Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

I really like the plan that Elizabeth Warren laid out to fight that, though it has a snowball's chance in hell in passing in Congress.

Here is it:

- Payrolls must be maintained and companies must use funds to keep people working or on payroll.

- $15 minimum wage within one year of the end of the national emergency.

- Permanent ban on share buybacks.

- No dividends or executive bonuses while receiving relief and for three years afterwards.

- Must obtain shareholder and board approval for all political spending.

- Collective bargaining agreements should remain in place.

What I hope all of this exposes is the myth of capitalism. These corporations asking for bailouts is the exact opposite. Under capitalism, they should all be allowed to fail due to the fact that they have not properly prepared for this crisis.

What's happening now is pretty much a lapsed form of pseudo-capitalism.

Blue wrote:All these industries are asking for bailouts, kinda making the case that it would be cheaper to just nationalize them and buy them out.

I am not going to advocate for that, but there has to be way to stop this con every 8-10 years.

10 years ago it was the banks and car companies, which were saved, paid back the money promptly and saved thousands of jobs.

Today it's airlines and hotels. There is no overlap.

The US can and should continue to be a lender of last resort to these ailed industries. But like any lender of last resort their loans should come with strings attached.

Art Morte wrote:

Blue wrote:All these industries are asking for bailouts, kinda making the case that it would be cheaper to just nationalize them and buy them out.

I am not going to advocate for that, but there has to be way to stop this con every 8-10 years.

Yeah, it's ridiculous, when they're making profit they're paying dividends (and possibly buying back their own shares) and when hard times hit it's "oh, please give us taxpayer money so we won't go bankrupt." That's capitalism for the rich right there.

Yup it is quite the scam they are pulling. Even cruise lines and Casinos are asking for bailouts, like WTF. Some of them are not even Americans.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Blue wrote:All these industries are asking for bailouts, kinda making the case that it would be cheaper to just nationalize them and buy them out.

I am not going to advocate for that, but there has to be way to stop this con every 8-10 years.

10 years ago it was the banks and car companies, which were saved, paid back the money promptly and saved thousands of jobs.

Today it's airlines and hotels. There is no overlap.

The US can and should continue to be a lender of last resort to these ailed industries. But like any lender of last resort their loans should come with strings attached.

Actually there is though, for example Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway one of the biggest shareholder of Delta, United, and SouthWest and in 2008/09 he largely benefited from his Bank OF America bailout. You would be surprised by the overlap, due to the concentration of wealth in this country.

Edit: Seriously though i am looking at some of these companies market cap, it really might be cheaper for the US Government to buy them out.

The problem with government ownership is not the cost of purchase but that the government is a terrible manager.

Buffet owns everything. That's not news. You could argue the same about pension funds or mutual funds.

I don't love corporate welfare at all, but there is a legitimate need for having airlines in this country as they play a role in having an inter connected economy. There is also a strategic need to have domestic oil production, as otherwise you depend on the middle east and the US has a perverse incentive to "free" countries there as a result.

More fundamentally though, these businesses are not going out because of bad business decisions they made but rather because of an unexpected temporary event. If they ran these companies to the ground then sure, but now, it's just a liquidity problem, the business fundamentals remain unchanged.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:The problem with government ownership is not the cost of purchase but that the government is a terrible manager.

Buffet owns everything. That's not news. You could argue the same about pension funds or mutual funds.

I don't love corporate welfare at all, but there is a legitimate need for having airlines in this country as they play a role in having an inter connected economy. There is also a strategic need to have domestic oil production, as otherwise you depend on the middle east and the US has a perverse incentive to "free" countries there as a result.

More fundamentally though, these businesses are not going out because of bad business decisions they made but rather because of an unexpected temporary event. If they ran these companies to the ground then sure, but now, it's just a liquidity problem, the business fundamentals remain unchanged.

So you're essentially arguing that these airlines are too big to fail. Their importance to the global economy is noted, but this remains a dangerous argument. One they can (and will) take advantage of, if they are bailed out.

My point here is that bailouts are not capitalist. We live in a so-called capitalist society, where preparation saves companies and the lack thereof should doom them. If we start bailing out companies that didn't think ahead (even for something as inconceivable as this), then we are not inherently a capitalist society. We just like to think we are. So I disagree slightly with the notion that not being prepared for this pandemic can't be considered a bad business decision. It is. These are multi-billion dollar companies with executives paid millions of dollars to ensure their companies are prepared for something like this. It's inexcusable to me that they not only weren't, but when faced with that reality, they choose to protect themselves over their workers, who I freely admit will suffer the most if no bailout comes.

Personally, the only way I could ever support bailing these companies out is with significant government oversight. They don't get a bailout and get to return to the practices that led to them needing one to begin with. That's why I support each point of Sen. Warren's plan. There must be consequences for the taxpayers having to bail out these companies when they don't even treat their customers or employees well enough to consider them worth even thinking about helping vs. buying back shares.

