Peace Is Our Profession. War Is Just A Hobby: Exposing The New "Progessive" Democrats ( Thread)

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
official thread exposing the new frauds in the Democrat party

:wow:i be updating this thread to the fraud new green deal to dems siding with corporations


"Pelosi’s New Idea: Tax Cuts For The Wealthy!! WTF?"







Why Are Progressives Voting For Ultimate Screwing Of America?


 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
The corporate bailout doesn't include the limits Democrats promised

Democrats promised strict limits on what corporations can do with the half-trillion dollars in loan money they're getting. But the Fed doesn't have to abide by them.

90

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell. | Samuel Corum/Getty Images


Most big companies that take advantage of the $500 billion corporate bailout in last week’s coronavirus relief bill are unlikely to face restrictions against firing workers or giving bonuses to executives, according to officials familiar with the program.

Congressional Democrats have boasted about the strict conditions they negotiated to make sure the CARES Act’s massive corporate-aid package benefits employees rather than their bosses. And the bipartisan legislation that President Trump signed Friday did attach tight strings to the $46 billion the Treasury Department will dispense to airlines and firms it deems vital to national security.



But the other $454 billion in the law for larger firms will flow through Federal Reserve lending programs, and people close to the Fed say its top officials don’t think they’re required to force companies that get the money to keep workers on their payrolls, limit executive compensation or forgo stock buybacks or dividends.

“Congress left a lot of discretion, a lot more than people realize,” one former Fed official said.

The half-trillion-dollar corporate bailout amounts to a quarter of the $2 trillion emergency relief package that Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last week. Washington is still scarred by the intense political backlash against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout of 2008, when the insurance giant AIG used taxpayer dollars to pay bonuses to the reckless executives who brought down the company. This time, Democratic leaders have made assurances that they have reshaped a Republican plan for a blank-check bailout to avoid a reprise, crafting the CARES Act’s aid to companies with over 500 employees to prevent mass layoffs without enabling recipients to redistribute money from taxpayers to their own executives and investors.

“We ensured in the bill that any taxpayer dollars given to industry goes first and foremost to worker paychecks and benefits, not CEO bonuses, stock buybacks or dividends,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared in her floor speech before the House passed the CARES Act.

But the complex language and multiple caveats in the section of the CARES Act devoted to Federal Reserve programs leave significant room for the central bank’s leaders and their partners at the Treasury to structure the assistance however they want. And there are already indications that they’re leery of weighing down the bailout with overly burdensome conditions.

Running the bulk of the bailout through the nonpartisan Fed helped ease Democratic fears that the Trump Treasury would create a partisan slush fund to reward the president’s allies. The Fed’s massive financial leverage will also amplify the bailout’s power, expanding the $454 billion in capital into more than $4 trillion of lending. But the central bank has never been in the business of making sure its borrowers protect their workers, and the most prescriptive language in the CARES Act applies only to the Treasury aid to airlines and firms designated vital to security, which most likely will mean Boeing and perhaps some struggling oil companies.

Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) did insert one provision with a sweeping list of restrictions on bailed-out companies—including retention of 90 percent of the workforce, pay cuts for executives earning more than $3 million a year, bans on outsourcing and offshoring, and even protections for collective bargaining agreements and union organizing campaigns. But that provision only directs Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to “endeavor to” set up a program with those specifications, and insiders suggest the Fed doesn’t feel bound by them. And while the CARES Act does seem to limit companies that receive direct loans through Fed programs from buying back stock, paying dividends, or raising executive pay for a year, it allows Mnuchin to waive those provisions as long as he explains his rationale to Congress.

Democrats also managed to insert some oversight provisions into the legislation, including a special inspector general to oversee the spending, but President Trump has already issued a signing statement signaling his intention to ignore many of them. Even Democratic congressional aides who worked on the deal concede that Mnuchin and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell will have broad flexibility to design the bailout in the coming days. But Democrats hope they can ratchet up enough political pressure to avoid a repeat of the 2008 Wall Street rescue.

