Fed to inject $1.5 TRILLION into the economy

[AZGrizFan]

yeah, who needs competition, amirite?

If the competition is poorly managed (and focusing on short term, bonus enhancing results is poor management) that the government has to prop up, is it really competition?

How is bailing out a poorly managed airline that burned its cash reserves on a stock buyback to boost their EPS different from bailing out a Millennial who borrowed a $100K for a sociology degree? If we bail out one, shouldn't we bail out the other?

I'm with Alphie. Let them fail. It will hurt in the short term but another company will step in the fill the void and maybe their successors will learn from their mistakes and have a nest egg to survive a crisis.

I didn't read the whole thread. Wasn't aware the comment was made regarding bailouts. I've never been for bailouts. Not in '08. Not for student loans. not now.

[Aho Old Guy]

So how are bailouts for airlines and other corporations markedly different from bailouts for student loans? Aren't you bailing out companies/people that made poor decisions and didn't plan for the future and thus rewarding those poor decisions and lack of planning?

Edjumakshun is teetering on the moral equivalency thang --- it sucks nuggets that DeVos is such a douche.

I see bright lines where some sheet just ain't right. Veterans in for-profit schools need protections (as do tax payers) from the high pressure tactics and general douchery -- not to mention the for-profit closure rates, 90/10 loopholes, targeting, etc.

Obummer started to nip some of that shiit in the bud with veterans, but DeVos has gone the other way. This for-profit targeting scam has been going on since 1945, and those businesses need a serious spanking, and bullet-proof claw-back provisions. Those loan defaults need to come from that corporate ass-k ... not vets and Uncle Sugar.

[Aho Old Guy]

[GannonFan]

yeah, who needs competition, amirite?

If the competition is poorly managed (and focusing on short term, bonus enhancing results is poor management) that the government has to prop up, is it really competition?

How is bailing out a poorly managed airline that burned its cash reserves on a stock buyback to boost their EPS different from bailing out a Millennial who borrowed a $100K for a sociology degree? If we bail out one, shouldn't we bail out the other?

I'm with Alphie. Let them fail. It will hurt in the short term but another company will step in the fill the void and maybe their successors will learn from their mistakes and have a nest egg to survive a crisis.

The bailout is due to something being out of the control of the individual or company - remember, the government closed the borders, the government told the airlines they couldn't fly and told their customers they can't use the airlines. The airlines didn't make that decision. And come on, there's no nest egg for any company that can stomach a full business shutdown for 3-6 months - a full business shutdown that involves paying all of their employees at 100% of their pay and benefits during that shutdown while bringing in zero revenue, and then be ready to operate at full capacity the moment the government lifts the restrictions on the marketplace. No one is going to argue that airline companies are the best managed businesses out there, but there's a lot of unrealistic expectations of what any business should be prepared for by saying they should have a magic "nest egg" that covers 3-6 months of operations and guarantees full employment and full pay for workers to do nothing during that time. And if we want them to fail, then so be it, we just need to be cognizant that we need to do something about all of the pilots, flight crews, ground crews, and other staff, mostly just regular working people, that won't have a job for the next 6-12 months. It's easy to say stick it to management, but the management people aren't the ones who will feel the real pain.

As for the millennial, again, we've gone over that. If you wanted to pay $50k a year for 4 years to go to college and borrowed the vast majority of that, that was a choice. No one had to do that. State colleges in every state cost far less than that and would've given just as good of an education as the expensive school. There were realistic options out there and they weren't taken. We know there were realistic options because not everyone went massively into debt to go to college - there were and are still plenty of people who made realistic choices on where to get a college degree, and either paid as they went or they have paid back their much more modest debt load.

[GannonFan]

So how are bailouts for airlines and other corporations markedly different from bailouts for student loans? Aren't you bailing out companies/people that made poor decisions and didn't plan for the future and thus rewarding those poor decisions and lack of planning?

Edjumakshun is teetering on the moral equivalency thang --- it sucks nuggets that DeVos is such a douche.

I see bright lines where some sheet just ain't right. Veterans in for-profit schools need protections (as do tax payers) from the high pressure tactics and general douchery -- not to mention the for-profit closure rates, 90/10 loopholes, targeting, etc.

Obummer started to nip some of that shiit in the bud with veterans, but DeVos has gone the other way. This for-profit targeting scam has been going on since 1945, and those businesses need a serious spanking, and bullet-proof claw-back provisions. Those loan defaults need to come from that corporate ass-k ... not vets and Uncle Sugar.

