Are Republicans/conservatives for a bailout, now?

OK, so Trump has signed the coronavirus bailout/stimulus bill into law (although not before saying he won't comply with its transparency measures, which for one thing, are meant to prevent him from getting loans to his own businesses, from this bill - and to prevent companies from getting the money but still laying off employees while self-assigning bonuses to top executives or buying stock back).

Trump signed the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, but says he won’t comply with transparency measures - Vox

Don't read me wrong, I'm *for* this bailout.

But the only thing is, I was *also* for Obama's bailout/stimulus in the 2007/2008 economic crisis (that he inherited from Bush, who had already started the bailout). So, I stayed consistent. While that bailout/stimulus could have been handled better, I think it was still a way to avert much worse consequences from economic disaster.

I remember Republicans/conservatives berating Obama for it, over and over and over.

So, now what? Are you now for a bailout for companies, and a stimulus package? If yes, do you get a bit bothered by your double standards? Obama's bailout/stimulus = bad. Trump's bailout/stimulus = good.

they will take the government cheese and not look back.

GreatNews2night said:

OK, so Trump has signed the coronavirus bailout/stimulus bill into law (although not before saying he won't comply with its transparency measures, which for one thing, are meant to prevent him from getting loans to his own businesses, from this bill - and to prevent companies from getting the money but still laying off employees while self-assigning bonuses to top executives or buying stock back).

Trump signed the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, but says he won’t comply with transparency measures - Vox

Don't read me wrong, I'm *for* this bailout.

But the only thing is, I was *also* for Obama's bailout/stimulus in the 2007/2008 economic crisis (that he inherited from Bush, who had already started the bailout). So, I stayed consistent. While that bailout/stimulus could have been handled better, I think it was still a way to avert much worse consequences from economic disaster.

I remember Republicans/conservatives berating Obama for it, over and over and over.

So, now what? Are you now for a bailout for companies, and a stimulus package? If yes, do you get a bit bothered by your double standards? Obama's bailout/stimulus = bad. Trump's bailout/stimulus = good.

Click to expand...

In 2008, we had a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, and the Republicans supported the bank bailout.
In 2009, we had a Democratic federal government, and the Republicans opposed the stimulus.
In 2020, we have a split Congress and a Republican "president," and the Republicans supported this stimulus.

Either they support stimuli when a Republican is in the White House, an election is coming soon, or both.

GreatNews2night said:

OK, so Trump has signed the coronavirus bailout/stimulus bill into law (although not before saying he won't comply with its transparency measures, which for one thing, are meant to prevent him from getting loans to his own businesses, from this bill - and to prevent companies from getting the money but still laying off employees while self-assigning bonuses to top executives or buying stock back).

Trump signed the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, but says he won’t comply with transparency measures - Vox

Don't read me wrong, I'm *for* this bailout.

But the only thing is, I was *also* for Obama's bailout/stimulus in the 2007/2008 economic crisis (that he inherited from Bush, who had already started the bailout). So, I stayed consistent. While that bailout/stimulus could have been handled better, I think it was still a way to avert much worse consequences from economic disaster.

I remember Republicans/conservatives berating Obama for it, over and over and over.

So, now what? Are you now for a bailout for companies, and a stimulus package? If yes, do you get a bit bothered by your double standards? Obama's bailout/stimulus = bad. Trump's bailout/stimulus = good.

Click to expand...

I was against the stimulus package in 2008/2009 but I am for this stimulus now for the following reasons:

The 2008/2009 stimuluses were aimed at helping major companies (mostly in the financial sector) that were in danger of closing due to their own mismanagement and overextension. Essentially, the government was engaged in fostering and rewarding moral hazard. Especially when the government only extended these low-interest loans to major financial institutions and giant corporations, and not to everyday small businesses or workers who were harmed by the financial crisis through no fault of their own.