“The Fed has the power and the responsibility to require any big corporations that take taxpayer money to put workers first,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a vocal proponent of a strings-attached approach. “Congress and the American people will be watching closely to make sure the Fed and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin do this right.”

Neither Fed nor Treasury officials would comment on the record. But the Fed quietly began to signal its discomfort with onerous conditions on Monday when it unveiled the terms of two new corporate credit programs that are likely to play a significant role in the bailout. One had no restrictions on how borrowers can use the money, while the other had extremely mild limits on stock buybacks and dividends, and only for firms that defer their loan payments.

Those two programs represent an extraordinary escalation in fighting the crisis, empowering the Fed for the first time to buy investment-grade corporate bonds and financial instruments backed by corporate bonds, with the potential to expand to even riskier corporate debt once the Treasury injects some bailout funds as a backstop.

But while the programs don’t look like the “Trump slush fund” some Democrats feared, they don’t look like the worker-first initiatives some Democrats promised. Unlike the CARE Act’s separate $360 billion small business bailout, they impose no requirements that the beneficiaries use the money to retain their employees. And unlike the 2008 bank bailout, they impose no limits on executive pay.

The Fed has also announced a “Main Street” lending program that could take the central bank even farther out of its comfort zone, providing liquidity to mid-sized companies that wouldn’t dream of Fed assistance in normal times. Senator Warner’s restrictions were designed with a program like this in mind, but as vice chairman Krishna Guha of the research firm Evercore ISI wrote in a note to clients, the few-strings approach in the term sheets for the corporate bond programs “might hint that Fed lawyers are preparing to take a minimalist rather than maximalist interpretation of the new legislation,” rejecting “the new conditionality.”

In a statement, Senator Warner suggested that even if the Main Street lending program doesn’t include the conditions he wanted, it’s a victory considering that the Fed didn’t even want to do a Main Street lending program when he started pushing for one a few weeks ago.

“I’m encouraged the Fed has moved off that position and is preparing to offer targeted programs that will help businesses keep their doors open and workers employed,” Warner said.



It’s natural for central bankers confronting a crisis to feel uneasy about restrictions that could make more creditworthy borrowers who need loans less likely to seek them and riskier borrowers who get loans less likely to pay them back. But some veterans of the 2008 bailouts worry that even if the Fed has a strong legal and economic justification for focusing on keeping credit flowing during the pandemic, it could face another intense political backlash if millions of Americans keep losing their jobs and it’s seen as insufficiently attentive to their plight.

“From a legal perspective, the Fed has a lot of flexibility,” says former Fed general counsel Scott Alvarez, who had to sign off on a litany of envelope-pushing actions in 2008. “But you can do everything legally correct, and you can still get a bad political reaction.”

The Fed is already rerunning much of its 2008 playbook. It has re-launched programs to backstop money market funds, short-term “commercial paper” that big companies use to fund their day-to-day operations, and securities backed by auto loans, student loans and other consumer credit. Former Fed vice chairman Donald Kohn says the central bank’s top priority right now needs to be providing as much support to the locked-down economy as possible, which means trying to prevent avoidable corporate bankruptcies as well.

But the Fed is also supposed to avoid taking credit risk, and even though massive infusions of bailout money from Treasury should help absorb loan defaults, letting borrowers skip payments or requiring them to keep their workers would presumably increase loan defaults, which is why the Fed has never done that in the past. At the same time, cracking down on executive compensation would presumably discourage some executives from seeking loans, which could complicate the Fed’s efforts to help cash-starved companies survive the epidemic with their workforces relatively intact.

“You don’t want to put so many handcuffs on these loans that people would rather shut down their businesses than borrow,” Kohn says. “You want to help them get to the other side.”

An aggressive central bank that takes more risk early in a crisis can improve its chances of defusing the crisis, which can reduce defaults and save taxpayers money in the long run. The 2008 bank bailouts were a good example, turning a profit for the government. But the bank bailouts were also politically toxic, and Kohn recalls his brutal Senate testimony after the AIG fiasco as a low point of his career. Ultimately, he says, crisis responders have to strike a balance between economics and politics, especially when they might have to ask Congress for more money down the road.

