8 ms·

From the time Congress passed the $6.2T Bill that gave $4T to the FED to prop up the stock market, $700B in PPP loans; and and estimated $300B to the people ($1

From the time Congress passed the $6.2T Bill that gave $4T to the FED to prop up the stock market, $700B in PPP loans; and and estimated $300B to the people ($1,200) stimulus checks, it should have put things in perspective. Ideally the stock market wouldn't have been propped up and the PPP loan program would have been more legitimate to save real small businesses (just wait until all the fraud comes out of this thing). If all that money instead went to the people/taxpayers they would all have received an $18,000 stimulus check instead of $1,200, I think this would have been the best move possible (and maybe some form of healthcare coverage for the uninsured, being in a pandemic and all instead of pretending providing coverage to the uninsured would be taking away their freedom to be uninsured).

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> and estimated $300B to the people ($1,200) stimulus checks It’s not correct to say that people only received $1200. Everyone qualified for that stimulus (depending on income thresholds, it was phased out for higher incomes), regardless of job loss. Unemployed people receive an additional $600/week from the late-March COVID relief bill through July 31. There are additional measures to extend the duration of regular state unemployment. The combined benefits given to unemployed people are over $10K/person additional, on top of regular state unemployment. Furthermore, many of the numbers you’re citing are in the form of loans or other non-spending activity. It’s not correct to suggest that we could have simply given that money to the people and arrived at the same budgetary outcome. I don’t agree with the way all of the funds have been allocated, but suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed, such as the unemployment measures and loans for businesses that were forced to close, not just distributed to everyone who kept their jobs and businesses.
- clansimus 6y ago
  > That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. No, it didn't.
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    Okay, to be pedantic because your comment didn’t provide full details: The $1200 went to adults who were not dependents of someone else and who earned less than a certain threshold, with the amount prorated depending on your AGI and your tax filing type (single, married, head of household). My point was that everyone qualified for it. It wasn’t dependent on losing your job first. You could keep your job and still receive the (up to) $1200 stimulus if your income met the thresholds.
    - Sodman 6y ago
      Part of the problem is that many people lost their jobs and were/are unemployed for months, but had a tax filing in a prior year above a threshold disqualified them from receiving the $1200.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      There are quite literally millions of people who qualified for the stimulus, but didn't receive it. I know several of such people.
- sidewndr46 6y ago
  > That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. I did not get any notice as such, but my understanding as to why I got $0 was I made too much money to qualify. So I don't think your statement is in any way accurate. It did not go to "everyone"
- milquetoastaf 6y ago
  >It’s not correct to say that people only received $1200. That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. No it didn't. It only went to people making less than 70k
- Zetaphor 6y ago
  > That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. This is provably false. It only went to people who filed taxes in 2019 and who met the qualifications. Despite both of those things still being true, and having lost my job as a direct result of COVID-19, I was still told I would not be receiving the benefits. I was not given a reason by the automated system and I have yet to reach a human being to explain my rejection. I am far from an isolated case
  - votepaunchy 6y ago
    > This is provably false. It only went to people who filed taxes in 2019 and who met the qualifications. The stimulus check will be part of your 2020 tax return, and you will claim the money as a refund then if you have not already received your money. Any money incorrectly paid out will likewise be reclaimed via that process.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Paying out next year upon filing taxes doesn't do a lot to keep people afloat who are unemployed now. That's long enough to end up on the street.
      - sangnoir 6y ago
        All you said is true, but this is the mechanism Congress decided to distribute the money (a universal, early tax refund for 2020), and that are its failure modes - some people will get it later than others if the government doesn't currently have their information on file, or only has paper returns.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  Fine if you want to add the amount for subsidizing the Unemployment Insurance from the CARES Act the numbers again: $4T to the FED to prop up the stock market $700B in forgivable loans to small businesses (PPP program) $300B in taxpayer stimulus checks $260B in Unemployment Insurance subsidies >suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed It is not disingenuous at all to say taxpayers should have received the lions share of these bailouts (bailouts being paid for by taxpayers), or at minimum its not disingenuous to say taxpayers (not law makers beholden to corporate interests) should have dictated where the bailout funds go...I would say it is disingenuous to claim taxpayers would have sent 8x the amount they received to the FED to prop up an overvalued stock market that was already at record highs.
  - mrep 6y ago
    The FED has only bought around 3 trillion dollars worth of assets and basically all of that is being used to buy our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities, not the stock market as you can see from their balance sheet [0]. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm
    - throwaway_USD 6y ago
      The 2 largest numbers on their balance sheet are: Reserve Bank credit: 7,009,664 Securities held outright[1]: 6,115,130 [1] Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility (when people talk about JPow money printer go brrr...this is what they are talking about and nearly every night for 2 months after the FED got the $4T overnight the markets would skyrocket)
dahfizz 6y ago
> If all that money instead went to the people/taxpayers they would all have received an $18,000 stimulus check instead of $1,200, I think this would have been the best move possible. Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 . I understand your sentiment, and it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move. Another depression wouldn't help anyone, and a majority of Americans have a 401k. The idea that only the super rich benefit from a good stock market is plain wrong - most people depend on it.
- repeek 6y ago
  > and a majority of Americans have a 401k Source? According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1] [1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-american-have-a-401k.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Over 70% of workers have access to an employee retirement plan, and 56% of all workers participate in one[1]. So I did misremember the stats slightly. Its all workers instead of all Americans, and a generic "employer sponsored retirement plan" vs specifically a 401k, but my point still stands. If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these people to retire is linked to stock performance. [1] https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/civilian/table02a.pdf https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/civilian... [2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2018-retirement.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...
    - dlp211 6y ago
      Great, now how much does the median retiree have saved? Also, the vast majority of people shouldn't give two licks about keeping the market high today because the vast majority of people are more than a decade out from retirement. What should have been an event that allowed people to build wealth instead became one to preserve the wealth of those who already have it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
noelsusman 6y ago
Congress didn't give the Federal Reserve $4 trillion. They gave the Treasury Department $500 billion, which the Federal Reserve leveraged to give out about $3 trillion in loans.
koheripbal 6y ago
This conflates LOANS with GRANTS. Your comparison lacks even the most basic understanding of finance. In 2008, when the banks were "bailed out" - the government used loans - which ultimately turned a profit. So all of the anger about "socializing the losses and privatizing the gains" was all baloney. Because the taxpayers literally made a profit on the loans they gave to Wall Street.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  The firms should have gone bankrupt. In that case, the government or any solvent entity could have benefited by purchasing the assets at market prices. That the firms did not go bankrupt, was a gift to shareholders from taxpayers.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    This is a very uneducated point of view, that ignores the facts in my prior comment. In a liquidity crunch, perfectly solvent and functional companies can go bankrupt. ...and indeed those that had balance sheets hopelessly underwater DID go bankrupt (ie Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, as well as dozens of other smaller banks). The fact that the government was able to extend LOANS to other banks is not a "gift" at all, because those loans were paid back with significant interest. Do you understand, the taxpayer profited from the Wall Street loans of 2008. Allowing solvent but illiquid companies to go bankrupt is needless economic destruction that serves zero purpose - and the fact that they survived despite having to pay back the gov't loans with interest is evidence of that.
    - rbrtl 6y ago
      http://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsV12.pdf http://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsV12.p...
- cwhiz 6y ago
  Taxpayers should have owned the businesses they bailed out. We gave these banks low interest loans when their only alternative was insolvency. What a crappy bargain! Taxpayers should have owned the banks, helped them recover, and then sold them for huge profits. What’s JP Morgan worth today? That’s a start in calculating how much was stolen from taxpayers.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> and estimated $300B to the people ($1,200) stimulus checks It’s not correct to say that people only received $1200. Everyone qualified for that stimulus (depending on income thresholds, it was phased out for higher incomes), regardless of job loss. Unemployed people receive an additional $600/week from the late-March COVID relief bill through July 31. There are additional measures to extend the duration of regular state unemployment. The combined benefits given to unemployed people are over $10K/person additional, on top of regular state unemployment. Furthermore, many of the numbers you’re citing are in the form of loans or other non-spending activity. It’s not correct to suggest that we could have simply given that money to the people and arrived at the same budgetary outcome. I don’t agree with the way all of the funds have been allocated, but suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed, such as the unemployment measures and loans for businesses that were forced to close, not just distributed to everyone who kept their jobs and businesses.