Show me a college that isn't "for profit". That's a misnomer that the old brick and mortar schools love to tar any newcomers to the game. There's no doubt there are bad actors out there in the Univ of Phoenix's of the world, but when a school like LaSalle of all places charges close to $60k a year to go to school you can't tell me they aren't scamming people out of their money just as much, if not more, than what you're calling for profit schools.

[UNI88]

So how are bailouts for airlines and other corporations markedly different from bailouts for student loans? Aren't you bailing out companies/people that made poor decisions and didn't plan for the future and thus rewarding those poor decisions and lack of planning?

Edjumakshun is teetering on the moral equivalency thang --- it sucks nuggets that DeVos is such a douche.

I see bright lines where some sheet just ain't right. Veterans in for-profit schools need protections (as do tax payers) from the high pressure tactics and general douchery -- not to mention the for-profit closure rates, 90/10 loopholes, targeting, etc.

Obummer started to nip some of that shiit in the bud with veterans, but DeVos has gone the other way. This for-profit targeting scam has been going on since 1945, and those businesses need a serious spanking, and bullet-proof claw-back provisions. Those loan defaults need to come from that corporate ass-k ... not vets and Uncle Sugar.

I don't like DeVos and I don't care for for-profit schools but when will we take responsibility for our own bad decisions? Caveat emptor. Forgiving student loans is a kick in the nuts for all of the people who made smart decisions and didn't borrow more than they could afford to repay. My middle son was accepted at his 1st college choice but their financial aid package was sh!t. He was also accepted at his 2nd choice with a significantly better financial aid package. They both cost $70K/year in room, board & tuition and he would have had to borrow approximately $40K/year for #1 and less than $10K/year for #2 but he really, really wanted to go to #1. He made the smart choice and is going to #2. Student loan forgiveness would reward students who foolishly went down path #1 and by default punish students like him who wisely chose path #2.

Let's get back to personal responsibility and accountability and stop rewarding poor decision making by people (student loans) and companies (airline bailouts)!

[kalm]

Edjumakshun is teetering on the moral equivalency thang --- it sucks nuggets that DeVos is such a douche.

I see bright lines where some sheet just ain't right. Veterans in for-profit schools need protections (as do tax payers) from the high pressure tactics and general douchery -- not to mention the for-profit closure rates, 90/10 loopholes, targeting, etc.

Obummer started to nip some of that shiit in the bud with veterans, but DeVos has gone the other way. This for-profit targeting scam has been going on since 1945, and those businesses need a serious spanking, and bullet-proof claw-back provisions. Those loan defaults need to come from that corporate ass-k ... not vets and Uncle Sugar.

I don't like DeVos and I don't care for for-profit schools but when will we take responsibility for our own bad decisions? Caveat emptor. Forgiving student loans is a kick in the nuts for all of the people who made smart decisions and didn't borrow more than they could afford to repay. My middle son was accepted at his 1st college choice but their financial aid package was sh!t. He was also accepted at his 2nd choice with a significantly better financial aid package. They both cost $70K/year in room, board & tuition and he would have had to borrow approximately $40K/year for #1 and less than $10K/year for #2 but he really, really wanted to go to #1. He made the smart choice and is going to #2. Student loan forgiveness would reward students who foolishly went down path #1 and by default punish students like him who wisely chose path #2.

Let's get back to personal responsibility and accountability and stop rewarding poor decision making by people (student loans) and companies (airline bailouts)!

We need to educate people on better decision making first.

[UNI88]

I don't like DeVos and I don't care for for-profit schools but when will we take responsibility for our own bad decisions? Caveat emptor. Forgiving student loans is a kick in the nuts for all of the people who made smart decisions and didn't borrow more than they could afford to repay. My middle son was accepted at his 1st college choice but their financial aid package was sh!t. He was also accepted at his 2nd choice with a significantly better financial aid package. They both cost $70K/year in room, board & tuition and he would have had to borrow approximately $40K/year for #1 and less than $10K/year for #2 but he really, really wanted to go to #1. He made the smart choice and is going to #2. Student loan forgiveness would reward students who foolishly went down path #1 and by default punish students like him who wisely chose path #2.

Let's get back to personal responsibility and accountability and stop rewarding poor decision making by people (student loans) and companies (airline bailouts)!

We need to educate people on better decision making first.

And experience is the best teacher.

[Aho Old Guy]

"Business Colleges" under the old GI Bills made 10s of million of dollars running people off and scamming them for their tuition. The original owner of the Charlotte Hornets made his millions that way with the 'Rutledge Business Colleges'

New Scam <---> Old Scam
It's still a SCAM

I'm all for personal responsibility but hundreds of the 'for-profits' have closed down over the last 5 years --- in our next shooting war, I suspect they will be 'resurrected,' again.