“Public support really matters,” says Kohn, who is now at the Brookings Institution. “You might not do exactly what Senator Warner wants you to do, but you don’t want to ignore that kind of sentiment, either. Everyone’s making sacrifices right now, and it could be really harmful to make loans to businesses that turn around and pay huge bonuses to their CEOs.”

Link:

The corporate bailout doesn't include the limits Democrats promised
 

WaveCapsByOscorp™

2021 Grammy Award Winner
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
18,967
Reputation
-446
Daps
45,077
I find it surprising how people talk about corruption within American politics.

you had to have known they’d bail business out before citizens. It’s their MO.

If business fails, you can kiss the country goodbye
 

voltronblack

Superstar
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
4,436
Reputation
1,532
Daps
13,266
Reppin
NULL
official thread exposing the new frauds in the Democrat party

:wow:i be updating this thread to the fraud new green deal to dems siding with corporations


"Pelosi’s New Idea: Tax Cuts For The Wealthy!! WTF?"







Why Are Progressives Voting For Ultimate Screwing Of America?


With all this that going on I hope more people will start backing political policies and stop making these careerist politicians in to superstar that you cant call out on who try to maintain the status quo in a different but same way as the establishment they clam to be fighting against.
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
With all this that going on I hope more people will start backing political policies and stop making these careerist politicians in to superstar that you cant call out on who try to maintain the status quo in a different but same way as the establishment they clam to be fighting against.

:picard:Jesus he went in
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,063
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,025
Reppin
BaBylon
Sanders Voted for the Latest Corporate Bailout: What This Reveals for Socialists

Post on: April 3, 2020
Tatiana Cozzarelli
Ezra Brain

The U.S. Congress recently passed a $2 trillion bailout package, the largest in U.S. history. Most of the money will go to the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Even though he originally spoke out against it, Bernie Sanders voted for the deal.

WhatsApp-Image-2020-04-03-at-5.18.01-PM-1000x600.jpeg

Image from Senate Television via AP

The U.S. death toll from COVID-19 is already 4,000, with the number rising quickly and hospitals bursting at the seams. Healthcare workers do not have the necessary personal protective equipment and areas that are being hit the hardest by coronavrius, such as New York City, are quickly running out of ventilators and ICU beds. Meanwhile, the number of people in the United States who are unemployed has reached 10 million, and those are just the official statistics that exclude undocumented and gig workers.

April 1 has just passed and we’re all still expected to pay our rent. For the millions of people who live paycheck to paycheck, there won’t be enough money for that. In fact, there won’t be enough money for food. The markets had their biggest drop in history, the capitalist suffering losses there are going to push them onto working people, and now it is undeniable that we are heading for a global recession.

The situation is catastrophic and getting worse — and this in the wealthiest country in the world.

In an attempt to stimulate the flailing economy, the U.S. Congress recently passed a massive $2 trillion stimulus bill. In fact, it’s the biggest bailout the capitalists have gotten in all of U.S. history. Here are some of the bill’s highlights (or lowlights):

  • $500 billion in loans to corporations.
  • $367 billion in small business loans
  • $454 billion for the Federal Reserve to inject liquidity into flailing markets
  • $130 billion for hospitals (WHY ARE HOSPITALS GETTING LESS MONEY THAN SMALL BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS!?!)
  • $170 billion tax break for real estate investors (like Trump)
  • $25 billion for the airline industry
  • $17 billion for defense contractors
Simply put, in the midst of the most catastrophic situation in any of our lifetimes, the United States government will transfer an unprecedented amount of money to businesses, specifically Big Business. And even with this huge bailout, companies such as United Airlines still plan to layoff workers.

What is called the CARES Act has two important provisions for some working class people: an extension of unemployment benefits, along with an important change — a $600 weekly increase, for four months, which would also include gig and tipped workers; and a one-time $1,200 check to people who filed taxes last year and make less than $75,000 a year. For those who make up to $99,000, payments are still available but will be less. But it may take up to 5 months for some people to receive their one-time payments.

