Unsanitized: Bailouts, A Tradition Unlike Any Other

[Theodarzna]

First Response

Twelve years ago, banks asked for a bailout after years of irresponsible, highly leveraged lending. The Treasury Department put out a three-page term sheet seeking money from Congress with no strings attached, even eliminating judicial review. Democrats balked, called it a slush fund and worse, then agreed after a few mostly meaningless bits of oversight and some promises to help ordinary people. That $700 billion bailout was window dressing for trillions that came from the Federal Reserve, but it kept Congress quiet, hooking them into the rescue of the system.

Twelve years later, virtually the same course of events is taking place. After just a couple weeks of extreme social distancing measures, the Treasury Department asked for a large bailout, this time of the entire corporate sector. The bill as written initially would have made all bailout activities secret for six months. Democrats balked, called it a slush fund and worse, and then agreed to a few mostly meaningless bits of oversight and some promises to help ordinary people. In fact they’re the same bits of oversight from the 2008 TARP bailout: a five-member oversight panel and an inspector general for the program.

The enormity of this bailout is being under-reported. The number you’re hearing is $500 billion. Of that, $75 billion goes to the airline industry and the mysteriously named “businesses critical to national security.” The other $425 helps capitalize a $4.25 trillion, with a T, leveraged lending facility at the Federal Reserve. The taxpayer dollars would soak up any losses from that lending program. The loans won’t be secret anymore, but the oversight is largely after the fact, without subpoena power, and mainly reduced to writing reports. How exactly do you expect a small, underfunded panel to find fraud in a $4.25 trillion lending facility! Especially when the current administration explicitly believes they are not required to turn over anything to Congress.

So it’s not a $2 trillion bill, it’s closer to $6 trillion, and $4.3 trillion of it comes in the form of a bazooka aimed at CEOs and shareholders, with almost no conditions attached. At the moment nobody’s seen language, but there’s apparently only a buyback ban for the term of the loan. The money cannon can therefore go to executive compensation or mergers or wholesale purchases of distressed businesses or whatever other financial engineering the accounting department can muster. And once the company returns to health, it can leak out cash to investors (and during the loan too, in dividends). There’s no requirement to keep workers hired; in fact, the (necessary) provision to boost unemployment insurance for four months to 100 percent of median salary (including furloughed workers, gig workers and freelancers) means that these companies can fire with relative impunity. Members of Trump’s family can’t get bailout funds, so, yay.

This is a robbery in progress. And it’s not a bailout for the coronavirus. It’s a bailout for twelve years of corporate irresponsibility that made these companies so fragile that a few weeks of disruption would destroy them. The short-termism and lack of capital reserves funneled record profits into a bathtub of cash for investors. That’s who’s being made whole, financiers and the small slice of the public that owns more than a trivial amount of stocks. In fact they’ve already been made whole; yesterday Wall Street got the word that they’d be saved and stocks and bonds went wild. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is running these bailout programs for the Fed, and could explicitly profit if the Fed buys its funds, which it probably will.

This is a rubber-stamp on an unequal system that has brought terrible hardship to the majority of America. The people get a $1,200 means-tested payment and a little wage insurance for four months. Corporations get a transformative amount of play money to sustain their system and wipe out the competition.

Small businesses get their own program, and can’t participate in the $4.3 trillion bonanza. They get $300 billion, so do the math on who’s supported more. They get forgivable loans if they keep staff on payroll; there’s no such requirements for the corporates. While the Federal Reserve, which can transfer money from the cash cannon with ease, runs the corporate bailout, the hapless Small Business Administration will deal with the small businesses; they have been endlessly criticized for delays on their couple billion in loan guarantee programs, let alone $300 billion. The monopolists get concierge service, the small businesses get to take a number. And the result will almost certainly be massive concentration of power.

There’s also $150 billion for state and local governments and $130 billion for hospitals (though not much for actual equipment, it seems to fix certain existing problems with their businesses).

Progressives I’ve talked to on the Hill are apoplectic. “Temporary survival money for workers, trillions in permanent economic inequality saving a bunch of executives and elites,” said one House Democratic aide. There’s particular anger reserved for the big show made of the House Democratic bill, a sideshow that never was part of the Senate-side negotiation.

“During this moment of unprecedented crisis, who’s valued by Trump’s cruel administration is becoming clearer than ever,” said Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director of Action Center on Race and the Economy. That’s true, but it’s also true of the entire political system, not just Trump. "Democratic leaders acceding to a Mnuchin managed slush fund reveal themselves to be too tired and spineless to be entrusted with power,” Jeff Hauser of the Revolving Door Project rightly states.

(source)

First, Amazing that this is a much greater disgrace than what was done in 2008. About six trillion has been given away, and most likely it'll be getting through the house relatively easily. The best anyone could due senate side was get halfway decent Unemployment checks for awhile; and at that its not that good, and also the government might send everyone a means tested check in maybe four months. The Republicans went from a UBI idea and basically blowing the Dems out of the water to arguing that old people must die so Mammon can gnaw on their soul juices for the Stocks.

