Trump wants to send Americans $1,000 checks to cushion virus economic shock

[WalkingOrders]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But when Obama was in office Republicans actually pushed for austerity in the wake of the great recession!

I stand by my earlier point, and will not simplify further. Spending by congress is a disease. Probably will take laws from a bipartisan commission to get it under control when debt becomes crisis number 1.

[zydeco]

6 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I see your point on distribution of 1k by means, or to those under a certain income level. I do believe that hardship for people on min wages, paycheck to paycheck will be significant, potentially life altering. But making the determination of what that income level should be, may be difficult. Perhaps, under 100k, or even less?

Getting better. But I like the idea that we are all in this together. A few at the top (I'm talking about you Boeing) should not make out like bandits for designing faulty airplanes and using their loans and profits to buy back their own stock. No firm that engaged in stock buybacks should get any bailout money until and unless they they sell off the stock they bought back.

[gamb00ler]

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Helping citizens with their own money is exactly the right thing to do. Helping companies a waste of time. There are other processes tokeep companies alive. Liquidate shares and give it to the bondholders. The government totally unnecessary to the process.

Forced liquidations are unlikely to lead to the best result for all involved.  The bond holders get a fraction of their capital back, the shareholders may get squat and the company often disappears.  A previously solvent company that fails because of forces and conditions outside their control should still have the accumulated knowledge and experience to make a profit.  Not smart to turn it into dust or sell it to a competitor and increase the concentration of market share.

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Forced liquidations are unlikely to lead to the best result for all involved.  The bond holders get a fraction of their capital back, the shareholders may get squat and the company often disappears.  A previously solvent company that fails because of forces and conditions outside their control should still have the accumulated knowledge and experience to make a profit.  Not smart to turn it into dust or sell it to a competitor and increase the concentration of market share.

 

It is certainly not beyond their control that they are not sitting on a mountain of retained earnings that would have helped them weather the storm and made them look like  viable candidates for loans or credit facilities in the existing capital markets.

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It is certainly not beyond their control that they are not sitting on a mountain of retained earnings that would have helped them weather the storm and made them look like  viable candidates for loans or credit facilities in the existing capital markets.

Particularly the airlines. American Airlines, for example, saw their earnings rise from $500 million to $7.5 million/year by 2015 which they did not spend on employee benefits or the comfort of flyers, etc.  Instead, they spent $15 billion in share buybacks.  If they get bailed out it should be on condition of lowering baggage charge, flight change fees, and other amenities for flyers.  They should also require the removal of management for failing to retain any earnings against future losses in a notoriously cyclical business.  At the height of its recent earnings AA was $30 billion in debt which is five times their market cap.

 

That's how socialism for corporations works.  But since any bailout would require approval of the House Democrats, they should require these and other preconditions.  Otherwise let the US airlines fail and sell their takeoff slots to better-managed foreign airlines.

[newnative]

5 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Last time I looked Americans are only obligated to pay taxes on incomes in foreign countries if they make $92,000 or over. You must report any bank account that exceeds $10,000.

And neither has anything to do with paying USA taxes on USA income and being entitled to the same payout as any other American, regardless of where you are living.  

[newnative]

2 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

True, but that's not how US Presidents are elected.

Yes, unfortunately.  So we got the horrible Bush 2 for 8 years and, now, the even worse Trump.

[Mansell]

Mmmm! I wonder if I will get a check here? Will they be dispersed through the IRS? 
I was thinking about the 1918 Flu Pandemic and thinking that was a long time ago....no it wasn’t, it was just a 102 years ago. Seems like we are cycling through the same thing again. 
Somebody on here said that only 7 million died back then.....just read that between 14 and 17 million died in India alone.....worldwide between 70 and a 100 million. One nasty pandemic. But back then no antibiotics, no real sanitary systems, not much understanding of viruses, and not great communication. We are much better off this time.

[cmarshall]

10 minutes ago, Mansell said:

Mmmm! I wonder if I will get a check here? Will they be dispersed through the IRS? 
I was thinking about the 1918 Flu Pandemic and thinking that was a long time ago....no it wasn’t, it was just a 102 years ago. Seems like we are cycling through the same thing again. 
Somebody on here said that only 7 million died back then.....just read that between 14 and 17 million died in India alone.....worldwide between 70 and a 100 million. One nasty pandemic. But back then no antibiotics, no real sanitary systems, not much understanding of viruses, and not great communication. We are much better off this time.

Antibiotics are not effective against viruses.  There have been advances in treating acute respiratory illnesses, but once the medical facilities are saturated as they already are in Lombardy and will be within a few days in New York City, without a respirator it is still 1918.  The methods of social distancing and isolation were the same then as now.  There was no treatment for H1N1 then and there is no treatment for corona now.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. 