Given the scale of the crisis, this is insufficient: $1,200 is hardly enough to cover rent for one month, much less food, bills, and other essentials. With at least 6.6 million out of work and more layoffs on the horizon, we needed massive aid for the working class.

What’s worse is that millions of people will have no access to these unemployment benefits or the checks. To begin with, there’s not a penny for the 12 million undocumented immigrants, and not even mixed status families will receive these $1,200 payment. Likewise, people who work off the books — nannies, sex workers, and other gig workers, for instance — won’t get these checks. People over age 18 who were still claimed as a dependent by parents won’t get a check.

In other words, massive swaths of the working class won’t have access to an already woefully insufficient amount of help.

Representatives of the Capitalist Class

Few are surprised that the Republicans, who make no secret of who they represent, are using the crisis to increase corporate profits; after all, the Trump tax cuts in 2017 were a gigantic handout to the wealthiest.

People also shouldn’t be surprised that the Democrats have acted to bail out the corporations; after all, the Obama administration did that in 2008 with the massive Wall Street bailout. The two parties of capitalism have joined forces once again.

Sure, the Democrats made a spectacle of opposing this most recent giveaway after Elizabeth Warren began publicly denouncing it. That halted the first draft of the bill and gave the Democrats some time to pretend they’re on the side of working-class people. But despite their posturing, the Democrats didn’t touch the corporate slush fund; they just added some minimal federal oversight to the bill — oversight Donald Trump has already said he intends to ignore. They weren’t opposed to the corporate bailout, just some of the small print.

Passage of this bill unmasks both parties once again. The Republicans and the Democrats represent the capitalists. They’re more than willing to leave behind the working class, even in the midst of a pandemic. They could have passed sweeping protections, canceled rent and student loan payments, frozen layoffs, created and fully funded universal health care, and given everyone a quarantine wage. But instead they spent $2 trillion mostly bailing out the rich.

Don’t forget that the government doesn’t actually have its own money. Every cent of that $2 trillion comes from us. Nevertheless, the next time we demand public health care, they will have the gall to claim there isn’t enough money to pay for it. But what this bailout shows is that there is always money — our money — they’re ready to dole out to the capitalists, just like there is always money for war. It isn’t that there isn’t money for progressive reforms, it’s that the government and the capitalists they work for don’t want to spend it on working class people.

What About Bernie?

Over the past few weeks, Bernie Sanders has been putting forward a more progressive agenda in relation to the coronavirus crisis, including a call for sending $2,000 every month during the crisis to every person living in the United States. He’s had many livestreams with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, denouncing some of the most terrible aspects of this crisis, such as people incarcerated on Rikers Island in New York City and in immigrant concentration camps being left to die, water shutoffs in Detroit, and more.

They even spoke out against the bailout. Bernie Sanders correctly stated, “We cannot give Trump’s Treasury Department a blank check to bail out the airlines, cruise ships, hotels, and many other industries, while providing next to nothing to help the homeless or the most vulnerable people in this country.” And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “The option that we have is to either let [our families] suffer with nothing or to allow this … to contribute to the largest income inequality gap in our future. There should be shame about what was fought for in this bill.”

But in the period leading up to the final bill that was passed, it wasn’t Sanders who halted the vote in the Senate and forced legislators to go back to the drawing board to include a few more protections for the working class. That was Elizabeth Warren. And when it was finally time to vote, the bill passed the Senate unanimously and was opposed in the House by a lone libertarian Republican, Thomas Massie. Sanders and the Squad voted “yes.”

For all of their protestations and rhetorical defense of working people, Sanders and the Squad folded. They didn’t call us all to protest, even if that meant doing so from our homes, via twitter or facebook. They didn’t organize working people to demand something different. Instead, they voted for a bill they claimed to disagree with profoundly. They voted to bail out the rich and screw the poor. They voted for one-time checks they themselves said weren’t enough. They voted for a corporate slush fund.

