Thoughts on this bailout and “stimulus”?

[mplane72]

View attachment 131765

Senator Dumped Up to $1.7 Million of Stock After Reassuring Public About Coronavirus Preparedness — ProPublica

Intelligence Chair Richard Burr’s selloff came around the time he was receiving daily briefings on the health threat.

www.propublica.org

Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler dumped stocks after coronavirus meeting

A wealthy Georgia senator is reportedly the second member of Congress to have dumped massive blocks of stocks following a private, chamber-wide meeting on the new coronavirus. Republican Sen. Kelly…

nypost.com

Edit to be Fair and Balanced.....

Dianne Feinstein, 3 Senate colleagues sold off stocks before coronavirus crash: reports

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and three of her Senate colleagues reported selling off stocks worth millions of dollars in the days before the coronavirus outbreak crashed the market, according to reports.

www.foxnews.com

 

[antlerradar]

Sure, punish us with the hard questions



Frankly, I don't see an economic difference between this and the government just spending the money. It's more of a "libertarian" thing - supposedly better to allow 150 million Americans to spend/give $1,000 each than have "big government" spend $150 billion as it sees fit. It's also an easier political compromise, the left likes getting quick checks into the hands of those who need and the right likes to think of it as giving people their own money back.

There is a difference. Going back to my days in Macro Economics classes( Thirty years ago) The multiplier effect of a tax reduction is greater that that of Gov. Spending. The reason is that Government must first tax someone to then redistribute the money. Of course today's Government doesn't raise taxes to pay for spending. We just put it on the credit card( sell T bills) or print the money (quantitative easing). The economic ramifications of debt and inflation are problems that will happen in the future so today's politicians don't worry about them much. For today's situation it is likely better to spend the money as what the economy needs is cash fast and a tax reduction will not provide fast cash.

 

[1_pointer]

Still not final but most recent proposal is $1,200 per adult + $500 per kid for folks under $75k taxable income ($150k for joint filers). Amount reduced by 5% of income over the $75k/$150k ceiling for those over $75k/$150k.

I'm about as big a fan of that as I am tiered taxes...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Senator Dumped Up to $1.7 Million of Stock After Reassuring Public About Coronavirus Preparedness — ProPublica

Intelligence Chair Richard Burr’s selloff came around the time he was receiving daily briefings on the health threat.

www.propublica.org

Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler dumped stocks after coronavirus meeting

A wealthy Georgia senator is reportedly the second member of Congress to have dumped massive blocks of stocks following a private, chamber-wide meeting on the new coronavirus. Republican Sen. Kelly…

nypost.com

Edit to be Fair and Balanced.....

Dianne Feinstein, 3 Senate colleagues sold off stocks before coronavirus crash: reports

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and three of her Senate colleagues reported selling off stocks worth millions of dollars in the days before the coronavirus outbreak crashed the market, according to reports.

www.foxnews.com

The truly sad thing about this is that it likely isn't illegal. A year after Congress passed the STOCK act, revisions were pushed through that gutted it.

Let that sink in: Elected officials who are in possession of inside information about stock market opportunities, threats and coming crises have specifically made it legal to use that information to profit.

Now you know how you can go into a Congress and make millions.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Senator Dumped Up to $1.7 Million of Stock After Reassuring Public About Coronavirus Preparedness — ProPublica

Intelligence Chair Richard Burr’s selloff came around the time he was receiving daily briefings on the health threat.

www.propublica.org

Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler dumped stocks after coronavirus meeting

A wealthy Georgia senator is reportedly the second member of Congress to have dumped massive blocks of stocks following a private, chamber-wide meeting on the new coronavirus. Republican Sen. Kelly…

nypost.com

Edit to be Fair and Balanced.....

Dianne Feinstein, 3 Senate colleagues sold off stocks before coronavirus crash: reports

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and three of her Senate colleagues reported selling off stocks worth millions of dollars in the days before the coronavirus outbreak crashed the market, according to reports.

www.foxnews.com

I saw this today as well. I have to say I'm more than a little mad.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I saw this today as well. I have to say I'm more than a little mad.

Me as well.

 

[BigHornRam]

Pitchfork aisle at the farm and garden store is about to get cleaned out..........

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pitchfork isle at the farm and garden store is about to get cleaned out..........

*aisle

 

[mdhunter]

The truly sad thing about this is that it likely isn't illegal. A year after Congress passed the STOCK act, revisions were pushed through that gutted it.

Let that sink in: Elected officials who are in possession of inside information about stock market opportunities, threats and coming crises have specifically made it legal to use that information to profit.

Now you know how you can go into a Congress and make millions.

I am way to much of a skeptic to believe these investments are in blind trusts without any influence...too coincidental (but I doubt anything will ever be proven).

 

[onpoint]

One could wonder where America's control/mitigation response to all this would be today, March 20, if the Legislative and Executive branches would have been kicked into high gear when this alleged private little informative took place.
Imagine if our actual - see-the-results-response- began when these people were saving their own financial asses, while either downplaying or keeping quiet about "what they knew...."
Our economic response. Our disease control response. Our overall game plan.
One month+ further ahead than we are now.
Burr, Feinstein, et al aren't just Joe Schmucks trading at home from their lap tops..........
Even when faced with the gravity of this situation, business as usual.
"Same as it ever was".............

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am way to much of a skeptic to believe these investments are in blind trusts without any influence...too coincidental (but I doubt anything will ever be proven).

Just because it's unethical, predatory and sleazy as hell doesn't make it illegal.

