4 votes

When $2.2 trillion is not enough

9 comments

  1. [3]
    moonbathers
    Link
    I know this has been beaten to death but I'm going to beat it one more time: We as random people are expected to have a couple months' savings, why shouldn't businesses? Maybe they should stop...

    "Most companies can cope with a 15- to-30 day lockdown, but a few additional weeks would likely exhaust available resources for a significant number," Moody's said in a report released late Wednesday. "This crisis is beyond what they could have reasonably prepared for."

    I know this has been beaten to death but I'm going to beat it one more time: We as random people are expected to have a couple months' savings, why shouldn't businesses? Maybe they should stop buying iPhones.

    12 votes
    1. [2]
      vektor
      Link Parent
      They say not to beat a dead horse, but this horse isn't dead at all. Say it for as long as this bullshit is happening.

      They say not to beat a dead horse, but this horse isn't dead at all. Say it for as long as this bullshit is happening.

      7 votes
      1. moonbathers
        Link Parent
        I wish everyone was given the same compassion businesses and rich people are.

        I wish everyone was given the same compassion businesses and rich people are.

        2 votes
  2. JamesTeaKirk
    Link
    I don't really understand how anyone could portray this as anything other than explicit supply side economics. Congress is arguing about how many billions they can spend and which families deserve...

    I don't really understand how anyone could portray this as anything other than explicit supply side economics. Congress is arguing about how many billions they can spend and which families deserve help. You've got Republicans freaking the fuck out because a small amount of unemployed workers might be able to get slightly more in unemployment than what they made at their job.

    Meanwhile, the Fed is providing 4 trillion+ in liquidity for businesses to take on debt. We're giving companies a ticket to take on more of the leverage that put them in this position, while billing it as charitable.

    While we're debating about means-testing families, you hear nothing from our leaders about why we need to bail out corporations that have had positive cash flow for years.

    "“There is a transmission channel from large corporations, to small- and medium-sized enterprises and to households” as each tries to extend temporary credit or keep paying staff, Hunter said, adding that the Fed programs will be vital.

    “What I am hearing business leaders say is, ‘We don’t want to shut out our customers. If they have a temporary decline in ability to pay, we want to extend credit to bridge them to the other side of the crisis as much as possible,” she said"
    source

    God forbid you just give people money.

    10 votes
  3. teaearlgraycold
    Link
    The line between publicly-owned corporations and privately-owned government is very blurred in America. Giving corporations a multi-trillion dollar line of credit from the government means that...

    The line between publicly-owned corporations and privately-owned government is very blurred in America. Giving corporations a multi-trillion dollar line of credit from the government means that the bank accounts of the wealthy and the bank account of the federal government are one and the same.

    1 vote
  4. [4]
    skybrian
    Link
    The Senate passed the bill, so those senators' objections are no longer a problem.

    The Senate passed the bill, so those senators' objections are no longer a problem.

    1. [3]
      JamesTeaKirk
      Link Parent
      We need to be very vigilant here. If the house passes a slightly different bill, there will be a congressional conference. Within these private meetings you can probably expect senators to be more...

      We need to be very vigilant here. If the house passes a slightly different bill, there will be a congressional conference. Within these private meetings you can probably expect senators to be more blatant about wanting to screw over unemployed people.

      1. [2]
        skybrian
        Link Parent
        I think "we" are basically spectators here, but hopefully Democratic leadership isn't going to give it all away now. Why would they?

        I think "we" are basically spectators here, but hopefully Democratic leadership isn't going to give it all away now. Why would they?

        1 vote
        1. Omnicrola
          Link Parent
          It's a game of chicken, for the highest of stakes: human lives. Both Republicans and Democrats want to help people and be seen as effective. But each has their priorities, and knows how the other...

          It's a game of chicken, for the highest of stakes: human lives. Both Republicans and Democrats want to help people and be seen as effective. But each has their priorities, and knows how the other side's priorities conflict with theirs.

          Which is how it's always been. The difference now is time. Instead of bluffing, stalling, bargaining, blustering, filibustering, and stonewalling they have to actually pass some legislation and they have to pass it NOW or their constituents may literally come for their heads because they're all out of jobs. I imagine it's like where if normal is 2 groups at a table for months or years negotiating, it's now 2 groups at a table with the doors locked and a bomb in the middle that is ticking but the clock just says "SOON".

          3 votes