[BDKJMU]

So how are bailouts for airlines and other corporations markedly different from bailouts for student loans? Aren't you bailing out companies/people that made poor decisions and didn't plan for the future and thus rewarding those poor decisions and lack of planning?

They aren't different. It is the government picking winners, again.

Although if they bailed out student loans, I bet there would be an economic boom. The money spent on the loans would go back into the macro and micro economy. Savings rates would increase. People would be able to contribute that money to a down payment on a home. Or starting a business. If Delta folds, it would suck but the Airline Industry isn't a necessity.

There are completely different if the airlines get low interest loans, they have to pay back.
Bailing out student loans are taking loans that have been already paid out, and saying you don't have to pay them back. Completely different.

I'm pretty much against bailouts, period. That being said, don't bailout the student loans, massive #s of people don't lose their jobs. Don't bailout out the airlines, hundreds of thousands of people could lose their jobs. Of course they would eventually come back, as a bankrupt airline(s) would be replaced by others that were expanded or newly created.

[Ibanez]

They aren't different. It is the government picking winners, again.

Although if they bailed out student loans, I bet there would be an economic boom. The money spent on the loans would go back into the macro and micro economy. Savings rates would increase. People would be able to contribute that money to a down payment on a home. Or starting a business. If Delta folds, it would suck but the Airline Industry isn't a necessity.

There are completely different if the airlines get low interest loans, they have to pay back.
Bailing out student loans are taking loans that have been already paid out, and saying you don't have to pay them back. Completely different.

Don't bailout the student loans, massive #s of people don't lose their jobs. Don't bailout out the airlines, hundreds of thousands of people could lose their jobs.

You're still bailing out a group. You're still picking winners. I get the argument, trust me.

[kalm]

We need to educate people on better decision making first.

And experience is the best teacher.

Touche you bastard!

[BDKJMU]

You mean at the recent RATE of travel, right?

I'm talking about travel for leisure. It's a convenience. The air transportation of goods is a different thing. Frontier Airline isn't vital to the country.

In addition to cargo, which the passenger airlines carry a shit ton of, its a necessity for business. Its a necessity for tourism, esp internationally. People aren't going to take boats across the Atlantic and Pacific. The tourism industry in the US is HUGE.

[BDKJMU]

Maybe we need about 5 airlines for coverage and competitive purposes.....I'm not sure we need 15 of them.

True, and we only have 4 majors, when used to have 7. Don't have 15 that matter..

[Ibanez]

I'm talking about travel for leisure. It's a convenience. The air transportation of goods is a different thing. Frontier Airline isn't vital to the country.

In addition to cargo, which the passenger airlines carry a shit ton of, its a necessity for business. Its a necessity for tourism, esp internationally. People aren't going to take boats across the Atlantic and Pacific. The tourism industry in the US is HUGE.

oh really. Tourism is big business? Hm. That's news to me. Please tell me more about this ...tourism? Did I spell that correctly?

Spoiler: show

My hometown: Few American cities are as quietly captivating as Charleston. I've found it's the type of place that sticks with you for a while after your visit, no matter how short — and I'm certainly not alone in that feeling. It's one of our editor in chief Jacqui Gifford's favorite cities to visit. And the South Carolina port city has topped our readers' list of the best U.S. cities since 2013, even taking the top spot in the world in 2017.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-i ... orlds-best

You're conflating convenience with necessity. The airlines can cease tomorrow and we'll still be able to get cargo from sea to shining sea and around the world - albeit slower.

[UNI88]

They aren't different. It is the government picking winners, again.

Although if they bailed out student loans, I bet there would be an economic boom. The money spent on the loans would go back into the macro and micro economy. Savings rates would increase. People would be able to contribute that money to a down payment on a home. Or starting a business. If Delta folds, it would suck but the Airline Industry isn't a necessity.

There are completely different if the airlines get low interest loans, they have to pay back.
Bailing out student loans are taking loans that have been already paid out, and saying you don't have to pay them back. Completely different.

I'm pretty much against bailouts, period. That being said, don't bailout the student loans, massive #s of people don't lose their jobs. Don't bailout out the airlines, hundreds of thousands of people could lose their jobs. Of course they would eventually come back, as a bankrupt airline(s) would be replaced by others that were expanded or newly created.

Are they asking for loans? Are Trump and Munchkin talking about giving them loans?

How much do they need? How does that compare to how much they spent on share buybacks and executive bonuses in the last 5 years?

