What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Just heard on NPR that loan forgiveness goes "up to $20,000."

[Habbaku]

Yeah, if you received a Pell Grant at any point ( ) then you qualify for the larger giveaw--er, forgiveness.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean, like I suggested--at a "meta" policy level, sure I care about the deficit. But when deficit spending appears to not matter to most people when we are doing $2 trillion in fiscally unsound tax cuts, when we're funding a $950bn, unneeded business handout program, not to mention a few trillion of other boondoggle shit...but when people who don't own business and aren't rich are suddenly set to get a few hundred billion and now a lot of fiscal conservatives speak up? Nah. Fuck that all the way. If we're going to pillage the public treasury, and we have and are, I'm all for more people than just the billionaire class benefitting.

[garbon]

I mean, like I suggested--at a "meta" policy level, sure I care about the deficit. But when deficit spending appears to not matter to most people when we are doing $2 trillion in fiscally unsound tax cuts, when we're funding a $950bn, unneeded business handout program, not to mention a few trillion of other boondoggle shit...but when people who don't own business and aren't rich are suddenly set to get a few hundred billion and now a lot of fiscal conservatives speak up? Nah. Fuck that all the way. If we're going to pillage the public treasury, and we have and are, I'm all for more people than just the billionaire class benefitting.

Agreed. It appears to surface whenever there needs to be a reason why something they don't like shouldn't receive funding.

[Admiral Yi]

I have heard very little from Republicans about deficits recently.

[Maladict]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwBftMI23Lg

$10K student loan forgiveness for everyone making less than $125K.

Someone making 125K comes in around the 90th percentile. Are these people really that crippled by student debt they need a bailout? I can't help but think there are people in more desperate situations.

[Berkut]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwBftMI23Lg

$10K student loan forgiveness for everyone making less than $125K.

Someone making 125K comes in around the 90th percentile. Are these people really that crippled by student debt they need a bailout? I can't help but think there are people in more desperate situations.

The people in more desperate situation get the bail out as well.

[HVC]

I'd you're bailing out wouldn't it make more sense to allocate more to the poorer rather then spread it our to those that aren't really in need?

[alfred russel]

- We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses. Going back to TARP, the auto bailouts, the PPP loans, the Trump wealthy tax cuts, we're probably pushing $4 trillion in handouts to the moneyed interests in this country since 2009,

Wait wut?

TARP actually made money when all was said and done, and the auto bailouts were comparatively small in scope and with TARP probably made money as well. The PPP loans scoped out any large businesses (such as those with more than 500 employees). So when you say we have funneled massive amounts of money to "the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses" we are at roughly $0 in the first 3 of the four programs you've named.

So we are left with the Trump tax cuts, which were well less than $4 trillion, which also seem an odd reason to be cool with funneling $10k to certain tax payers.

[Valmy]

- We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses. Going back to TARP, the auto bailouts, the PPP loans, the Trump wealthy tax cuts, we're probably pushing $4 trillion in handouts to the moneyed interests in this country since 2009,

Wait wut?

TARP actually made money when all was said and done, and the auto bailouts were comparatively small in scope and with TARP probably made money as well. The PPP loans scoped out any large businesses (such as those with more than 500 employees). So when you say we have funneled massive amounts of money to "the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses" we are at roughly $0 in the first 3 of the four programs you've named.

So we are left with the Trump tax cuts, which were well less than $4 trillion, which also seem an odd reason to be cool with funneling $10k to certain tax payers.

Well how do you know freeing up all that money into the economy by unburdening these working Americans won't also make money? If that is the standard we are using here.

[alfred russel]

Well how do you know freeing up all that money into the economy by unburdening these working Americans won't also make money? If that is the standard we are using here.

That is not the standard we are using here.

TARP and to an extent the auto bailouts worked with the government buying massive amounts of troubled assets and providing loan guarantees. In the end the government collected interest on those assets, and collected when they matured or were sold. If you add together the amounts the government collected on the assets and the amount that they paid, the government actually made money. It didn't look like that would be the case at the time, and the government was taking on a massive risk if the market continued to melt down, but that didn't happen.

Writing off a loan of $10k does not give the government an asset that may offset the loss at some future date, either in whole or in part. It is just a loss of $10k, or in aggregate $300 billion.

[OttoVonBismarck]

- We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses. Going back to TARP, the auto bailouts, the PPP loans, the Trump wealthy tax cuts, we're probably pushing $4 trillion in handouts to the moneyed interests in this country since 2009,

Wait wut?

TARP actually made money when all was said and done, and the auto bailouts were comparatively small in scope and with TARP probably made money as well. The PPP loans scoped out any large businesses (such as those with more than 500 employees). So when you say we have funneled massive amounts of money to "the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses" we are at roughly $0 in the first 3 of the four programs you've named.

So we are left with the Trump tax cuts, which were well less than $4 trillion, which also seem an odd reason to be cool with funneling $10k to certain tax payers.

This isn't a serious post. TARP was a huge loan to private business that returned less than the rate of inflation. It didn't make money in any meaningful sense unless you think a private lender would have written a loan that was guaranteed to make less money than the rate of inflation and that was going to entities in extreme financial distress.

You're supposed to be a finance guy, if you don't understand that TARP was a massive handout you're delusional.

I'll also note TARP was one thing from an itemized list. PPP itself was $900bn. The Trump tax cuts have been pegged at around $2.1 trillion (that is through the first 10 years so that number isn't finalized.) That's $3 trillion without blinking.

People often forget that Trump signed a second round of major COVID stimulus after losing election—the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021–which among other things contained another $325bn in government handouts to business owners (a figure a little bigger than Biden's student loan handout and one which I don't see generated even a single comment on this board.)


That's $3.3 trillion just on the easy to count stuff. If you don't think we can find $700bn in handouts to businesses in the last 13-14 years since the 08/09 crisis you're fooling yourself. The $4 trillion number was conservative because it doesn't even begin to factor in what I believe has been around 6 trillion in quantitative easing (and I didn't include that because Fed monetary games are a little technically complex as to what they "count" as, but it should be noted few people benefited from them more than the holders of equities, which are overwhelmingly held by the moneyed class.)

[alfred russel]

PPP is $0. Your statement was " We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses"...that wasn't what PPP went to.

TARP involved buying troubled assets and then recovering what could from them. It turned out that what was recovered exceeded what was committed. Would a finance company have made that investment or been happy with the rate of profit? On both counts, no. But if you are keeping score at home, there was an actual profit on the program.

[OttoVonBismarck]

PPP is $0. Your statement was " We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses"...that wasn't what PPP went to.

TARP involved buying troubled assets and then recovering what could from them. It turned out that what was recovered exceeded what was committed. Would a finance company have made that investment or been happy with the rate of profit? On both counts, no. But if you are keeping score at home, there was an actual profit on the program.

This post is just an attempt to gin up a cheap forum argument, I won't be participating. PPP and TARP were massive handouts to businesses, period.

[alfred russel]

PPP is $0. Your statement was " We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses"...that wasn't what PPP went to.

TARP involved buying troubled assets and then recovering what could from them. It turned out that what was recovered exceeded what was committed. Would a finance company have made that investment or been happy with the rate of profit? On both counts, no. But if you are keeping score at home, there was an actual profit on the program.

This post is just an attempt to gin up a cheap forum argument, I won't be participating. PPP and TARP were massive handouts to businesses, period.

PPP was a massive handout to small and medium sized businesses. Not large and wealthy ones - they were specifically scoped out.

TARP is a lot more complicated. In the end the taxpayers made a profit on TARP. It was a massive transfer of risk to the taxpayer at below market terms--a risk which did not materialize.