Here, meanwhile, the government is giving financial aid to people forced out of work and businesses forced to shutter due to social distancing orders put into effect by the states. In effect, when the government takes your job or your business from you, they should provide adequate and just compensation. I do not consider this a "bailout" any more than when a state or local government taking someone's home through eminent domain to put a new highway through and then paying them fair market value for the property should be considered a "bailout." When an otherwise law-abiding person is stripped of their ability to make a living by the government, the government must provide a remedy.

GreatNews2night said:

OK, so Trump has signed the coronavirus bailout/stimulus bill into law (although not before saying he won't comply with its transparency measures, which for one thing, are meant to prevent him from getting loans to his own businesses, from this bill - and to prevent companies from getting the money but still laying off employees while self-assigning bonuses to top executives or buying stock back).

Trump signed the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, but says he won’t comply with transparency measures - Vox

Don't read me wrong, I'm *for* this bailout.

But the only thing is, I was *also* for Obama's bailout/stimulus in the 2007/2008 economic crisis (that he inherited from Bush, who had already started the bailout). So, I stayed consistent. While that bailout/stimulus could have been handled better, I think it was still a way to avert much worse consequences from economic disaster.

I remember Republicans/conservatives berating Obama for it, over and over and over.

So, now what? Are you now for a bailout for companies, and a stimulus package? If yes, do you get a bit bothered by your double standards? Obama's bailout/stimulus = bad. Trump's bailout/stimulus = good.

Click to expand...

Lemme know when Solyndra-like companies gather at the current Government teat.

That, IMHO, is bad a question. Much like asking if one was for the 2020 federal "budget" (or not). The problem is that congress loves to create "package" bills which contain all manner of loosely (if at all) related matters. That type of question boils down to: should we do (or have done) X or do (or have done) nothing at all?

Felis Leo said:

I was against the stimulus package in 2008/2009 but I am for this stimulus now for the following reasons:

The 2008/2009 stimuluses were aimed at helping major companies (mostly in the financial sector) that were in danger of closing due to their own mismanagement and overextension. Essentially, the government was engaged in fostering and rewarding moral hazard. Here, the government is giving financial aid to people forced out of work and businesses forced to shutter due to social distancing orders put into effect by the states. In effect, when the government takes your job or your business from you, they should provide adequate and just compensation.

I do not consider this a "bailout" any more than when a state or local government taking someone's home through eminent domain to put a new highway through and then paying them fair market value for the property should be considered a "bailout."

Click to expand...

It was not quite that simple - most of those "troubled" mortgages were federally and/or privately insured. Not bailing out the banks and/or insurance companies left holding them was therefore not really an option.

Felis Leo said:

I was against the stimulus package in 2008/2009 but I am for this stimulus now for the following reasons:

The 2008/2009 stimuluses were aimed at helping major companies (mostly in the financial sector) that were in danger of closing due to their own mismanagement and overextension. Essentially, the government was engaged in fostering and rewarding moral hazard. Especially when the government only extended these low-interest loans to major financial institutions and giant corporations, and not to everyday small businesses or workers who were harmed by the financial crisis through no fault of their own.

Here, meanwhile, the government is giving financial aid to people forced out of work and businesses forced to shutter due to social distancing orders put into effect by the states. In effect, when the government takes your job or your business from you, they should provide adequate and just compensation. I do not consider this a "bailout" any more than when a state or local government taking someone's home through eminent domain to put a new highway through and then paying them fair market value for the property should be considered a "bailout." When an otherwise law-abiding person is stripped of their ability to make a living by the government, the government must provide a remedy.

Click to expand...

Exactly right. When state government forces a business to close, compensating them for it is NOT a bailout.

CaughtInThe said:

they will take the government cheese and not look back.

Click to expand...

Projecting?

mrdeltoid said:

Exactly right. When state government forces a business to close, compensating them for it is NOT a bailout.

Click to expand...

Amen!