[rabas]

31 minutes ago, Mansell said:

Mmmm! I wonder if I will get a check here? Will they be dispersed through the IRS? 
I was thinking about the 1918 Flu Pandemic and thinking that was a long time ago....no it wasn’t, it was just a 102 years ago. Seems like we are cycling through the same thing again. 
Somebody on here said that only 7 million died back then.....just read that between 14 and 17 million died in India alone.....worldwide between 70 and a 100 million. One nasty pandemic. But back then no antibiotics, no real sanitary systems, not much understanding of viruses, and not great communication. We are much better off this time.

Are we?  There are currently no vaccines for corona-viruses so it depends on common sense about infectious diseases. This notice from 1918 suggests they may have had more common sense then. They clearly understand about eye protection and transmission, even what type of goggles to use. Two step handwashing with disinfectants and soap. Today people are still trying to figure if a mask works..

Edited March 18, 2020 by rabas

[avvocato]

Here is how the 2008 stimulus worked. It was $300 per person or $600 for married couples filing jointly. The check was a direct deposit to your bank. If you filed a US Tax return you were eligible. This would probably be similar so any expat who filed last year would likely be eligible and the money goes to your bank which you use for your refund. Of course they could re-invent the wheel but really why. This was all done before. If this recession lasts into July and August this whole payment isn’t going to stimulate the economy. This depression is completely unlike 2008. Unemployment rates of 20% are being bandied about by Munchkin (mis-spelling intentional). A single $1000 payment ain’t gonna do squat about that.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Particularly the airlines. American Airlines, for example, saw their earnings rise from $500 million to $7.5 million/year by 2015 which they did not spend on employee benefits or the comfort of flyers, etc.  Instead, they spent $15 billion in share buybacks.  If they get bailed out it should be on condition of lowering baggage charge, flight change fees, and other amenities for flyers.  They should also require the removal of management for failing to retain any earnings against future losses in a notoriously cyclical business.  At the height of its recent earnings AA was $30 billion in debt which is five times their market cap.

 

That's how socialism for corporations works.  But since any bailout would require approval of the House Democrats, they should require these and other preconditions.  Otherwise let the US airlines fail and sell their takeoff slots to better-managed foreign airlines.

I think that the government should be issued shares in the company. If the government takes the risks, then it should also get the rewards.

It is useful to remember, though, that unlike private lenders, the government will recoup some of its investment in the form of income taxes form employees who would otherwise be unemployed.

[LomSak27]

Can you imagine the howling if Obama did this back in the 08 Wall Street apocalypse? Gotta love Republicans and their sheer in your face hypocrisy. All that crying about deficits, nothing but playacting.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

Can you imagine the howling if Obama did this back in the 08 Wall Street apocalypse? Gotta love Republicans and their sheer in your face hypocrisy. All that crying about deficits, nothing but playacting.

In fact, virtually no Republicans backed Obama's 800 billion stimulus plan in 2009 even though it was about 40% tax cuts. Not only that, they were actually pushing for austerity at the onset of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Austerity was the major issue animating the economic illiterates of the Tea Party. And once the Republicans got hold of the House in 2010, they managed to slow the recovery massively.

[cmarshall]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

In fact, virtually no Republicans backed Obama's 800 billion stimulus plan in 2009 even though it was about 40% tax cuts. Not only that, they were actually pushing for austerity at the onset of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Austerity was the major issue animating the economic illiterates of the Tea Party. And once the Republicans got hold of the House in 2010, they managed to slow the recovery massively.

That was part of sabotaging Obama.  Now that there is a Repub president running for reelection the Repub Senate is quite willing to shell out.

[jcsmith]

This wasn't Trump's idea. But I don't have a problem with it. Most of that money is going to go back into the economy. 

[Nyezhov]

16 hours ago, newnative said:

Yes, unfortunately.  So we got the horrible Bush 2 for 8 years and, now, the even worse Trump.

Yes unfortuanately. So we got the horibble Obama for 8 years. Fixed it for you.

[WalkingOrders]

19 hours ago, zydeco said:

Getting better. But I like the idea that we are all in this together. A few at the top (I'm talking about you Boeing) should not make out like bandits for designing faulty airplanes and using their loans and profits to buy back their own stock. No firm that engaged in stock buybacks should get any bailout money until and unless they they sell off the stock they bought back.

I just saw the spike in unemployment claims this week across all states. Good God! The level of seriousness is beyond my making social media demands. A handful of people are now attempting to manage this crisis based upon their collective wisdom and knowledge. I wish them only to do their best to keep the nation afloat. God speed the end to this.

 

As for Thailand, and the world, my hopes are the same.

[kevin612]

1000 each month for the next 90 days.