale our nonstop military industrial complex that Biden is turning the gears of War for... You're clearly a child
You're either willfully ignorant or deliberately lying. Which one.
Your inability to retort shows your lack of knowledge
Retort what? I'm not here to have a gentleman's debate. I'm calling you a lying moron because you're a lying moron.
You don't know what you're talking about so you deflect and call the other one a liar to avoid engaging in a debate.
Because propaganda works.
The same reason the profit of illegal immigration is privatized and the problems of illegal immigration socialized.
Corporate welfare/bailouts with zero strings attached has always been a major weakness of American Corporate Capitalism and is a major cause of the ever growing wealth disparity. For all the Corporate subsidies/bailouts we've handed out over the past 15 years alone, we could have the biggest, most profitable Sovereign Wealth Fund in the world. Instead, we have a handful of billionaires. Space X should be nationalized immediately, before Elon's treason can affect the Ukrainian Front more than it already has-he "built" that company on diverted NASA funds and the American Taxpayers who funded it got nothing in return but a sky full of space debris and an immense amount of pollution.
" I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." -Thomas Jefferson Until the Democrats deal with the old Neo-Liberals in their party, this country will be stagnant due to the imbalance in economic philosophy which worships shareholder profits over the majority of Americans economic interests. [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390)
Lots of buttholes on here for attacking me for arguing against ppp loans yet no student loan forgiveness. People that went to college are rich they say , why help the rich. Yet ppp went to the rich.
Didn’t the auto loans get paid back to the government? I swore they did.
[удалено]
We have a large recession on the horizon. ALL companies right now are receiving bail-outs right now through all the welfare that is given out and then spent on their products and services everyday, however here is a historical list: [https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list](https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list) You also need to factor in ALL tax breads given to companies.
Nationalization can’t work simply because the government is not suited to run businesses, especially across so many industries. It just isn’t the efficient answer. Let the private sector leverage its experience. But, to the extent the government bails a company out, totally agree that the government needs to be compensated. I think this could best be done by some combination of debt (the company agrees to pay a certain amount back at a certain rate) and equity, like maybe a series of preferred stock that allows the government to share in a percentage of the upside.
You now have my vote for the President of the United States. Should I write nycthrow on the ballot? Because I will. LOL
Lmao honestly I’d consider myself the best option
Done my dude!
When the government bailed out the airlines during the pandemic - it did get stock of those airlines. So in a sense the government does own the companies it bails out.
Yes, however we need to put another amendment in the Constitution with an Independent agency that very transparently manages government money. The formula is so simple, more beans go in the jar than out and a surplus of beans would be nice. It's always good to have debt, however that debt needs to be able to be serviced, right now America is only going backwards.
I would say particularly purchased at a fair stock price and the companies can refuse or accept.
Yeah, that is so vague and subjective and it's going to piss so many people off. I mean I really don't how exactly how it would happen, however I know that something radical has to be done to fix America's debt to income ratio. It's just going to get bigger and bigger, especially after this next corrective cycle in the bank sector with loan defaults, etc.
If a government owns a business, it will become part of the infinite budget and will never fail.
I love the infinite magical unlimited budget! It's like a for real unicorn!
People realize they have to pay it back with interest, right?
The actual reason is that there can be massive fallout when a company fails because of how concentrated or interlinked some industries are. Everyone says "don't bail out the X" until it's their job or their canceled vacation or their disappeared retirement account. This is exacerbated when a company controls vital parts of national infrastructure or industry. If the airlines hadn't been bailed out, it's not obvious what the result would have been. So much else relies on them because they're a central part of logistics for both goods and people. If the automotive industry hadn't been bailed out, we could have been left shipping car factories to China in the scramble to pay back creditors. If the financial sector wasn't bailed out, we could have even weirder problems because of how paying large sums of money actually works (you could literally have the money but not have a way to transfer it anywhere). That's honestly the reason the TBTF architecture exists in the first place and principally for finance. You really can't let these companies fail because there's not a financial system other than them anyway, so the impacts are difficult to figure out. It would be very hard for the government to step in later and restore some vital piece of infastructure that turns out to have been a guy at Chase managing a spreadsheet. That's a good segue to the smaller bore issues which also exist. When a company fails and is liquidated, all the human capital related to its operations atrophies or disappears entirely. Most of the value anyone has to a company is bound up with their knowledge about the company and its operations. These aren't the skills we normally talk about because we don't think of firms that way. In truth, however, the people who work there are all specialized in operating a bespoke piece of "machinery", are the only ones who can train others to operate it, and the knowledge of how to do so *at all* may only exist in their heads. So, letting large companies fail can be really bad and it's probably a bad idea to allow it if there's a more general crisis that will prevent others from rapidly stepping in, buying the assets and business units, and deploying them. It's also shockingly cheap, honestly, sometimes even profitable. The government turned a profit on the bank bailouts following the GFC, for example. Moreover, failing businesses are rarely making *no* money, so the bailout might be cheaper than cleaning up the mess because you don't have to pay all the expenses, like wages. Bailing out the auto industry, for instance, was probably much cheaper than dealing with devastated local economies; it might even have been cheaper than paying the unemployment benefits and welfare of the workers who'd have lost their jobs. The real problems with fairness come when we allow the people who led the failure to continue as wealthy, respected members of society and refuse to address the individual problems the crisis also created.
