Can we not afford to send poor folks $1200 also? I see that as an issue since we're loaning billions to bailout these corporations.
I think it depends on how federal tax liability is defined. If you worked even 1 hour during 2018, you'd have Social Security / Medicare taxes, so I'm not sure what it might refer to. That said, it does hit people who just entered the workforce this past year a bit, since they wouldn't have had tax liability in 2018. But without tax returns having been filed for 2019, I'm not sure how they even figure that out.
which explains this developing story Trump Administration Asks States To Bury Unemployment Claim Figures The Trump administration’s Labor Department sent an email to state officials this week asking them to report new unemployment claims only in “generalities” to avoid spooking financial markets, The New York Times reported. The email on Wednesday asked state labor authorities to only “provide information using generalities to describe claims levels (very high, large increase)” until the Labor Department releases the total number of national claims next Thursday. “States should not provide numeric values to the public,” Gay Gilbert, the administrator of the department’s Office of Employment Insurance, wrote in the email shared with the Times. The message noted that the figures are closely tracked by financial markets judging the strength of the economy. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/labo...nemployment-claims_n_5e745dc5c5b6eab7794577ee
Interesting in that trump has in the past prereleased employment numbers in advance... DOL to states: Don't leak unemployment claim numbers https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-states-dont-leak-unemployment-numbers-139268
Sell everything now, the response is failing. OUr response is only as good as it's weakest link. For all the lockdowns in Seattle or San Francisco or New York, all of that work is undone when other states lke Florida drag their feet. Florida is going to be a complete disaster unless by some miracle hot weather lowers transmissions. They are just now getting aroudn to doing things everybody else was doing a few weeks ago.
Point taken. Jesse Kelly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, isn't a medical expert or scientist and is idiotic enough to believe prolonging the life of the pandemic, exposing more people, and causing more deaths will be good for the economy. I haven't been a fan of his long before this, but this is one of the more idiotic things he's ever posted.
btw, wasn't jesse kelly the wingnut that was kicked off twitter? I was getting confused what he was calling for?
Also, notice that in his dumbass scenario, "experts" are discussing the consequences of failing to contain the virus while "someone" is ranting about the looming Trump Depression.
I think in 6 months you're going to look back on this post and feel otherwise. The scope and scale of what is coming economically is without precedent. It's a steeper crash than 2008 or 1929, and trying to bounce back quickly just risks more danger. It's going to be bad. The numbers are going start pouring in and they're going to be orders of magnitude worse than anything on record. that's not even considering the continuing COVID19 impact. I think we need to double, triple or quadruple this.
Keep in mind there was another position on the debate floor, which is also the more standard way to respond. The debate isn't just between 2) providing cash Bail-outs and 3) providing Bail-outs with equity stake for govt. The first option in most debates like this is 1) 0% bridge loans vs cash bail out of any kind. (But Trump controlled media coverage of this by implying there is only 2 options, instead of 3.) Many in the finance world are saying that these big companies are not cash-poor atm, so they just need bridge loans. imo, it sounds like GOP Senate/Trump is forcing them to give up equity, vs loans. They're holding the money hostage.
Well, I think it's both. I believe the $50 billion in the initial GOP bill is in the form of loans - but then also possibly taking equity or whatever other mechanism to share in profits as the penalty for having to take on that risk if those companies fail.
Well, that’s even worse...and I don’t think it’s correct. That’s not what I’m hearing. And isn’t there already a mechanism for lenders to get reimbursed for company’s going banckrupt. As lender, there is already a means for US govt to get first dibs at liquidation. I’m not following what you’re saying. Can you provide a link, saying it’s Loan with Equity requirements added on? That is not a 0% Bridge Loan! There is no reason for them to hold bail out money hostage for share in profits, when the companies might just want a bridge loan ... clean and clear.