Nothing more needs to be said to counter the O/P's questions.

ttwtt78640 said:

It was not quite that simple - most of those "troubled" mortgages were federally and/or privately insured. Not bailing out the banks and/or insurance companies left holding them was therefore not really an option.

Click to expand...

Well, you're right but...the problem was with such programs being created in the first place. Programs which allowed such mortgages to be issued to many citizens not actually capable of successfully paying them off. Under normal circumstances, absent those programs, they would never have qualified for such loans in the first place.

I agree the Administration which promulgated the laws allowing them placed the onus on the government to "bail them out." Still, it should be a lesson in what government should not be doing.

Felis Leo said:

I was against the stimulus package in 2008/2009 but I am for this stimulus now for the following reasons:

The 2008/2009 stimuluses were aimed at helping major companies (mostly in the financial sector) that were in danger of closing due to their own mismanagement and overextension. Essentially, the government was engaged in fostering and rewarding moral hazard. Especially when the government only extended these low-interest loans to major financial institutions and giant corporations, and not to everyday small businesses or workers who were harmed by the financial crisis through no fault of their own.

Here, meanwhile, the government is giving financial aid to people forced out of work and businesses forced to shutter due to social distancing orders put into effect by the states. In effect, when the government takes your job or your business from you, they should provide adequate and just compensation. I do not consider this a "bailout" any more than when a state or local government taking someone's home through eminent domain to put a new highway through and then paying them fair market value for the property should be considered a "bailout." When an otherwise law-abiding person is stripped of their ability to make a living by the government, the government must provide a remedy.

Click to expand...

Good points but it is not just that. The bill also anticipates half a trillion dollars going to major corporations, and that's exactly the part Trump doesn't want any oversight on how and to whom it is given.

Again, I'm FOR this one.

And sure, like I said, the 2009/2009 stimulus could have been better handled (I made a mistake in saying 2007/2008) but I think it was still necessary. By better handling it I mean, the CEOs and CFOs etc who were morally corrupt and actually financially and criminally corrupt too, should not have escaped scot free, and companies should have had to cede part of their stocks to the government until they paid it all back, etc. We could have had intervention boards and a company could have only been eligible for the money if their then current leadership got fired and indicted (with due process and right to defense, of course) if wrongdoing was proven. But still, I think that the stimulus itself was necessary. We don't know what could have happened without it, and I suspect that we could have had an even bigger economic crisis, with the population suffering even more.

But still, as matter of principle, I was for the 2008/2009 action, like I am for this one.

I do think it is important to have oversight over the corporate part of the current bailout. I don't trust Trump. It's like the fox guarding the hen house.

trixare4kids said:

Amen!

Nothing more needs to be said to counter the O/P's questions.

Click to expand...

To counter??? I mean, we're debating it. Why do you need to counter the OP's questions? A question is a question, not a statement. You might want to answer a question, not counter it. We're having a civil debate here.

mrdeltoid said:

Exactly right. When state government forces a business to close, compensating them for it is NOT a bailout.

Click to expand...

The bill doesn't exclusively have money allocated to companies forced to close. There is stimulus money in it as well. There is money for companies that were NOT ordered to shut down, like 50 billion for the airline industry. Sure, there was a ban on foreign travelers from certain countries but the flights themselves especially their cargo portion were not forced to stop, and companies could still fly in American citizens. That I know there was no prohibition of flying and no airports ordered closed. The companies themselves cancelled many flights due to lack of interest by customers in flying in a time when flying is perceived as dangerous in terms of catching the virus, due to overcrowded cabins and recirculated air.

So, the airlines are suffering from the virus, not exactly from governmental orders, and still, they are being bailed out. That's a bailout, no doubt.

Again, I'm FOR it, but let's not play with semantics and hide the fact that this 2-trillion dollar complex bill DOES include bailout measures.

