Free Money?

There has been a great deal of denigration by the right about Free Money since the start of the primaries.

The right has LAMBASTED all of the Progressive ideas of providing free College tuition.

But suddenly there is a DEAFENING SILENCE from the right when it comes to Free Money for CORPORATIONS!

Why is Free Money for Corporations any different to Free Money for College Tuition?

With a College Degree the earning potential is higher and therefore the amount paid in taxes over a lifetime is higher meaning that there is a NET POSITIVE for the economy over the long term.

So how exactly does Free Money for Corporations help the Economy? It goes DIRECTLY into the BONUSES of CEO's and the Dividends paid to Wealthy Shareholders who stash it in their Offshore bank accounts. Where is the benefit to the economy?

So the QUESTION that needs to be addressed is WHY is Free Money for College education ridiculed by the right while they pretend that nothing is happening when their own taxes are being directly used to pay bonuses to CEO's and dividends Wealthy Shareholders?

Anyone on the right willing to try and answer this question?

 

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed the DOW is climbing just on the news that the Senate is going to give $500 billion to corporations.

 

Most college degrees are worthless. I know this both from research and from personal experience.

Corporations employ people and produce goods and services that countless people depend on. The value of a corporation to the economy is almost infinitely more than a few million people with worthless or near worthless degrees.

In regards to CEOs and wealthy stakeholders.

1) Something most people don't realize is that a good CEO is extremely difficult to find. Most people have no talent for administration. Much less administration of million dollar or billion dollar organizations. Because they are hard to come by they can and do command huge levels of compensation.

2) In regards to stakeholders, financing and capital are the lifeblood of any major corporation. They depend on capital from the outset of their existence and to the end of it. Thus making a corporation attractive to investors is a continuing vital endeavor.

 

I have missed the part about all corporate debt being forgiven can you point me to it? I have missed it.

So yes take that higher earning and for 3 years live a middle class $50,000 lifestyle and pay it off instead of living an $80,000 lifestyle, why should the person without the degree and making the $50,000 pay for their college degree which will mean they could make a $1,000,000 more in a lifetime?

 

You mean make $500B available for loans to keep liquidity and jobs open. YEP great thing.

 

An economic stimulus is intended to get a stalled economy moving, and the alternative which is presumably a stagnant economy, actually costs far more, at least in the eyes of the majority of both sides of the aisle. Perhaps more importantly, an economic stimulus is a one time cost. Free college tuition is a repeating cost into infinity.

In truth, the two categories of costs are not really all that comparable, which is why politically you see overwhelming support for an economic stimulus and with free college you do not.

 

Thank you for VALIDATING the OP by DENIGRATING College Tuition and not having any problem at all with your own TAXES being used to pay BONUSES to greed obsessed CEO's and DIVIDENDS to wealthy shareholders.

 

Thank you for VALIDATING the OP by DENIGRATING College Tuition and not having any problem at all with your own TAXES being used to pay BONUSES to greed obsessed CEO's and DIVIDENDS to wealthy shareholders.

 

Why do you denounce CEOs as "greedy"? Aren't they entitled to earn as much money as their skills are seen as being worth?

 

No thank you for misrepresenting what I said and refusing to respond to what I actually said and another inane diversion. Typical.

Once again you can't debate on the merits.

 

As Steven Moore just pointed out in an interview this is not an economic stimulus bill it is an economic aid bill. The economy doesn't need "stimulus" it needs to keep businesses liquid and get people back to work

 

There is no such thing as free money. There’s consequences when it comes bailing out corporations, or students drowning in debt. It might feel good to pay off loans for over priced degrees, but if the system that got us here isn’t corrected, we’ll be dealing with another student loan bubble a decade down the road.

 

I realize this is a fertile ground for debate, but for purposes of this particular discussion, I am not so sure that is a relevant distinction.

 

The government told the corporations to shut down. They told their employees not to go to work. Given enough time those corporations will go bankrupt. When that happens, employees will be out of work and stockholders will lose their savings. That stock is not only held by stockholders like me, but also by pension funds. All of that is in jeopardy, if the corporations go out of business.