I don't want a bailout either but if we're going to bailout airlines or other corporations then we absolutely should put stipulations on what companies that accept the money can and can't do over the next 5-10 years. There should also be an understanding that this will be the last time we bail them out. And the executives who profited from the share buybacks should have to repay their bonuses before their company receives any money.

[BDKJMU]

If the competition is poorly managed (and focusing on short term, bonus enhancing results is poor management) that the government has to prop up, is it really competition?

How is bailing out a poorly managed airline that burned its cash reserves on a stock buyback to boost their EPS different from bailing out a Millennial who borrowed a $100K for a sociology degree? If we bail out one, shouldn't we bail out the other?

I'm with Alphie. Let them fail. It will hurt in the short term but another company will step in the fill the void and maybe their successors will learn from their mistakes and have a nest egg to survive a crisis.

The bailout is due to something being out of the control of the individual or company - remember, the government closed the borders, the government told the airlines they couldn't fly and told their customers they can't use the airlines. The airlines didn't make that decision. And come on, there's no nest egg for any company that can stomach a full business shutdown for 3-6 months - a full business shutdown that involves paying all of their employees at 100% of their pay and benefits during that shutdown while bringing in zero revenue, and then be ready to operate at full capacity the moment the government lifts the restrictions on the marketplace. No one is going to argue that airline companies are the best managed businesses out there, but there's a lot of unrealistic expectations of what any business should be prepared for by saying they should have a magic "nest egg" that covers 3-6 months of operations and guarantees full employment and full pay for workers to do nothing during that time. And if we want them to fail, then so be it, we just need to be cognizant that we need to do something about all of the pilots, flight crews, ground crews, and other staff, mostly just regular working people, that won't have a job for the next 6-12 months. It's easy to say stick it to management, but the management people aren't the ones who will feel the real pain.

As for the millennial, again, we've gone over that. If you wanted to pay $50k a year for 4 years to go to college and borrowed the vast majority of that, that was a choice. No one had to do that. State colleges in every state cost far less than that and would've given just as good of an education as the expensive school. There were realistic options out there and they weren't taken. We know there were realistic options because not everyone went massively into debt to go to college - there were and are still plenty of people who made realistic choices on where to get a college degree, and either paid as they went or they have paid back their much more modest debt load.

Yep. And that's the major difference between the 08'-09' bailouts, and now. The banks and auto manufacturers troubles in 08'-09' were more to do with their poor decision making. Millennials had a choice on taking out huge loans, esp for non STEM degrees. Yeah, the airlines shouldn't have burned through cash reserves to do stock buybacks, but NO ONE before this year could have seen this coming (call it an act of nature, God, whatever).

I'm agains't bailouts in general, but I'm less against them in general if it were due to:
-Major declared war or terrorist act much bigger than 9/11 (something we haven't seen in our lifetimes).
-Once a century catastrophic natural disaster (something we haven't seen in our lifetimes).
-Large scale worldwide pandemic (something we haven't seen in our lifetimes until now).

[BDKJMU]

There are completely different if the airlines get low interest loans, they have to pay back.
Bailing out student loans are taking loans that have been already paid out, and saying you don't have to pay them back. Completely different.

I'm pretty much against bailouts, period. That being said, don't bailout the student loans, massive #s of people don't lose their jobs. Don't bailout out the airlines, hundreds of thousands of people could lose their jobs. Of course they would eventually come back, as a bankrupt airline(s) would be replaced by others that were expanded or newly created.

Are they asking for loans? Are Trump and Munchkin talking about giving them loans?

How much do they need? How does that compare to how much they spent on share buybacks and executive bonuses in the last 5 years?

I don't want a bailout either but if we're going to bailout airlines or other corporations then we absolutely should put stipulations on what companies that accept the money can and can't do over the next 5-10 years. There should also be an understanding that this will be the last time we bail them out. And the executives who profited from the share buybacks should have to repay their bonuses before their company receives any money.

If they aren't loans then I would disagree with them.
Agree on stipulations..

[BDKJMU]

In addition to cargo, which the passenger airlines carry a shit ton of, its a necessity for business. Its a necessity for tourism, esp internationally. People aren't going to take boats across the Atlantic and Pacific. The tourism industry in the US is HUGE.

oh really. Tourism is big business? Hm. That's news to me. Please tell me more about this ...tourism? Did I spell that correctly?

Spoiler: show

My hometown: Few American cities are as quietly captivating as Charleston. I've found it's the type of place that sticks with you for a while after your visit, no matter how short — and I'm certainly not alone in that feeling. It's one of our editor in chief Jacqui Gifford's favorite cities to visit. And the South Carolina port city has topped our readers' list of the best U.S. cities since 2013, even taking the top spot in the world in 2017.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-i ... orlds-best

You're conflating convenience with necessity. The airlines can cease tomorrow and we'll still be able to get cargo from sea to shining sea and around the world - albeit slower.