Sure, if a restaurant ordered to close down by a governor is given money to compensate for business losses, that's not a bailout. But if a company free to keep flying decides not to or doesn't have enough customers, and is given federal money, that's a bailout. Especially the domestic/regional companies that don't fly international and are not affected in any way by the travel ban imposed on foreign citizens from some countries.

GreatNews2night said:

OK, so Trump has signed the coronavirus bailout/stimulus bill into law (although not before saying he won't comply with its transparency measures, which for one thing, are meant to prevent him from getting loans to his own businesses, from this bill - and to prevent companies from getting the money but still laying off employees while self-assigning bonuses to top executives or buying stock back).

Trump signed the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, but says he won’t comply with transparency measures - Vox

Don't read me wrong, I'm *for* this bailout.

But the only thing is, I was *also* for Obama's bailout/stimulus in the 2007/2008 economic crisis (that he inherited from Bush, who had already started the bailout). So, I stayed consistent. While that bailout/stimulus could have been handled better, I think it was still a way to avert much worse consequences from economic disaster.

I remember Republicans/conservatives berating Obama for it, over and over and over.

So, now what? Are you now for a bailout for companies, and a stimulus package? If yes, do you get a bit bothered by your double standards? Obama's bailout/stimulus = bad. Trump's bailout/stimulus = good.

Click to expand...

the IDEA of the OBAMA stimulus was great....the execution sucked

we were in a complete credit meltdown....

there needed to be more money actually pushed DOWN to small business, and to people that needed help paying bills, mortgages, for groceries, etc

jobs were key...and there werent any to be had....so the "shovel ready" jobs were a great concept, but they were never ready

bailing out the banks was a necessity....it needed to happen to keep the world from falling into a depression....the car companies i was torn on, even though that was the business i was in....cash for clunkers was one of the WORST designed programs ever conceived....

so i am consistent...both programs needed to be done....i have no idea if this one will be executed well....i hope it will

only time will tell

Captain Adverse said:

Well, you're right but...the problem was with such programs being created in the first place. Programs which allowed such mortgages to be issued to many citizens not actually capable of successfully paying them off. Under normal circumstances, absent those programs, they would never have qualified for such loans in the first place.

I agree the Administration which promulgated the laws allowing them placed the onus on the government to "bail them out." Still, it should be a lesson in what government should not be doing.

Click to expand...

My daughter and son-in-law lost their house thanks to that "program". When they moved in I was impressed and just figured they were making good money. SMH

I supported some small parts of the 2008 "stimulus", in particular the extension of unemployment benefits. Most of it was just pork that utterly failed to stimulate.

Likewise now I support the stuff in the 2020 bill that helps the ones living closest to the edge. The rest is just pure pork. And $75K cutoff for getting free money is way too high.

And both bills needed a plan for paying the money back. That's a dealbreaker IMO.

trixare4kids said:

Projecting?

Click to expand...

will you take the handout, Miss Republican?

GreatNews2night said:

The bill doesn't exclusively have money allocated to companies forced to close. There is stimulus money in it as well. There is money for companies that were NOT ordered to shut down, like 50 billion for the airline industry. Sure, there was a ban on foreign travelers from certain countries but the flights themselves especially their cargo portion were not forced to stop, and companies could still fly in American citizens. That I know there was no prohibition of flying and no airports ordered closed. The companies themselves cancelled many flights due to lack of interest by customers in flying in a time when flying is perceived as dangerous in terms of catching the virus, due to overcrowded cabins and recirculated air.

So, the airlines are suffering from the virus, not exactly from governmental orders, and still, they are being bailed out. That's a bailout, no doubt.

Again, I'm FOR it, but let's not play with semantics and hide the fact that this 2-trillion dollar complex bill DOES include bailout measures.

Sure, if a restaurant ordered to close down by a governor is given money to compensate for business losses, that's not a bailout. But if a company free to keep flying decides not to or doesn't have enough customers, and is given federal money, that's a bailout. Especially the domestic/regional companies that don't fly international and are not affected in any way by the travel ban imposed on foreign citizens from some countries.

