That is correct they have screwed the American people in the past. But if they are not given money, some will go out of business (airlines especially) and/or lay off a lot of people. I think the added wording that they cannot buyback stock is good.

They did not save for a rainy day. They should get no special treatment.

economic survival.

That might give them a different perspective?

of running all these corporations we suddenly own -- trump or his kids, Bernie Sanders, etc. Heck, they might even make a go of it for a year or so. Then, what?

I'd work for Obama, but a bunch of gun-toting white wingers won't.

Maybe, I'm wrong. Maybe we'll have full employment, plenty of money from the profits of the nationalized industries -- that run so smoothly with each changing administration -- for healthcare, child care, paying back all the debts we've just created, bolstering social security, etc.

Why would you want to hand over shit to Trump anyway?

Millions of wage earners who have seen their earnings flattened over the last four decades while their productivity has gone up and up have generated trillions of dollars in wealth. Practically none of that has made its way into their pockets. But now those workers are supposed to have a six month money reserve to ride out this crisis, while businesses elbow their way to the front of the line to stick their snouts in the trough once again. Any strings attached to their money grab set off squeals that would do a pig proud: How dare you say we can't buy back our stock with this windfall?!

‘“Every loan document will be public and made available to Congress very quickly, so we can see where the money is going, what the terms are and if it’s fair to the American people,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Wednesday.’

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/25/trump-senate-coronavirus-economic-stimulus-2-trillion/|

Maybe, but the Misadministration is in open defiance, already, of congressional subpoenas, and the Federal courts are slow-walking it.

Just like everything else has been made public. We may even see Trump's tax returns. Color me very skeptical.

Let's just give it all to Mnuchin, Trump, and the Corporations. Send the Congress home. Let Trump dole it out. I'm sure he will do what is best for the people.

saying not one cent to rescue businesses is... well i can't say what I want without likely getting a hide.

Without assistance (and I think smaller businesses and certain industries will need more than loans) we are going to have the worst crash since 1929.

...it may take months for assistance to reach small businesses.

I agree there is an urgency to getting this money out.

Congress should pass it all immediately except for the $500 billion for the Treasury's discretion. Simply because, they cannot be trusted. Send it back to the Senate and tell them to fix it.

Mistakes are made with too much haste.

To simply take over the payroll of firms in distress, and insist on a receiver's control over the firms ion exchange for lifting that burden and preserving their workforce. People in our government at present seem fond of calling this 'wartime', and the level of government control over businesses during WWII would gladden the heart of any dedicated socialist.

payroll is only a fraction of their expenses which are going to drag them down while they have reduced or no income.

about 25 million businesses have no employees (owner operated, the true mom and pop businesses). Your proposal does nothing to help them.

It is, however, a solid chunk of their expenses, and relieving them of it would make it easier to get private credit to deal with interest and debts. Firms that are going concerns should have no trouble doing this, and those which are not will simply be going to the wall sooner than otherwise, and with their employees, at least, retaining their income. Executive and boardroom salaries would of course have to go by the board, such people have a sufficient nest egg to see them through, and if they haven't managed that have no business managing a large firm.

Your attempt to switch the discussion from large firms to the smallest of the small fry is noted, and is not a tactic I have much respect for. There is entirely too much blurring where the meaning of words like 'property' and 'business owner' is concerned. When a man says he loves his wife, loves his daughter, and loves a good rare hamburger, he had better be meaning something different each time. That the same word is used for all three meanings may be taken to indicate our culture finds 'love' a confusing thing. This is not so deliberate, or of much use in disputation. But the confusion created by use of the word 'property' to indicate such varied things as a carpenter's tool-chest, a family's house, a factory employing several hundred persons, a sprawl of land extending several thousand acres, and paper certificates entitling their holder to a share in the proceeds of an enterprise he has never taken part in personally, or even seen, is deliberate, and intended to convince small-holders that their interests are identical with those of plutocrats and rentiers, which they are not.