Second, assuming now the Dems are forgiven for voting for this, AND they actually take this chance to to attack, It will be quite a sight in 2021 when President Biden compromises in a "grand bargain" huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare with Mitch McConnell because America's out of money because we spent 6 trillion; most of it on businesses that have been hoarding money like Smaug in Erabor for a decade now.

This just passed 96-0, if Pelosi doesn't kill it this looting of the country and literally hands Mnuchin a slush fund to manage than I think one can write off all that "Resistance" talk as just talk.

Senator Sharod Brown who voted for it assures they will totally some how hold this accountable, and despite voting for a massive give away, will somehow make sure it won't be despite create toothless oversight, like in 2008, and also having stipulations Mnuchin can freely ignore.

Now our job is to hold the Trump Administration accountable. If President Trump uses this crisis as an opportunity for more Wall Street giveaways, Americans won't stand for it.

[ohtlmtlm]

If you were wondering why we needed a President Bernie Sanders...

[Shadowferal]

We can bailout corporations when they do stupid...but we can't help people?

[Edge-]

If you were wondering why we needed a President Bernie Sanders...

What would president Bernie Sanders do in this instance?

He can't write the legislation. He can't force the House/Senate to vote on it.

He could veto the bill. But how popular do you think that would be?

[Lenonis]

He could veto the bill. But how popular do you think that would be?

And how pointless? You don't even bother vetoing legislation passed unanimously.

Odd question -- can a president even veto legislation passed with a veto-proof majority? I guess I need to go back to civics 101 myself.

[Machismo]

(source)

First, Amazing that this is a much greater disgrace than what was done in 2008. About six trillion has been given away, and most likely it'll be getting through the house relatively easily. The best anyone could due senate side was get halfway decent Unemployment checks for awhile; and at that its not that good, and also the government might send everyone a means tested check in maybe four months. The Republicans went from a UBI idea and basically blowing the Dems out of the water to arguing that old people must die so Mammon can gnaw on their soul juices for the Stocks.

Second, assuming now the Dems are forgiven for voting for this, AND they actually take this chance to to attack, It will be quite a sight in 2021 when President Biden compromises in a "grand bargain" huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare with Mitch McConnell because America's out of money because we spent 6 trillion; most of it on businesses that have been hoarding money like Smaug in Erabor for a decade now.

This just passed 96-0, if Pelosi doesn't kill it this looting of the country and literally hands Mnuchin a slush fund to manage than I think one can write off all that "Resistance" talk as just talk.

Senator Sharod Brown who voted for it assures they will totally some how hold this accountable, and despite voting for a massive give away, will somehow make sure it won't be despite create toothless oversight, like in 2008, and also having stipulations Mnuchin can freely ignore.

This is exactly what you wanted.

[Edge-]

And how pointless? You don't even bother vetoing legislation passed unanimously.

Odd question -- can a president even veto legislation passed with a veto-proof majority? I guess I need to go back to civics 101 myself.

It wasn't passed via a veto-proof majority in the House. It was a voice vote.

And even with a veto-proof majority, the song and dance needs to happen as far as I understand. They pass it, president veto's it, they pass it again and tell the president (whoever they are) to stuff it.

[kaelleria]

Maybe if Bernie was in Washington during negotiations instead of having livestreams with musical guests he could have been part of negotiations...

The fact of the matter is Republicans control the Senate right now and compromise is a must. Bernie can wave his arms and posture all he wants, but he knew as well as anyone those provisions weren't being taken out.

[Theodarzna]

It wasn't passed via a veto-proof majority in the House. It was a voice vote.

And even with a veto-proof majority, the song and dance needs to happen as far as I understand. They pass it, president veto's it, they pass it again and tell the president (whoever they are) to stuff it.

And how pointless? You don't even bother vetoing legislation passed unanimously.

Odd question -- can a president even veto legislation passed with a veto-proof majority? I guess I need to go back to civics 101 myself.

Pelosi made sure the House vote was an off the record voice vote, so nobody knows for sure how any House member voted.

There is the "#Resistence Hero" Pelosi, helping fleece the country of four trillion dollars.

[Edge-]

Pelosi made sure the House vote was an off the record voice vote, so nobody knows for sure how any House member voted.

Pelosi and Republican leaders.

Because most of the House had already traveled back home. And there was no point forcing them to come back to DC for a vote that everyone knew would pass.

That's Massie's bullshit line of argument, and it doesn't stand up in the slightest. If he was successful what would be the result? We'd have to wait until next week for the bill to be passed and we'd have a few no votes that would largely mean not a god-damned thing for anyone?

Come off it, this is nonsense.

There is the "#Resistence Hero" Pelosi, helping fleece the country of four trillion dollars.

As opposed to...waiting for the perfect bill that will never pass? What's the alternative here? I'm not thrilled with this bill either, I doubt many people are.

[Theodarzna]

Pelosi and Republican leaders.

Because most of the House had already traveled back home. And there was no point forcing them to come back to DC for a vote that everyone knew would pass.