And I say this as someone who works in the auto industry and had a front row seat to what it's like working for a bailed out company after the Great Recession.

"Too big to fail" is entirely legit. When you have 10s of thousands, if not 100s of thousands of dirct employees... and then God knows how many more who are vendors, suppliers, etc... you can't let them fail abruptly.

We let Lehman Brothers just fail as we couldn't find a "market" solution... and we all know what happened there.

The Great Depression happened because the government didn't interfere.

There is no such thing as a perfect Market Economy because there's no such thing as perfect rational decision-making (which is the underlying assumption)... there are emotion and panic factors. That's where the government plays a role.

sportsczy wrote:"Too big to fail" is entirely legit. When you have 10s of thousands, if not 100s of thousands of dirct employees... and then God knows how many more who are vendors, suppliers, etc... you can't let them fail abruptly.

We let Lehman Brothers just fail as we couldn't find a "market" solution... and we all know what happened there.

The Great Depression happened because the government didn't interfere.

There is no such thing as a perfect Market Economy because there's no such thing as perfect rational decision-making (which is the underlying assumption)... there are emotion and panic factors. That's where the government plays a role.

And all of that's reasonable and realistically, I have no real disagreement. Ideologically and philosophically, however, it also means we're not the bastion of capitalism we've duped ourselves into believe we are. I really want people to understand this. I really want conservatives and moderates to admit this to themselves. We think we are capitalist. We wish we were. But we're not. By bailing out whole industries, we are inherently closer to socialist than capitalist. That's my entire point here. I know we're going to bailout the airline companies, I don't like it, but I agree with it because it's the right thing to do for those workers. But the people at the top of those companies shouldn't be allowed to profit at all from this bailout. No golden parachutes. No share buy backs. No bonuses. Nothing. They did nothing to prevent this and instead protected themselves. They deserve no benefit from the taxpayers having to save their asses.

We're not closer to socialist than capitalist.  We are very very clearly capitalist for the most part.  Socialism implies that the government controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange.  Socialism advocates collectivism.

Bernie wants social democracy, as an example... and that's not even anywhere near socialism.

Capitalism is most impacted by such "shocks" because it relies on people continuing to make rational decisions mostly... which they don't.  Thankfully, these shocks happen very seldomly and the benefit of capitalism far outweigh the cost of its vulnerabilities.

The US government is simply very poor at interfering in the economy to re-balance things when these shocks occur. That should be a clear indication that we don't want them involved any further in how things function. In fact, given their performance, I'm becoming more and more conservative & anti-government. Without mayors and governors trying their best to fill the leadership vacuum, we'd be completely screwed.

If is uncomfortable truth I am not willing to accept. That large corporations can enjoy record profits in good times; Enchrich their executives, pay dividends, buyback stocks. While in a temporary crisis they need taxpayers to bail them out.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that America has "socialism for the rich" and "rugged free enterprise for the poor."

Never more true than in our time.

Blue wrote:If is uncomfortable truth I am not willing to accept. That large corporations can enjoy record profits in good times; Enchrich their executives, pay dividends, buyback stocks. While in a temporary crisis they need taxpayers to bail them out.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that America has "socialism for the rich" and "rugged free enterprise for the poor."

Never more true than in our time.

Some companies are simply too big to fail. For our economy and the world alike.

sportsczy wrote:We're not closer to socialist than capitalist.  We are very very clearly capitalist for the most part.  Socialism implies that the government controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange.  Socialism advocates collectivism.

Bernie wants social democracy, as an example... and that's not even anywhere near socialism.

Capitalism is most impacted by such "shocks" because it relies on people continuing to make rational decisions mostly... which they don't.  Thankfully, these shocks happen very seldomly and the benefit of capitalism far outweigh the cost of its vulnerabilities.

The US government is simply very poor at interfering in the economy to re-balance things when these shocks occur.  That should be a clear indication that we don't want them involved any further in how things function.  In fact, given their performance, I'm becoming more and more conservative & anti-government.  Without mayors and governors trying their best to fill the leadership vacuum, we'd be completely screwed.

With an administration this inept, I don't blame you for going more to the right. It's pushing me more to the left. It's something I feel it more consciously than I probably ever have before.

I can't stand our politics... right or left. I'm voting for Biden (assuming he picks Kamala Harris or someone like that as his VP) because he's actually a moderate and he can't do any worse than Trump.

I literally haven't been able to watch the news... any news... for 4 years now.

Why doesn't Boeing have money saved up for emergencies? If they're poor, how come they have an iPhone & TV? Maybe they should get another job. Or just work harder. Drive for Uber on the side. Stop wasting money on Doordash. Not our fault they chose a major that doesn't pay well https://t.co/ScyYooihSy

— Keziyah (@KeziyahL) March 19, 2020

This sums my thoughts on bailing out Boeing rather nicely. It's personal accountability for us, but bailouts for them.