Call it convenience, but if the airlines ceased, with the hit on business travel, supply chain disruption, and tourism (the trickle down would be extensive) would guarantee a long term depression. You can't just immediately adjust to the way things were 70 years ago.

[GannonFan]

oh really. Tourism is big business? Hm. That's news to me. Please tell me more about this ...tourism? Did I spell that correctly?

Spoiler: show

My hometown: Few American cities are as quietly captivating as Charleston. I've found it's the type of place that sticks with you for a while after your visit, no matter how short — and I'm certainly not alone in that feeling. It's one of our editor in chief Jacqui Gifford's favorite cities to visit. And the South Carolina port city has topped our readers' list of the best U.S. cities since 2013, even taking the top spot in the world in 2017.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-i ... orlds-best

You're conflating convenience with necessity. The airlines can cease tomorrow and we'll still be able to get cargo from sea to shining sea and around the world - albeit slower.

Call it convenience, but if the airlines ceased, with the hit on business travel, supply chain disruption, and tourism (the trickle down would be extensive) would guarantee a long term depression. You can't just immediately adjust to the way things were 70 years ago.

Commercial airlines carry a crap-load of business-related cargo - it's a big deal that that option wouldn't exist.

[Ibanez]

oh really. Tourism is big business? Hm. That's news to me. Please tell me more about this ...tourism? Did I spell that correctly?

Spoiler: show

My hometown: Few American cities are as quietly captivating as Charleston. I've found it's the type of place that sticks with you for a while after your visit, no matter how short — and I'm certainly not alone in that feeling. It's one of our editor in chief Jacqui Gifford's favorite cities to visit. And the South Carolina port city has topped our readers' list of the best U.S. cities since 2013, even taking the top spot in the world in 2017.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-i ... orlds-best

You're conflating convenience with necessity. The airlines can cease tomorrow and we'll still be able to get cargo from sea to shining sea and around the world - albeit slower.

Call it convenience, but if the airlines ceased, with the hit on business travel, supply chain disruption, and tourism (the trickle down would be extensive) would guarantee a long term depression. You can't just immediately adjust to the way things were 70 years ago.

Did I suggest otherwise? No.

[BDKJMU]

Call it convenience, but if the airlines ceased, with the hit on business travel, supply chain disruption, and tourism (the trickle down would be extensive) would guarantee a long term depression. You can't just immediately adjust to the way things were 70 years ago.

Did I suggest otherwise? No.

Well, I disagree with calling it a convenience as far as the economy goes.

[mainejeff]

Can someone edit the thread title to $6 trillion?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/cor ... -trillion/

[Aho Old Guy]

Can someone edit the thread title to $6 trillion?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/cor ... -trillion/

You are likely surprisingly correct, but I'm gonna massage the reasoning, somewhat.

When Crazy Larry says, "...$4 trillion will come in liquidity from the Federal Reserve...," that is in U.S. Treasury securities.

The Fed swaps OUR Treasury securities to the private Banksters for 'Mortgage-backed securities' and/or other 'securtized' Repurchase agreements to liquidi-fy financial markets. (That is shown below -- note the year-over-year.) This is called Quantitative Easing or "QE"

This "Liquidity" becomes part of the Assets of the Fed Balance Sheet. Crazy Larry (it appears) wants more liquidity -- the Fed is increasing Treasury securities... and the Fed Balance Sheet grows to $6 Trillion.

The $1.5T (now $2T) is from the US Treasury Dept in the form of Uncle Stevie's Golden Bucket of Tax Payer Cash.

We're screwed. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is a crook. This dirt-bag is going to take $350B in loans from taxpayers, and turn it into $15 Trillion in Wall Street derivatives.

[BDKJMU]

Just heard Lindsey Graham talking about the bill (which hasn't passed yet) explaining why he and a # of other Senators aren't going to vote for it (fillibuster?).

He said it pays $600 ABOVE unemployment. He said for example in SC that unemployment pays out $326 a week. So in SC a person on unemployment would get $926 a week/$23+ an hr ($326 + $600) (Weekly salary of someone making about 48k a year). So basically anyone not making more than that would stay on unemployment. People wouldn't go back to work for jobs that paid $10, $15, $20 an hr..If true the way I heard it, wow.

He wants to make it so a person gets paid up to what they were making, capped at 50k. Said could live with all the pork in there for stuff like museums, but not the above.