clansimus 6y ago
> That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. No, it didn't.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Okay, to be pedantic because your comment didn’t provide full details: The $1200 went to adults who were not dependents of someone else and who earned less than a certain threshold, with the amount prorated depending on your AGI and your tax filing type (single, married, head of household). My point was that everyone qualified for it. It wasn’t dependent on losing your job first. You could keep your job and still receive the (up to) $1200 stimulus if your income met the thresholds.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    Part of the problem is that many people lost their jobs and were/are unemployed for months, but had a tax filing in a prior year above a threshold disqualified them from receiving the $1200.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    There are quite literally millions of people who qualified for the stimulus, but didn't receive it. I know several of such people.
sidewndr46 6y ago
> That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. I did not get any notice as such, but my understanding as to why I got $0 was I made too much money to qualify. So I don't think your statement is in any way accurate. It did not go to "everyone"
milquetoastaf 6y ago
>It’s not correct to say that people only received $1200. That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. No it didn't. It only went to people making less than 70k
Zetaphor 6y ago
> That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. This is provably false. It only went to people who filed taxes in 2019 and who met the qualifications. Despite both of those things still being true, and having lost my job as a direct result of COVID-19, I was still told I would not be receiving the benefits. I was not given a reason by the automated system and I have yet to reach a human being to explain my rejection. I am far from an isolated case
- votepaunchy 6y ago
  > This is provably false. It only went to people who filed taxes in 2019 and who met the qualifications. The stimulus check will be part of your 2020 tax return, and you will claim the money as a refund then if you have not already received your money. Any money incorrectly paid out will likewise be reclaimed via that process.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Paying out next year upon filing taxes doesn't do a lot to keep people afloat who are unemployed now. That's long enough to end up on the street.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      All you said is true, but this is the mechanism Congress decided to distribute the money (a universal, early tax refund for 2020), and that are its failure modes - some people will get it later than others if the government doesn't currently have their information on file, or only has paper returns.
throwaway_USD 6y ago
Fine if you want to add the amount for subsidizing the Unemployment Insurance from the CARES Act the numbers again: $4T to the FED to prop up the stock market $700B in forgivable loans to small businesses (PPP program) $300B in taxpayer stimulus checks $260B in Unemployment Insurance subsidies >suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed It is not disingenuous at all to say taxpayers should have received the lions share of these bailouts (bailouts being paid for by taxpayers), or at minimum its not disingenuous to say taxpayers (not law makers beholden to corporate interests) should have dictated where the bailout funds go...I would say it is disingenuous to claim taxpayers would have sent 8x the amount they received to the FED to prop up an overvalued stock market that was already at record highs.
- mrep 6y ago
  The FED has only bought around 3 trillion dollars worth of assets and basically all of that is being used to buy our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities, not the stock market as you can see from their balance sheet [0]. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    The 2 largest numbers on their balance sheet are: Reserve Bank credit: 7,009,664 Securities held outright[1]: 6,115,130 [1] Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility (when people talk about JPow money printer go brrr...this is what they are talking about and nearly every night for 2 months after the FED got the $4T overnight the markets would skyrocket)