When all is said and done, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Tlaib, Omar, and every other progressive Democrat voted for a bill that they knew was insufficient and benefited the rich.

The Sanderist Strategy is a Dead End

Throughout his career, Bernie Sanders has been attempting to pressure the Democratic Party from the left and perhaps even remake the party as a way to win more concessions for the working class. There was even one point in this year’s presidential campaign when it seemed he might be able to win the Democratic nomination, but he was no match for the opposition organized by the establishment led by Barack Obama and the corporate media. Now he is back to pressuring from the left — and, as his vote demonstrates, pressure that is not all that effective.

Bernie Sanders is the face of the un-resolvable contradiction of trying to pressure the Democratic Party from within: in the end, the party will be more of a force on you than you will be a force on them. Sanders and his allies want to push the Democratic Party to the left and convince them to support progressive measures such Medicare for All. What they’re actually doing is helping keep the Democratic Party alive. In their frequent livestreams, Sanders and the Squad condemn the Trump Administration’s favoring of the rich and talk of the need for protections for the working class, but they never address the Democratic Party’s own categorical failures when it comes to addressing the crisis.

Sander is serving the interests of the ruling class, even if it’s not his specific intent. He’s like a relief valve for the Democratic Party, providing an “acceptable” outlet for working-class rage in the halls of power. If he wasn’t in the race, all the media focus would be on Biden’s silence, and that of Biden’s party. But instead, Sanders’ fiery speeches about the inadequacies of the government response create an illusion that working-class people can feel represented.

Then Sanders turns around and votes for bailing out the rich.

This has always been Bernie Sanders’ strategy. But it shouldn’t be socialists’ strategy.

Nevertheless, the DSA has attempted to separate the unemployment package from the rest of the bill and call it a victory. In its “DSA Covid-19 Bulletin #5”(March 27), under “Bernie Fights for Us,” the DSA leaders write, “One giant win in the bill is Bernie Sanders’s amendment — a $600 weekly increase in unemployment benefits that includes gig and tipped workers for four months — which passed against a last-minute attack from GOP senators largely because of Bernie’s ferocious defense. Bernie’s influence and power in this particular fight were outsized, and it’s hard to imagine anyone else in the Senate speak so powerfully for the working class.”

There’s not one word of criticism for actually voting for the bill.

Let’s be real and honest with each other, comrades: this deal sucks. Let’s be clear: this bill is not a victory. It’s a loss for the working class. The unemployment benefits don’t make up for the massive corporate bailout. This bill shouldn’t be supported.

Left pressure within the Democratic Party isn’t how we are going to win the kind sof reforms we urgently need to save lives. And it’s certainly not the way to achieve socialism. It is the way to get terrible corporate bailouts with a few crumbs for some of the working class.

Workers right now are showing an alternative way forward: just this week, workers at Amazon, Whole Foods, and Instacart walked off their jobs, demanding safer working conditions. At a General Electric factory outside Boston, workers staged protests demanding that the facility be shifted from making airplane engines to making much-needed ventilators. Nurses and other frontline workers in New York City are staging actions to demand better conditions and the equipment they desperately need to fight the virus.

The working class has the power to solve the crisis that capitalism created but has shown itself incapable of solving.

The Bernie Sanders strategy shifts the fight from the streets to the halls of power. All that does is build the Democratic Party, perhaps push it ever so slightly to the left on this or that particular issue, and continue to sow big illusions about how we will actually change this miserable capitalist system. That strategy has brought us to where we are right now. If ever there was a time to reject that strategy, that time is also now. It is a dead end and we can do better.

The central task of socialists is to unite the working class and push for a break with bipartisan capitalist misery. We need our own party. We need our own political representation. We need to crush this system. Now is the time to fight and unify the working class against the capitalists who, quite literally, are going to kill us if we don’t resolve this crisis on our own.
Link:
Sanders Voted for the Latest Corporate Bailout: What This Reveals for Socialists
 
Top