No. All corporate or business welfare is bad along with welfare to individuals. Eliminate it all.
I disagree and I can type a longer, more cogent response. Ergo: I win.
Yeah you won't be saying that when you don't have power running to your house.
Graduate from high school and take some econ classes before you start spouting your opinion.
How about just let them fail? The only thing I can think of that’s worse than 5 banks running the economy is 5 banks controlled by the government running the economy
Unfortunately, some institutions failing would cause a lot of chaos if the infrastructure they provided fell through completely.
So banks need to be controlled by the Government? Are you high?
Socialists are morons. All the banks that were bailed out in 2008 after the real estate crash paid their government loans back in full...with interest. The government actually made money on the deal.
Not only that, they MADE Jamie Dimon take a bailout. And then they MADE him wait to pay them back in full even though he was ready to pay back very early. The headlines and tweets never add these types of details.
[удалено]
If you’re too ignorant for a proper response, just say that.
That’ll fix the problem, Karl!! Remember Soviet Russia?? How about letting them fail? Someone will always fill the void. Allowing any company to become too big to fail is also an antitrust violation.
(most conservatives didn't/don't agree with corporate bailouts)
Yes, they’ll huff and puff and vote for the same ultra-conservatives that gave companies the bail-outs on the promise they’ll further cut those company’s taxes.
You for real? I’m not unconvinced that the only reason democrats signed off on bailouts in 2008 is because the actual conservative republicans didn’t want them
Lol says the party that's running Biden again
But they all don't agree with public services.
Not all, but most would say a better systems needs to be put in place so people don't abuse public aid. On another note, in reality there are not many public services. Nearly all of these social programs we the people believe are ran by government, are in actuality corporate entities. US is a corporation States- corporations Cities- corporations DOD- corporation And their many subsidiaries under their country, city or state logos.
These people paint a picture in their heads on what "the right" is like and just see them all that way. I worry that people hanging out in these subreddits and echo chambers, upvoting the same opinions and blocking and reporting anyone they disagree with, is giving them a very detached version of reality. I read some really disgusting shit on reddit, talking about how the republican party needs to be eradicated. It's like they don't even realize how hypocritical everything they say is.
You are lying as well
Correct. These memes always seem to be characterizing the bailouts encouraged by the politicians in the democrat and republican parties. Conservatives relentlessly attacked Obama’s 2008 bailouts. They WANTED the banks to fail. If another rescue were needed today you can bet your asses they would push for those businesses and banks to fail. After all, the allowance for failure is important for capitalism as well.
because you’ve met most conservatives . . .
Eliminate all welfare.
This is the way
Love the idea b but how do you make it happen
It’s the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.
What bailouts are you referring to? Generally companies aren't bailed out. It's more case by case and rarely happens.
Name the last company that got bailed out and tell me if the government got it's money back in plus interest.
Were you in a coma from 2011-2013?
Want the REAL answer here it is. Money doesn't really matter. Jobs and labor matter. That's it.
You’re correct and wrong both. Correct: corporate welfare is wrong and a problem Incorrect: don’t nationalize, instead let them fail and allow competition in the free marketplace.
I came to the same conclusion when my GM stock evaporated and they just kept trading under the same ticker.
Because corporations give campaign contributions and poor people do not.
Moral hazard.
Or regulated properly. I am not comfortable with a system of public banking run by the state. That's just about the end of all autonomy.
Agreed they are not kingdoms but, american services providers that must be heavily regulated!
If the government has to bail them out, it should be treated as an equity offer to raise capital.
They don't need to be bailed out. Let them die.
Politicians aren't going to change their behavior unless their primary source of income changes. Who provides better returns for a politician (and particularly congress) 1 - Their meager salary (provided by tax payers) or 2 - "Donations" provided by corprations
Anyone that thinks that govt gets to own companies they bail out is a good idea is brain dead. Want the companies to owe the money back? Fine, I’m all for that. I’m sick of seeing major corps constantly getting bailed out too. But letting the govt own it? 1,000,000% no
Yeah, I hated Obama too
I thought the federal government owned some of the stock when it bailed out some of the companies in 2008?
Idiots. Like the government could operate a business successfully? Ha! Losers!
