Everyone knows that the economy is going to take a massive hit. This is an election year as well, which shortens the leash ideologically purity has.
One of the major parties in command of the country, including the party of the President, is stolidly against “handouts” and “socialism.” However, again, it just doesn’t seem that it’s practical to do nothing if the speculations of 30%+ unemployment become reality.
So what can the federal government do for non-corporations that impinges on Republican beliefs the least, but still have enough of an economic impact to make November bearable? I’m looking for as much specifics as I can here, because I’ve been stumped trying to speculate just how much the Senate and Trump will let through and how far they’re willing to go. This is the main purpose of my question.
*"The fix: The government could offer every American business, large and small, and every self-employed — and gig — worker a no-interest “bridge loan” guaranteed for the duration of the crisis to be paid back over a five-year period. The only condition of the loan to businesses would be that companies continue to employ at least 90 percent of their work force at the same wage that they did before the crisis. And it would be retroactive, so any workers who have been laid off in the past two weeks because of the crisis would be reinstated.
The program would keep virtually everyone employed — and keep companies, from airlines to restaurants, in business without picking winners and losers."*
snip
“The easiest way to do it would be to have the banks, which already have a relationship with companies and individuals, administer the program, guaranteed by the government. Banking may not be the most popular industry, but it could get the job done in short order. In truth, the banks should volunteer to administer the plan for free as a gift to the country for the bailouts of 2008. Besides, if the economy goes down, so do they.”
*"The fix: The government could offer every American business, large and small, and every self-employed — and gig — worker a no-interest “bridge loan” guaranteed for the duration of the crisis to be paid back over a five-year period. The only condition of the loan to businesses would be that companies continue to employ at least 90 percent of their work force at the same wage that they did before the crisis. And it would be retroactive, so any workers who have been laid off in the past two weeks because of the crisis would be reinstated.
The program would keep virtually everyone employed — and keep companies, from airlines to restaurants, in business without picking winners and losers."*
snip
“The easiest way to do it would be to have the banks, which already have a relationship with companies and individuals, administer the program, guaranteed by the government. Banking may not be the most popular industry, but it could get the job done in short order. In truth, the banks should volunteer to administer the plan for free as a gift to the country for the bailouts of 2008. Besides, if the economy goes down, so do they.”
I have ideas. And resigned fears. [ol]
[li] The LEAST than can & will be done is zip, zero, nada, nothing. The usual.[/li][li] The next-least gives blank checks to major corporations backing this administration.[/li][li] A “nothing” that looks like a “something” is kilobuck bailouts for people with bank accounts.[/li][li] The best help economically would IMHO be massive prioritization of medical supplies and services.[/li] Eliminating homelessness; rebuilding infrastructure; fixing the social safety net - are those too long-term?[/ol] I’ll bet on combinations of #1, #2, and #3. Don’t expect this administration to GAFRA (Give A Fat Rat’s Ass) about non-assets i.e. most of us.
I have ideas. And resigned fears. [ol]
[li] The LEAST than can & will be done is zip, zero, nada, nothing. The usual.[/li][li] The next-least gives blank checks to major corporations backing this administration.[/li][li] A “nothing” that looks like a “something” is kilobuck bailouts for people with bank accounts.[/li][li] The best help economically would IMHO be massive prioritization of medical supplies and services.[/li][li] Eliminating homelessness; rebuilding infrastructure; fixing the social safety net - are those too long-term?[/ol] I’ll bet on combinations of #1, #2, and #3. Don’t expect this administration to GAFRA (Give A Fat Rat’s Ass) about non-assets i.e. most of us.[/li][/QUOTE]
So you think that doing nothing, and whatever economy results, is practically and politically viable? I can see Trump as confident enough that he can win with 30% unemployment and half of small businesses nationally closed, but Congress I’m not too sure about.
The prioritization of medical supplies and services doesn’t sound along the lines of what I was thinking for individuals and small businesses, unless you meant forgiveness or support of hospital bills. Yeah, that would definitely be a huge help, although it doesn’t do much for lost salaries and business.
The least they can do? Maybe $1000 per adult (or household) like they’re looking at combined with large scale bailouts of a wide range of industries, who perhaps misuse the funds since there are no strings attached to the bailout funds.
Short-term Individual Bailouts. Say, $1000 per month, for a fixed term of six months. Maybe 9 months to get them to the election.
And then a massive PR campaign. “This isn’t “socialism”! The Demoncrats “Socialism” would fundamentally and permanently re-structure AMERICA! to reward deadbeats and illegal immigrants for lazing around at home. This good solid Republican Plan is just prudent support for Families in a time of crisis, thoughts&prayers.”
That wasn’t the question, which was, What is the LEAST government can/will do? The answer is zero. It would likely be accompanied by much rapid arm-waving, blame-shouting, media-bashing, weenie-wagging etc, but with the same result: status quo. The richer get richer and the poorer get fucked.
Does the federal government have the authority to order a private individual to just eat a financial loss like that? (assuming you mean outright skipping over a round of payments instead of merely postponing them)
What I wonder is, are the economic results from this anywhere near “status quo”? I can’t help but think they go so far beyond that, screwing over even the wealthy, that it would provide SOME motivation that otherwise wouldn’t be there. I guess we’ll see.
I’ve not heard of celebs and heirs jumping off skyscrapers so I guess they’re not too bothered yet. I’ve seen proposals for bailouts of major industry players so I guess they are bothered. When tax dollars, real or potential, go mostly to major industry players, I’ll guess “status quo” is the answer. Don’t expect the poor to go un-fucked.