That's Massie's bullshit line of argument, and it doesn't stand up in the slightest. If he was successful what would be the result? We'd have to wait until next week for the bill to be passed and we'd have a few no votes that would largely mean not a god-damned thing for anyone?

Come off it, this is nonsense.

As opposed to...waiting for the perfect bill that will never pass? What's the alternative here? I'm not thrilled with this bill either, I doubt many people are.

Who is the speaker of the House?

And yes, there is a point, so we know who voted for this on record.

The alternative is to Not pass it obviously.

[Milchshake]

Bail out the Gun Lobby?
He could help flip more senate and congressional seats blue ... instead of attacking the DNC?
Or for the OP and other monarchists out there. Bernie could marry the Stuart heir and be crowned king?
Cause at this point, these people are more into fantasy than how US government actually works.

What's the point of dunking on Sherrod Brown? He's a rather progressive senator in a red state. Is he just the last guy in the Dem party the new Red/Brown alliance hasnt shit on yet?
Bernie was one of the 96, where are his fucking asurances?


Oh wait, Sharod Brown isnt even in the article " quoted" lol. Forgot to link where that part was a copy from.

All those years of advanced degrees ... and we get Plagiarized Sharod.

[kaelleria]

3.3M people are out of the job starting last week. More people are being laid off daily.

Delaying the bill, warts and all, would have been very foolish.

[Milchshake]

Bail out the Gun Lobby?
He could help flip more senate and congressional seats blue ... instead of attacking the DNC?
Or for the OP and other monarchists out there. Bernie could marry the Stuart heir and be crowned king?
Cause at this point, these people are more into fantasy than how US government actually works.

What's the point of dunking on Sherrod Brown? He's a rather progressive senator in a red state. Is he just the last guy in the Dem party the new Red/Brown alliance hasnt shit on yet?
Bernie was one of the 96, where are his fucking asurances?


Oh wait, Sharod Brown isnt even in the article " quoted" lol. Forgot to link where that part was a copy from.

[d00mGuArD]

If you were wondering why we needed a President Bernie Sanders...

Why would you need a president sanders? Really? This passed 96-1. Both sides 100% supported it.

What would he have done as president?
Veto it? Laughable concept.
It is probably the only time in history something had such huge support by 99% of the votes, and he would go against it?

[Theodarzna]

Why would you need a president sanders? Really? This passed 96-1. Both sides 100% supported it.

What would he have done as president?
Veto it? Laughable concept.
It is probably the only time in history something had such huge support by 99% of the votes, and he would go against it?

It is a great example that neither party is your friend.

[Edge-]

Who is the speaker of the House?

Nancy Pelosi is, as we all know.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...aking-on-floor

But she alone couldn't have done it, apparently. She worked with McCarthy to ensure that they could have a voice vote on this and not force hundreds of members of Congress to travel back to DC for a vote and then back home. Because, you know, we're supposed to be limiting our travel and encounters with others.

And yes, there is a point, so we know who voted for this on record.

The alternative is to Not pass it obviously.

The alternative isn't acceptable.

And I'm perfectly fine with treating every single member that didn't say how they would vote (i.e. most) as voting for it. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Theodarzna]

What's the point of dunking on Sherrod Brown? He's a rather progressive senator in a red state. Is he just the last guy in the Dem party the new Red/Brown alliance hasnt shit on yet?
Bernie was one of the 96, where are his fucking asurances?


Oh wait, Sharod Brown isnt even in the article " quoted" lol. Forgot to link where that part was a copy from.

I linked Sharod Browns own tweet, he voted for a non-FOIA, no oversight (As good as TARP got, which was nothing) 4-6 trillion dollar slush fund for Mnuchin and claims there will be "oversight" pfffft.

I am guessing progressive is new-speak for Intersectional Reaganomics.

- - - Updated - - -

The alternative isn't acceptable.

And I'm perfectly fine with treating every single member that didn't say how they would vote (i.e. most) as voting for it. I see nothing wrong with that.

How is it unacceptable to NOT fleece the country of trillions in play money handed out mostly to already wealthy oligarchs and corporate interests? I am unsure? Is this the intersectional Reaganomics line now?

[Lenonis]

It wasn't passed via a veto-proof majority in the House. It was a voice vote.

I thought the article I read said no one voiced a nay vote? But thats a good point. It could be possible "no" votes just stayed silent.

- - - Updated - - -

Pelosi made sure the House vote was an off the record voice vote, so nobody knows for sure how any House member voted.

There is the "#Resistence Hero" Pelosi, helping fleece the country of four trillion dollars.

Oh please. If she did anything to hold up the bill you'd be here posting about how she's politicizing a crisis and hurting million of people because of her vendetta against Trump. You people are so obnoxiously obvious.

[Theodarzna]

Oh please. If she did anything to hold up the bill you'd be here posting about how she's politicizing a crisis and hurting million of people because of her vendetta against Trump. You people are so obnoxiously obvious.

Nope, I'd be pretty damn happy that finally she did something.

But thanks for playing.