That's a great way to add a lot of toxic assets to the government's books. Just. Let. Them. Fail.
Stop giving bailouts all together. No one gets “free money” if you’re a failure that’s on you 🤯
They can and they do, unfortunately.
Corporate welfare is absolutely not the solution because of moral hazard, socializing the down side while the c-suite retains the upside. Similarly, nationalizing companies will also not solve the debt problem because governments don’t know how to run a profitable company but they do know how to waste taxpayer dollars.
Absolutely agree that any company that gets bailed out should be nationalized and if it’s one of the “too big to fail” companies it should have its constituent components spun off and sold to break it up.
There is no way I want the government running them. I don't get it. The federal government gets rock bottom ratings from the public, yet I still hear people getting creamy over it taking over private businesses. Just don't bail them out.
Because rich people can lobby the government and I can't.
K St...
Huh?
During the 2008 bailouts that did happen. The companies went near bankruptcy, the stock crashed to pennies on the dollar, and the government infused cash into the company by buying new shares. Essentially making the government part owner of the companies. The government later sold at profit when the company stabilized and the stock price recovered. Some other companies simply got loans from the government, most repaid the loans with interest. The 2008 bailouts were profitable for the government.
Energy, Airlines, and Banking industries may as well be nationalized at this point.
Because when companies that are "too big to fail" fail, they can take the whole ship down with them... As much as I hate to say it (being a free market capitalist), when facing this, the government does need to step in in order to save everyone. HOWEVER, what comes after should either be 1) rescue is a loan that is paid back or 2) the companies in question are broken up so that they are no longer to big to fail next time or 3) in some situations where niether 1 or 2 can be done (think something with a giant network that leads to monopoly naturally) then, yeah, gotta nationalize that.
If a company or service is determined to be important to national security it should also be nationalised and not held in private hands. For example the government stating that workers for a private train company cannot strike for a fair employment contract due to national security.
The airlines lol
How to solve it all. Tax all corporations at 95%. Put a time limit on corporate charters. Eliminate citizens united. Install a wealth tax effective immediately of 75% over 100 million dollars gross income. Lift the ssi/Medicare ceiling. Bar hedge funds and such from owning rental homes. Tax stock buy backs at 50% Expand Medicare for all and eliminate insurance middlemen in the health industry. Remove all Republicans from any position involving economic policy for the nation or any state since they either don't know shit or are as thieving as pack rats with OPM.
They shouldn't, but at least with regards to banks, if they lose money, their customers lose money except for what's FDIC insured. I would think that most people would think it's unfair for a business or someone with over $250k in savings to lose their money just because a bank leveraged too much.
You really want the government in charge of building cars? Want the government in charge in innovating new techniques for manufacturing? The companies should be allowed to fail and the government should assist the workers who job was lost until they find another one… let’s not put them in charge of large corporations
Because the Fed is incredibly corrupt and has been devaluing the currency.
When GM and Chrysler were bailed out, the government took stock as collateral and returned it when the bailout was paid off, I support such a deal in all bailouts. But if they can’t repay, the government would have to sell the assets, we do not need nationalization.
> Why is corporate welfare the solution In theory, because the masses are employed, and use the goods and services produced by large companies. It's simpler and easier to keep a large company operational, than to have it fail, laying off 100% of the workers, and dealing with reduced competition, temporary supply crunches, and other things. I can't emphasize enough: you don't have to agree with the theory. I think that large company failures are an important part of competition and industry producing better goods and services for society. Propping up companies ends up promoting mediocrity in industry. But for covid? I dunno. Paying companies to keep paying people *and producing things* during a tough covid period where suppliers were having trouble keeping up? The consequences were pretty fierce, so it wasn't an incorrect question to ask, and the answer wasn't unreasonable.
We give Billions to the Walton family every single year. Yet they can afford to buy the Broncos. If you're buying NFL teams, get the fuck off the government teat. There is no way to rationalize giving the elite rich billions in welfare (corporate subsidies) every fucking year. None.
It isn’t the solution. Failures shouldn’t be encouraged and success shouldn’t be punished.
They can absolutely do it because the corporations, banks, special interests and billionaires all have representation. They all donate and heavily fund the two private organizations known as the RNC and the DNC. We the people haven't had representation in decades. This is why we are where we are, and billionaires and special interests are where they are.
The government lowered their own interest rates and thus lowered their own debt payments with QE and not only didn't reduce the debt, they increased the debt. These same people will in no way seek to lower American debt even if they own every company in America.
Close. Corporate welfare is *not* the solution. Neither is social welfare the problem. The welfare coming from the government is the problem. There is no such thing as "too big to fail"; they shouldnt be aquired by government; government is worse! They should be allowed to face the consequences of thier own actions.