There's a revolving door of influence peddling, insider trading and backroom dealing in DC. Both parties engage in it. Members of congress come in well off and leave as multi-millionaires. It's crap like this that allows for that. Staff members go from shitty paying jobs to 6 & 7 figure consultancies, positions with firms that deal either in lobbying, or more nefariously, intelligence gathering (that's when you have someone who is connected talking to congressionals, staff, agency folks and using that intel for financial purposes - it's not lobbying so they don't have to register either)

We need to get the money out of politics.

 

[onpoint]

"We need to get the money out of politics".

Some/many do - "get the money out"
Wonder how many others - way higher in the food chain - made their own situation even better than these foot soldiers did................................

 

[BigHornRam]

I contacted both my Senators this morning and told their staff my wife and I do not need $1200 relief checks, but members of my family out of state are being laid off and need relief. I explained that I felt the unemployment insurance system was the best place for economic relief in this current crisis.

Contact your representatives today and let them know what you think.

 

[SAJ-99]

There is a difference. Going back to my days in Macro Economics classes( Thirty years ago) The multiplier effect of a tax reduction is greater that that of Gov. Spending. The reason is that Government must first tax someone to then redistribute the money. Of course today's Government doesn't raise taxes to pay for spending. We just put it on the credit card( sell T bills) or print the money (quantitative easing). The economic ramifications of debt and inflation are problems that will happen in the future so today's politicians don't worry about them much. For today's situation it is likely better to spend the money as what the economy needs is cash fast and a tax reduction will not provide fast cash.

I too learned the basics of Macro economic about 30yrs ago. This was at a time where "recent history" included the Baby Boomers at their peak earning power and peak spending. Things have changed and we know now that the tax multiplier for the individual is not stable. A lot of politics is involved in interpreting the tax multiplier because the person doing the analysis gets to pick the sample time period. The way I view this is to remember that the government doesn't collect taxes and set the money on fire. It spends it. It gives it to soldiers who raise families, it pays interest on debt that is the holders income, it pays for medical services. All that money gets recirculated into the economy, but at a fairly predictable pace. The individual bases "recirculation" decision on their own circumstances. A check from the government is larger and immediate and is more likely to help through tough period. A tax cut only helps those who still have an income and haven't been laid off. In both circumstances, if the individual is worried about their job, the money is going to be saved rather than spent. In summary, a $1000 over 52 weeks is about $20/wk, but a $1000 check is now. The two are viewed differently by the recipient. In this economic environment, we can predict that the individual multiplier has decreased due to fear - and all the closures - and the government multiplier is much higher.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just because it's unethical, predatory and sleazy as hell doesn't make it illegal.

There's a revolving door of influence peddling, insider trading and backroom dealing in DC. Both parties engage in it. Members of congress come in well off and leave as multi-millionaires. It's crap like this that allows for that. Staff members go from shitty paying jobs to 6 & 7 figure consultancies, positions with firms that deal either in lobbying, or more nefariously, intelligence gathering (that's when you have someone who is connected talking to congressionals, staff, agency folks and using that intel for financial purposes - it's not lobbying so they don't have to register either)

We need to get the money out of politics.

As a counter - it's not only the money, it's also the scope of power that is a key problem - a more limited govt would reduce the need to peddle influence.

 

[BigHornRam]

As a counter - it's not only the money, it's also the scope of power that is a key problem - a more limited govt would reduce the need to peddle influence.

To that point, I hope Bloomberg spends every last effing dime he has trying to buy the up coming election, and gets squat for it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

As a counter - it's not only the money, it's also the scope of power that is a key problem - a more limited govt would reduce the need to peddle influence.

To a certain extent, absolutely.

But even when we had limited gov't, we still had corruption. Teapot Dome & the Volstead act grift are two good examples. Before FDR, in fact, corruption was routine. Afterwards, they had the common decency to hide it. Then Nixon, and Reagan happened.

I remain convinced that the size of GOv't should be proportionate to it's population, and that limiting power of the executive is a good thing (I've thought this since we overreacted to 9-11). But the corrupting power of money unleashed through Citizens United, et al, coupled with the elimination of the fairness doctrine, have created an oligarchical shadow gov't than politicians answer too in order to recieve their funding, get the PAC's to support them & avoid nasty primary fights.

 

[VikingsGuy]

To a certain extent, absolutely.

But even when we had limited gov't, we still had corruption. Teapot Dome & the Volstead act grift are two good examples. Before FDR, in fact, corruption was routine. Afterwards, they had the common decency to hide it. Then Nixon, and Reagan happened.

I remain convinced that the size of GOv't should be proportionate to it's population, and that limiting power of the executive is a good thing (I've thought this since we overreacted to 9-11). But the corrupting power of money unleashed through Citizens United, et al, coupled with the elimination of the fairness doctrine, have created an oligarchical shadow gov't than politicians answer too in order to recieve their funding, get the PAC's to support them & avoid nasty primary fights.

We may disagree on some of the details, but I would guess we are pretty aligned on the problem.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We may disagree on some of the details, but I would guess we are pretty aligned on the problem.

That's because we're two bad ass mofo's who haven't changed sweatpants in a week. #Livinlarge #shelterinplace #sociallydistant #hoyt

 

[Nameless Range]

I thought this was an interesting economic take:

Normal is not an option | askblog

www.arnoldkling.com

The challenges for other countries will be much more difficult. De-globalization is taking place, and that will produce losers and bigger losers (it won’t produce many winners). Become familiar with Peter Zeihan’s way of viewing the world. Don’t take the international order for granted. Zeihan emphasizes that the U.S. is one of the few countries that produces enough food and energy for itself. China, on the other hand, needs to import both. That would lead one to predict that China will be in the “bigger loser” category.