Here’s an Idea That’s Too Late:


A lot of corporations are going to get bailed out; that’s because The Invisible Hand Of The Market(tm) must be handcuffed so it doesn’t slap anyone.

I’m not entirely displeased that the democrats appear to have paid some attention to trying to reduce the chance that the stimulus is going to get absorbed by the wealthy. In 2008, it was “bad optics” that companies were taking the bail out loan and then giving their CEOs performance bonuses totaling millions of dollars. No doubt the legislation will have some nasties hidden in it, which will be discovered and publicized anon. But meanwhile, it sounds like there are some rules like: “you don’t get bail out if you plan to give your CEO a bonus” and “you don’t get bail out if you just fired half your employees.” That’s a good start.

What really scares me is that someone wedged a new tax shelter in there, or authorized a new stealth air superiority fighter for the air force. Congress has to sneak around behind our backs, like that, because they represent us. Or something.

Now that it’s too late, here’s my suggestion:

  • If you did not pay any corporate taxes in the last 5 years, you get no bail out: Exxon, Amazon, Caterpillar, Boeing – sorry, but the taxpayers would like to reciprocate your selfishness.
  • If you’ve been profitable for the last 5 years and have been doing stock buy-backs to boost your valuation, then you don’t qualify for a bail out unless you sell those tranches of shares at the current market price and after you’ve spent that money then come back to us for a hand-out. PS – our sympathy for you knows some boundaries.
  • If you’ve been dodging corporate taxes and infrastructure fees by locating your company’s official HQ outside of the US, you get no bail out. Apple? Go ask Ireland to bail you out; you put your HQ there so you could do the double Dutch reach-around and paid Ireland minimal taxes and the US hardly any – you’re an Irish company, apparently, you’re their problem. PS – they love you as much as I do and these Irish eyes are cryin’ for ye.
  • If you’ve been re-flagging your ships under Antiguan or Malaysian or ${whatever} registry to avoid taxes and fees, then maybe the Antiguans or Malaysians will bail you out. That’s bad news for all the cruise lines, who have been pocketing billions of extra dollars on the basis that they are not actually US ships. Awwww.
  • If you’re an organization that practices nepotism at the executive level, you don’t qualify for a bail out. Tell the republicans it’s the Hunter Biden clause, then if they fall for it, forget bail outs for the Trumps or Kushners.
  • If you’re a company that does not have an equal gender mix and minorities on your board of directors, no bail out for you. Oops, that just disqualified massive chunks of the tech market.

I’m confident that the democrats have fucked the bailout up significantly in ways that we don’t know about, yet. Because, if it wasn’t a great mass of compromises for the “conservatives” the republicans would have blocked it.

The original idea of the bail out was to give money to the people who have been dropped unceremoniously. It sounds as though we are looking at a drop in the labor market that is an additional 3 million unemployed in the last few weeks. So not only has Trump overseen the worst drop in the stock market since the great depression, he’s overseeing the beginning of the biggest depression since the great depression. And, you know what helped snap the US out of that, right? For one thing, it was a bunch of socialistic government programs and the creation of a federal makework force and for another thing it was a great big war. Let’s not give the assholes in Washington any ideas; the Germans don’t look ready to step up to the plate – “are we the baddies?”

There is ample evidence that when someone is in need, you give them money because they know what they need and how to spend it. Conservatives hate that, because they imagine that the needy people are going to spend the money on hookers and blow, which is what those same conservatives’d do. But when what you need to do is pay next month’s rent, you dial back on the Cristal and the Louie; that stuff is and remains the privilege of the wealthy.

Comments

  1. billseymour says

    Conservatives hate that, because they imagine that the needy people are going to spend the money on hookers and blow, which is what those same conservatives’d do.

    With conservatives, it’s projection all the way down.

    Do you want to really stimulate the economy? Give the money to folk who will spend it, not to folk who will just have it and feel proud. Adam Smith had that figured out in The Wealth of Nations. It’s really old news.

    <aside>
    Oligarchs shouldn’t be able to get away with calling themselves “capitalists” when they’re really just feudal lord wannabees.
    </aside>

  2. dangerousbeans says

    who cares what people spend it on? sex workers and drug dealers gotta pay rent and buy food.
    the only problem is rich people who just use money to buy assets and sit on them.

  3. says

    dangerousbeans@#3:
    I wasn’t saying that drugs and sex aren’t reasonable ways to spend your money, rather I was saying that “conservatives” seem intensely concerned that people who are given money from the government not be able to spend it on specific things – mostly the specific things that a wealthy person identifies as the prerequisites of wealth.

  4. dangerousbeans says

    @ Marcus
    Of course. It really is just ridiculous logic on their part, and makes the whole process less efficient

  5. jrkrideau says

    @ 6 Marcus
    I was saying that “conservatives” seem intensely concerned that people who are given money from the government not be able to spend it on specific things – mostly the specific things that a wealthy person identifies as the prerequisites of wealth.

    Ah yes like candy. IIRC the gov of Maine was making sure welfare (Foodstamps?) could not be squandered on candy.

  6. says

    jrkrideau@#6:
    Ah yes like candy. IIRC the gov of Maine was making sure welfare (Foodstamps?) could not be squandered on candy.

    The only explanation that has ever been plausible to me is that “conservatives” are actually sadists, for whom the suffering of others is important. They cannot feel good about themselves unless it’s by watching someone else feel bad.

    Candy is a more useful/socially beneficial way to spend money than F-35s, after all.

Leave a Reply