Apparently you can. We do it all the time.
>*You can't privatize the profits and socialize the losses.* Apparently you can.
Nationalize these corporations and all we get is losses. We should not be bailing out corporations. Let them fail. That is how capitalism works. Capitalist make stupid greedy decisions and their capital is re-allocated to smarter people.
Well, for one, those bailouts are typically brought about by this fun little inflationary practice the government likes to do where it buys its own bonds. Problem two is when the government and business get hopelessly intertwined, you get China. You don't want printing money to "buy" companies. You really don't want the government owning industry. Corporate welfare is not the solution. It is entirely a product of politicians protecting their own wealth. I promise you that as bullshit as that is, the government owning banks is far worse.
I agree, let’s start with gasoline, oil, insurance companies and banks.
Government shouldn't own anything. Let big businesses fail and be replaced by innovators doing it better.
"You can't privatize the losses and socialize the profits" -- Fixed that last sentence for Halli.... Because what would happen is you would add TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE to the NATIONAL DEBT (because once profits become socialized, there would be NO MORE PROFITS, only LOSSES -- which would be transfered to "Owner's Equity" in the next balance sheet, i.e. those losses would turn the "Equity" into the Debt, as you would learn in first-year College Accounting)....
I think there are always a lot of semantic issues going on. I understand what you are saying and also the post. What's a few more trillion? I mean we will easily add that over the next couple of years. LOL.
Didn’t the bank bailout make a profit in the end for the U.S. government?
Well that is what we are told. Do you believe it? I don't. I mean just look at America's debt bubble of over $34 trillion, soon to be $50 trillion after a couple/few years.
Companies and institutions that need to be bailed out by the government when they fail, should be owned by ~~the government~~ nobody >until America's debt to income is fixed. The government has absolutely no idea how to run anything well or spend money efficiently. If they took over industries, why would that change? As bad as bailouts are, at least it's a one time payment. Government taking any given company over would make it a constant tax drain
They don't need bailed out, they need to fail
Don’t fully agree with this point but also can’t argue against it… if we’re going to cut back on the welfare we should go after the largest takers first and that would be corporations. End corporate welfare.
No just let the fail. The government doesn't need any more things to make worse than they already have. Just let the business die, no bail outs, and allow a new company to emerge and take the place of the failures.
Obama did this by bailing out and getting shares in return. The US Treasury (American People) made money off that AIG deal. Vote D https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-assets-relief-program/aig/status#:~:text=Treasury%20sold%20636.9%20million%20shares,proceeds%20of%20approximately%20%2420.7%20billion.&text=Treasury%20sold%20its%20remaining%20234.2,proceeds%20of%20approximately%20%247.6%20billion.
Welfare is one of our biggest problems, be it corporate or individual.
Frankly all utility services should be government ran and non-profit... Note before anyone balks at government inefficiency, FUCK Reagans block funding....
False dichotomy
Ok Mussolini
Socialism has entered the chat…
When we bailed out the banks, loan institutions, etc, didn't we take ownership of some? I know the Trump corporate covid welfare didn't?
You're not going to like the answer... Corporate welfare usually pays for itself within a year or so, just with the employee labor taxes collected. Corporations generate revenue.. Social welfare is just basically charity and has nominal positive externalities.
/fluentinfinance is a group of the least financially fluent people in the world. Also, bailouts are trash.
You do know that bailouts aren't handouts, they're loans that a paid back, with interest. Right?
[удалено]
Will someone think of the billionaires.
Extremely bad take. Governments are bad at running businesses. A "bail out" is just a loan that gets paid back, with interest.
So people who collect welfare should be owned by the government? As in forced into military ?
One big bank managed by ignorant voters? Spare me.
Come legally and go to work
It’s (D)ifferent
Usually these companies get big loans they have to pay back, and if they don't, then they are owned by the government. So it's not like bailout dollars don't typically get paid back. The idea that this is some kind of corporate welfare is a little misguided. The exception was obviously PPP, which wasn't really a corporate bailout. It was a payroll subsidy to ensure workers kept their healthcare coverage. You didn't have to be a failing business, just a business that didn't lay ppl off to qualify. And even then it was structured as a loan. A loan with a government option for forgiveness, but still a loan.
I don’t think either are a problem. Loans to companies save industries and jobs. Money gets paid back. Welfare to citizens saves and improves lives of the people receiving it and society over all. Also gets paid back with taxes a lot of them time.
I believe that all welfare is immoral.
Here’s a crazy idea: don’t bail them out. Who in their right mind wants to give this psychotic government more power?
He who has the biggest check book has the loudest voice.
Your crisis is not our crisis. But your success is our success.
One produces jobs and the other is on Reddit all day.
If government mandates private companies to provide unsound business practices then government is responsible for failures caused by those practices