Click to expand...

Disagree. The majority of the empty planes are due to the shut down of various businesses that depend on planes to carry employees, cargo, etc. Not just because people are afraid of catching the virus. A "bailout" suggest mismanagement of the business in question. If there weren't all these shutdowns by the states, the airlines would be fine. The way I view the term bailout is JMHO. No matter what it's called, it certainly doesn't compare to the crap Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pulled. The only reason the dems are so bent out of shape is because "Giant Corporations" are being helped as well. They think a "Giant Corporation" is a thing or a monster. They don't consider that they employ hundreds of thousands of workers.

GreatNews2night said:

The bill doesn't exclusively have money allocated to companies forced to close. There is stimulus money in it as well. There is money for companies that were NOT ordered to shut down, like 50 billion for the airline industry. Sure, there was a ban on foreign travelers from certain countries but the flights themselves especially their cargo portion were not forced to stop, and companies could still fly in American citizens. That I know there was no prohibition of flying and no airports ordered closed. The companies themselves cancelled many flights due to lack of interest by customers in flying in a time when flying is perceived as dangerous in terms of catching the virus, due to overcrowded cabins and recirculated air.

So, the airlines are suffering from the virus, not exactly from governmental orders, and still, they are being bailed out. That's a bailout, no doubt.

Again, I'm FOR it, but let's not play with semantics and hide the fact that this 2-trillion dollar complex bill DOES include bailout measures.

Sure, if a restaurant ordered to close down by a governor is given money to compensate for business losses, that's not a bailout. But if a company free to keep flying decides not to or doesn't have enough customers, and is given federal money, that's a bailout. Especially the domestic/regional companies that don't fly international and are not affected in any way by the travel ban imposed on foreign citizens from some countries.

Click to expand...

We're splitting hairs hear. I'll admit that. Sorry it took me so long but the bill is like 800 pages long. OMG. Anyway, here's what I got concerning the airlines and causation:

SEC. 4002. DEFINITIONS. 11 In this subtitle: 12 (1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ has 13 the meaning such term has under section 40102 of 14 title 49, United States Code. 15 (2) CORONAVIRUS.—The term ‘‘coronavirus’’ 16 means SARS-CoV-2 or another coronavirus with 17 pandemic potential. 18 (3) COVERED LOSS.—The term ‘‘covered loss’’ 19 includes losses incurred directly or indirectly as a re-20 sult of coronavirus, as determined by the Secretary. 21 (4) ELIGIBLE BUSINESS.—The term ‘‘eligible 22 business’’ means—
Anyway, although you can call it a bailout, it's certainly not from poor business practices. JMHOeace
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...us-bill.html&usg=AOvVaw0qpxEqYTZA7QF5Ku1UyOrJ

gdgyva said:

jobs were key...and there werent any to be had....so the "shovel ready" jobs were a great concept, but they were never ready

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said in this post, which I snipped just to highlight the one point I thought that deserves a different comment rather than just agreeing: it needs to be remembered that when Obama proposed various measures to increase job offers, he got obstructed by Congress.

Remember, the GOP had the goal of opposing anything and everything proposed by Obama and to make of him a one-term president. Yes, I agree that the execution of the bailout / stimulus sucked, but not every part of the failures is Obama's fault. The obstructionist GOP, playing political games to score points instead of thinking of the interest of the American people, does have a share of responsibility.

Not that the Dems don't do it. Both parties suck, which is why I'm an independent/unaffiliated voter, although in *this* cycle I'll vote straight Dem ticket to see if we can kick the Trump Crime Family out of the White House, although I think we won't. His popularity is growing and the polls are already showing a statistical tie with Biden. Trump will win. But that's off-topic.

eman623 said:

I supported some small parts of the 2008 "stimulus", in particular the extension of unemployment benefits. Most of it was just pork that utterly failed to stimulate.