dahfizz 6y ago

> If all that money instead went to the people/taxpayers they would all have received an $18,000 stimulus check instead of $1,200, I think this would have been the best move possible. Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 . I understand your sentiment, and it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move. Another depression wouldn't help anyone, and a majority of Americans have a 401k. The idea that only the super rich benefit from a good stock market is plain wrong - most people depend on it.

repeek 6y ago
> and a majority of Americans have a 401k Source? According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1] [1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-american-have-a-401k.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...
- dahfizz 6y ago
  Over 70% of workers have access to an employee retirement plan, and 56% of all workers participate in one[1]. So I did misremember the stats slightly. Its all workers instead of all Americans, and a generic "employer sponsored retirement plan" vs specifically a 401k, but my point still stands. If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these people to retire is linked to stock performance. [1] https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/civilian/table02a.pdf https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/civilian... [2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2018-retirement.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...
  - dlp211 6y ago
    Great, now how much does the median retiree have saved? Also, the vast majority of people shouldn't give two licks about keeping the market high today because the vast majority of people are more than a decade out from retirement. What should have been an event that allowed people to build wealth instead became one to preserve the wealth of those who already have it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

noelsusman 6y ago

Congress didn't give the Federal Reserve $4 trillion. They gave the Treasury Department $500 billion, which the Federal Reserve leveraged to give out about $3 trillion in loans.

koheripbal 6y ago

This conflates LOANS with GRANTS. Your comparison lacks even the most basic understanding of finance. In 2008, when the banks were "bailed out" - the government used loans - which ultimately turned a profit. So all of the anger about "socializing the losses and privatizing the gains" was all baloney. Because the taxpayers literally made a profit on the loans they gave to Wall Street.

jessaustin 6y ago
The firms should have gone bankrupt. In that case, the government or any solvent entity could have benefited by purchasing the assets at market prices. That the firms did not go bankrupt, was a gift to shareholders from taxpayers.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  This is a very uneducated point of view, that ignores the facts in my prior comment. In a liquidity crunch, perfectly solvent and functional companies can go bankrupt. ...and indeed those that had balance sheets hopelessly underwater DID go bankrupt (ie Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, as well as dozens of other smaller banks). The fact that the government was able to extend LOANS to other banks is not a "gift" at all, because those loans were paid back with significant interest. Do you understand, the taxpayer profited from the Wall Street loans of 2008. Allowing solvent but illiquid companies to go bankrupt is needless economic destruction that serves zero purpose - and the fact that they survived despite having to pay back the gov't loans with interest is evidence of that.
  - rbrtl 6y ago
    http://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsV12.pdf http://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsV12.p...
cwhiz 6y ago
Taxpayers should have owned the businesses they bailed out. We gave these banks low interest loans when their only alternative was insolvency. What a crappy bargain! Taxpayers should have owned the banks, helped them recover, and then sold them for huge profits. What’s JP Morgan worth today? That’s a start in calculating how much was stolen from taxpayers.