A person who is sole owner of an enterprise which employs no one else is in no real sense the owner of a business, but actually a person scrounging for temporary employment, client by client, or else an employee in all but name of a larger concern he or she supplies with some article or service. They live, then, not on profit but on a wage, paid by their clients. This wage can be readily calculated by the tax documents they must file, and for purposes of my proposal would treated as any other employee's wage. Such people may require some extra protection from creditors in present circumstances, and ought to get it.



"It is nonesense to suppose something beneficial to the greater portion of society may be injurious to its whole."

I suppose I may be a little more socialist-minded than most. I am of the opinion that if they cannot make it in the capitalist system, maybe they should be nationalized? Thinking of airlines, in specific.

It is outside the range of the political possibility at present.


"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in securing the unpalatable over the inedible."

...but last I heard, the airlines had taken about $46 billion out of their businesses with stock buybacks and exec bonuses.

As you so pointedly explain, businesses needs in this time are very different based on scale. This has been the crux of my argument in this thread, I humbly apologize if that was not clear to this point.

"A person who is sole owner of an enterprise which employs no one else is in no real sense the owner of a business, but actually a person scrounging for temporary employment, client by client, or else an employee in all but name of a larger concern he or she supplies with some article or service. They live, then, not on profit but on a wage, paid by their clients. This wage can be readily calculated by the tax documents they must file, and for purposes of my proposal would treated as any other employee's wage."

This is unfortunately an oversimplification. A number of common exceptions come readily to mind; a small farmer, creators of craft goods, or a food truck. They have no employees but are not paid personally by job or client; the business is paid for the sale of their creations, and the owner/operator takes profit distributions based on the net income of the business. This is can be highly varied from month to month or even year to year. They certainly would not be considered temporary employment or working from client to client.

I suggest reevaluating your view on this issue, as some of the detail may be lost due to the zealous disapproval of larger business. Perhaps an introductory text on economics.

I believe my point has been made. A good day to you.

A craftsman's customers are clients, the persons who purchase meals from a vendor are clients, a small farmer sells his produce to clients. The terms are interchangeable.

Where you detect hostility to larger businesses in my comments is unclear to me. I have no such hostility. I do recognize the interests of their owners and their upper ranks of management are very different from those of their salaried or hourly wage employees, of the smaller firms which form their suppliers, and of the agents who handle their distribution. Our political life tends to favor the owners and upper level management, and in most instances it would be better for the country's economy and the people's prosperity if this were otherwise.

against Obama's Stimulus . They were willing to
cause another Great Depression to hurt Obama. Then 8 years later a Republican is in the Whitehouse.

that incorporate in other countries to evade taxes and workplace laws.

IF corporations get relief, it should be in the form of loans with very strict guidelines as to what it can be used for.

...if they are going to put the criminals in charge.

Everyone should know that by now.

autos and banks in TARP...no bonuses and stock buyback..most importantly...no layoffs...

Strict oversight of loans that must be paid back. Plus, not one cent goes to Trump or his family.

STILL lay people off and screw over their employees. Is there any provision in this bill that protects the employees of the corporations that end up getting handouts or is this going to be business as usual where the money goes to the executives and the shareholders? I have a feeling that I know the answer. This just pisses me off beyond belief.

How many huge corporations get by without paying taxes? General Electric is famous for begging off state and local taxes. I know, as they've done it to our community/state several times.

No taxes - no bailout.

If they can avoid paying taxes, why should they be considered for bailout? They aren't contributing to our well-being, so why should we feel obligated? Granted, they pay salaries and some of that comes back in taxes, but as Warren points out, the corporations use our infrastructure without helping to replace. Perhaps if they didn't pay their upper staff/CEOs so much, they could handle their own emergencies. Besides, people don't need that much money to live comfortably.

Which was simple but sensible.

They don't need government handouts.