Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:04 PM Mar 2020

There is no reason to vote one red cent to the corporations.

It's time for them to give back to our country.

They have exploited all the profits of the last thirty years in a way unlike any time in our history.

Workers have received very little of the huge wealth created since the beginning of the technology revolution.

In no capitalist system should the largest corporations be bailed out. There should not be a $500 billion fund specifically for these people. It would be a mistake to rush such a bill thru our Congress, in my opinion.

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There is no reason to vote one red cent to the corporations. (Original Post) kentuck Mar 2020 OP
Double edge sword jimfields33 Mar 2020 #1
They can file bankruptcy and remain in business. kentuck Mar 2020 #2
There will be massive job losses and we will enter a depression...Thanks God Congress understands Demsrule86 Mar 2020 #16
I suppose they could nationalize a few of them? kentuck Mar 2020 #19
Yep, nationalize a few of them and the rest will run for hills. Who are they going to put in charge Hoyt Mar 2020 #32
No they can't... Le'ts deal in the possible. Demsrule86 Mar 2020 #34
Have you thought about calling your Congress people? HarlanPepper Mar 2020 #3
Spot on gratuitous Mar 2020 #4
Schumer says Congress will provide oversight of the corporate giveaway Ponietz Mar 2020 #5
Sure it will! kentuck Mar 2020 #7
enjoy your economic hyperdepression Amishman Mar 2020 #6
Since you put it like that... kentuck Mar 2020 #8
the money needs to go out. It also needs controls to make sure it goes where it should and is repaid Amishman Mar 2020 #9
From my understsnding... kentuck Mar 2020 #11
It Would Probably Be Better, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2020 #14
payroll expenses are only a small part of the issue Amishman Mar 2020 #18
I Am Aware Of That, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2020 #21
Thanks for making the distinction between small businesses and large corporations, Sir. kentuck Mar 2020 #22
I Would Support Nationalization, Sir, Personally The Magistrate Mar 2020 #23
Yes Sir, it is not in most folks consciousness kentuck Mar 2020 #24
just pointing out where the logic fails, your excellency Amishman Mar 2020 #25
You Have Pointed To No Essential Difference, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2020 #27
All I can say is every damn Republican voted doc03 Mar 2020 #10
Definitely not corporations Bettie Mar 2020 #12
They had better read the small print.. kentuck Mar 2020 #13
Exactly. old guy Mar 2020 #31
Thousands of jobs are at stake...they should loans that have to be repaid with interest...just like Demsrule86 Mar 2020 #15
Yup, that's the way to do it. Turin_C3PO Mar 2020 #17
We are in agreement as always. Demsrule86 Mar 2020 #35
The thing is, most of these corporations are probably going to get this money and smirkymonkey Mar 2020 #20
They'll probably figure out how to avoid taxes, as well. Frustratedlady Mar 2020 #26
Perhaps they should get grants relative to the amount of taxes they have paid? kentuck Mar 2020 #28
Yes, that's basically what I started out to post, then got side-tracked. Frustratedlady Mar 2020 #29
I saw something on FB that reminded me. kentuck Mar 2020 #33
A corporation can issue stock to raise money. Quemado Mar 2020 #30

jimfields33

(17,044 posts)
1. Double edge sword
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:08 PM
Mar 2020

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.

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
2. They can file bankruptcy and remain in business.
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:11 PM
Mar 2020

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

Demsrule86

(69,335 posts)
16. There will be massive job losses and we will enter a depression...Thanks God Congress understands
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:29 PM
Mar 2020

economic survival.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
32. Yep, nationalize a few of them and the rest will run for hills. Who are they going to put in charge
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:19 PM
Mar 2020

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.

Demsrule86

(69,335 posts)
34. No they can't... Le'ts deal in the possible.
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:20 PM
Mar 2020

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

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
4. Spot on
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:15 PM
Mar 2020

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?!

Ponietz

(3,182 posts)
5. Schumer says Congress will provide oversight of the corporate giveaway
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:30 PM
Mar 2020

‘“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.

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
7. Sure it will!
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:36 PM
Mar 2020

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

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
8. Since you put it like that...
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:40 PM
Mar 2020

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.

Amishman

(5,596 posts)
9. the money needs to go out. It also needs controls to make sure it goes where it should and is repaid
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:44 PM
Mar 2020

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.

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
11. From my understsnding...
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:51 PM
Mar 2020

...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.

The Magistrate

(95,636 posts)
14. It Would Probably Be Better, Sir
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:25 PM
Mar 2020

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.

Amishman

(5,596 posts)
18. payroll expenses are only a small part of the issue
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:33 PM
Mar 2020

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.

The Magistrate

(95,636 posts)
21. I Am Aware Of That, Sir
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:11 PM
Mar 2020

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."

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
22. Thanks for making the distinction between small businesses and large corporations, Sir.
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:19 PM
Mar 2020

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.

The Magistrate

(95,636 posts)
23. I Would Support Nationalization, Sir, Personally
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:28 PM
Mar 2020

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."

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
24. Yes Sir, it is not in most folks consciousness
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:35 PM
Mar 2020

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

Amishman

(5,596 posts)
25. just pointing out where the logic fails, your excellency
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:37 PM
Mar 2020

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.

The Magistrate

(95,636 posts)
27. You Have Pointed To No Essential Difference, Sir
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:47 PM
Mar 2020

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.

doc03

(35,771 posts)
10. All I can say is every damn Republican voted
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 12:45 PM
Mar 2020

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.

Bettie

(16,447 posts)
12. Definitely not corporations
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:18 PM
Mar 2020

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.

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
13. They had better read the small print..
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:22 PM
Mar 2020

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

Everyone should know that by now.

Demsrule86

(69,335 posts)
15. Thousands of jobs are at stake...they should loans that have to be repaid with interest...just like
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:27 PM
Mar 2020

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

Turin_C3PO

(14,584 posts)
17. Yup, that's the way to do it.
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:32 PM
Mar 2020

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

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
20. The thing is, most of these corporations are probably going to get this money and
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 01:42 PM
Mar 2020

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.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
26. They'll probably figure out how to avoid taxes, as well.
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:45 PM
Mar 2020

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.

kentuck

(111,499 posts)
28. Perhaps they should get grants relative to the amount of taxes they have paid?
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 02:47 PM
Mar 2020

No taxes - no bailout.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
29. Yes, that's basically what I started out to post, then got side-tracked.
Wed Mar 25, 2020, 03:00 PM
Mar 2020

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There is no reason to vot...