 

It does as to how we manage this, rarely if ever does the government just injecting money into an economy work long term or stimulates anything especially bottom up as we saw after the 2008 recession. Even Bush's $600 prebate in 2001 didn't do much of anything. We have PLENTY of pent up demand in the economy we just need to keep business liquid, people on their feet TEMPORARILY and back to work EARNING their money. The the economy will take back off like a rocket.

 

As I said, this is fertile ground for a debate, but it is wholly tangential to this particular thread. I personally am not interested in going off on that tangent.

 

If times were so BOOMING just prior to the corona virus epidemic, why are so many corporations so desperately in need of funding???

 

It certainly has to do with what policies we use here. Promising long term huge benefits and sending EVERYONE money is not what we need. That is right in the middle, not tangential, of what we are doing and the direction we are going. There were/are provisions in the bill that would actual have people getting more money than they earned working. Several Republicans were trying to get that changed and the Dems were resisting, I haven't heard the final outcome of that. When jobs come back we need to get people into them, and it might not be the exact job making the exact same money but we will need those people to take those jobs not sit out as happened in the 2008 recovery.

 

Cash flow, liquidity, keeping as many people on the payroll as possible. Why do people need funding?

 

It is tangential to the comparison of this to free college for all, which is the only aspect I have entered into during this conversation.

Sincerely, I am not interested in going off on this topic.

 

69

Money that is put up into cash reserves doesn't do a corporation or its shareholders any good in the normal course of events.

 

Businesses are guaranteed to produce something useful to society. The degree of usefulness depends on the product or service and is subjective to each individual, to be sure, but a business doesn't exist unless its making some product or providing some service that some people find beneficial.

No such guarantee in funding someones college.

TBC, I don't like welfare/bailouts, corporate or otherwise. I would prefer both businesses and individuals be allowed to succeed on their own merit (and fail on their own lack of it).

I also see the value of collegiate education diminishing as more and more of it seems to be geared toward creating political officers rather than valuable constructive skills.

Also, I think corporations should not be persons. I specified businesses instead of corporations because a corporation is a specific business entity that is treated legally as a person that doesn't actually exist. I oppose this practice. I support business, not corporatism.

 

Sure. I'm from the right. I don't support federal government sending money to any company unless it is buying something from it. I think this monstrous expense is nothing more than Congress trying to show Americans that they care about them. But it is a very expensive and ineffective way to do it. It certainly doesn't fool me. I don't think we can afford free college for everyone and I certainly don't think we can afford this.

The idea is that giving money or forgivable loans to business will keep more people employed. It might in the short term but, in the long run, the economy will take care of itself when we stop messing with it and the laid off workers will be rehired. The "free money" however, doesn't go to management and shareholders. It is a loan and has to be repaid unless the money is spent for payroll and rent.

The problem is that clearing up the economy depends on an end to the epidemic, not how many people suffer economically because of it. A single multi-trillion payment isn't going to fix the economy. It is going to hurt it because it will either increase government debt or cause inflation. It is the end of the hysteria about the virus that will start an economic recovery. The hysteria is in people and I don't see any way to stop while they fear the virus more than their freedom and good sense.

Your original question was how is this different from free college. The answer is that it isn't. Both are government social spending. But government is able to sell this one because of the fear and hysteria. Government has not been able to sell free college to a majority of the public. Hope this helps.

 

What one does in an emergency isn't necessarily what they do during times of plenty. So, free education isn't on the priorities list.

As for corporations getting aid, they are too big to fail. Hate to say it, but it's true.

 

Those are great points. And actually it's all paid for, one way or another. What they are attempting, and they will likely succeed in doing, is prevent excessive money destroying deflation. And their efforts are keeping interest rates positive, though they are clearly fighting forces that would take them past zero.

The 30 day note frankly couldn't cut zero any closer, so I don't see any evidence of extravagance in this effort to keep rates positive.

​