Boeing can't go under... come on.  They have over 150k employees.  The downstream companies that rely on Boeing to survive have another 800k workers.

Also, it's not that they ran their business poorly and shot themselves in the foot (like banks in the financial crisis).  Airlines around the world reneged or delayed orders thus crushing their cash flow due to coronavirus.  Those airlines could no longer afford the planes.

Which brings me to airlines... same deal.  They didn't make bad business decisions.  The world shut down and killed their industry due to coronavirus.  600k people are employed by airlines... not to mention, people will need to fly again soon.

Let's be reasonable here. As much as banks were the culprits in the financial crisis and the beneficiaries of the bailout... the current bailouts are meant to save companies who are 100% victims AND whose demise would be disastrous.

McLewis wrote:

Spoiler:

So you're essentially arguing that these airlines are too big to fail. Their importance to the global economy is noted, but this remains a dangerous argument. One they can (and will) take advantage of, if they are bailed out.

My point here is that bailouts are not capitalist. We live in a so-called capitalist society, where preparation saves companies and the lack thereof should doom them. If we start bailing out companies that didn't think ahead (even for something as inconceivable as this), then we are not inherently a capitalist society. We just like to think we are. So I disagree slightly with the notion that not being prepared for this pandemic can't be considered a bad business decision. It is. These are multi-billion dollar companies with executives paid millions of dollars to ensure their companies are prepared for something like this. It's inexcusable to me that they not only weren't, but when faced with that reality, they choose to protect themselves over their workers, who I freely admit will suffer the most if no bailout comes.

Personally, the only way I could ever support bailing these companies out is with significant government oversight. They don't get a bailout and get to return to the practices that led to them needing one to begin with. That's why I support each point of Sen. Warren's plan. There must be consequences for the taxpayers having to bail out these companies when they don't even treat their customers or employees well enough to consider them worth even thinking about helping vs. buying back shares.

And I say this as someone who works in the auto industry and had a front row seat to what it's like working for a bailed out company after the Great Recession.

Agreed, it's not really capitalistic. But the US is not a true capitalistic society for some time now (if ever...)

"Too big to fail" refers to an individual company being safe because we can't afford to let them go under. This is a bit different in that its the entire industry. If it were just, say, American Airlines then I'd have no problem letting them face the consequences of their bad actions.

I would be OK with most of Warren's provisions (except no buybucks forever, I would make that the same as dividends, from a firm's standpoint there is no difference between a share buyback and issuing dividends so these should be the same).

I would also be OK with this being an equity infusion rather than a loan, and to create some sort of fund.[/quote]

Didn't know this thread existed. I guess being bored in quarantine prompted me to check every thread on this forum

Does anyone know how long it will take to apply for US citizenship? And also can I vote immediately if I get my citizenship just before the elections? I was born in the US but my parents never applied for US passports.

Wow, someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong but do you have to "apply for citizenship" if you were born here?

If you're born in the US, you're a US citizen. And a birth certificate would be documentation of that fact. Whether there are other documents you need...I'm not sure of that. I don't think so.

danyjr wrote:Didn't know this thread existed. I guess being bored in quarantine prompted me to check every thread on this forum

Does anyone know how long it will take to apply for US citizenship? And also can I vote immediately if I get my citizenship just before the elections? I was born in the US but my parents never applied for US passports.

You're already a citizen. Do you have your birth certificate? I don't know the details of getting a passport from there but you are eligible for it.

Not really sure about the details of voting absentee, but this might help. Usually the deadline to sign up for voting is a few weeks/months before the actual vote.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/voting.html

so what happens to the elections now. will they just put it off until the virus is under control and then start the campane back up.

Are you guys saying I don't need a US Passport to vote for the elections?! I thought you needed that, otherwise I would have voted before.

Thing is I also don't have an address in the US. I was born in Florida, does that mean I can vote for Florida?

Incredible that danyjr is finding out he is an american citizen on the forum

GL

Guys I'm 99% sure I'm not an American citizen. I do have a certificate of birth but it doesn't say I'm an American citizen on it.

danyjr wrote:Guys I'm 99% sure I'm not an American citizen. I do have a certificate of birth but it doesn't say I'm an American citizen on it.

If you're born in the US you're an american citizen. End of. Congrats?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

You can get a passport through your birth certificate, as long as it has the following:

Issued by the city, county, or state of birth
Lists your full name, date of birth, and place of birth
Lists your parent(s)' full names
Has the date filed with registrar's office (must be within one year of birth)
Has the registrar's signature
Has the seal of the issuing authority

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/outside-us.html

I have lived my entire life not having known this. I am having a headache right now.