Likewise now I support the stuff in the 2020 bill that helps the ones living closest to the edge. The rest is just pure pork. And $75K cutoff for getting free money is way too high.

And both bills needed a plan for paying the money back. That's a dealbreaker IMO.

Click to expand...

I basically agree.

But you know why there is a high cutoff for getting free money, right? It's probably the main reason why Trump's popularity number jumped to an all-time high. People vote with their pockets. This is made clear by Trump's insistance that his signature must be on the checks. So, he's trying to reach as many people as possible with the high cutoff. Don't for a moment think that there isn't a political point being scored, here.

mrdeltoid said:

Disagree. The majority of the empty planes are due to the shut down of various businesses that depend on planes to carry employees, cargo, etc. Not just because people are afraid of catching the virus. A "bailout" suggest mismanagement of the business in question. If there weren't all these shutdowns by the states, the airlines would be fine. The way I view the term bailout is JMHO. No matter what it's called, it certainly doesn't compare to the crap Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pulled. The only reason the dems are so bent out of shape is because "Giant Corporations" are being helped as well. They think a "Giant Corporation" is a thing or a monster. They don't consider that they employ hundreds of thousands of workers.

Click to expand...

I agree in spirit with what you are saying but still, like you have just confessed, it's a bit of semantics and hair splitting, and it's pushing it a bit far - the passengers are not flying because businesses are closed, etc., sure, to a certain degree, but also a lot of people are afraid of flying, not taking vacations, etc.

Me, I had a week of vacation scheduled for late May, and had booked in a hotel in New York City, and had purchased air tickets for me, my wife, and for my daughter and son-in-law, was taking them there to show them a bunch of things around the city which I know well (I used to live there). Well, I cancelled because of the virus, not because of anything related to business closures.

It is impossible to know what proportion of the hit the airlines took is linked to governmental mandates to close businesses, as opposed to fear of flying or fear of traveling to an epidemic epicenter and catching the disease. Even businessmen, nothing prevents them from holding meetings to plan for the future, to plan for how to face this crisis, etc. They could perfectly still fly if they wanted to. But these meetings are now discouraged from within the businesses themselves; people are being told to use teleconference, and to even join from home with applications like Zoom. No government has ordered businessmen to stay put and not fly.

Sure, semantically, you identify bailout as something nefarious, something like rewarding mismanagement and unethical or immoral business practices, and sure, the airlines didn't do anything to deserve the hit they took from the virus, but in itself the word bailout is not necessarily linked to nefarious practices. You are still bailing... out... of failure, a failing business, if you inject federal money into it without having directly restricted in any way that business from operating.

The analogy here with eminent domain doesn't apply to this bailout of the airline industry. The most appropriate term to use for this, is a bailout, even if the root cause of it is not nefarious.

Again, I'm FOR this bailout. Nothing against it, although I hope it will be fairly managed and won't result in undue advantages for Trump's own businesses and his buddies'.

GreatNews2night said:

To counter??? I mean, we're debating it. Why do you need to counter the OP's questions? A question is a question, not a statement. You might want to answer a question, not counter it. We're having a civil debate here.

Click to expand...

Are you saying we're no longer allowed to agree with one another?
If one is truly interested in a civil debate agreeing and disagreeing is allowed.

Or is the real problem that you don't like others pointing the error in comparing the 2008 bailouts to the Cares act?
They aren't the same, therefore, conservatives will probably keep pointing out to you that the money going to people, corporations, small and midsize businesses now is due to it being thatt they were forced to comply with social distancing.
The bailouts that happened in 2008 mostly happened because it was the fault of the banks.

CaughtInThe said:

will you take the handout, Miss Republican?

Click to expand...

Why is this your business?

Btw, I am more of a libertarian than a Republican, though you'll never figure out the difference in a zillion years.