A company called Boeing built a new kind of airplane with a computer that was programmed to fight for control of the airplane and crash it into the ground. The first time it happened, hundreds of people were killed. Boeing said nothing was wrong. It happend again, killing hundreds of people. Boeing's business has been slow as people don't want to buy or fly in this type of airplane.

The Republicans used the coronavirus epidemic to give $40 billion to save Boeing.

Democrats insisted on giving money to people affected by the coronavirus shutdown both through a one-time cash payment and through expanding unemployment benefits. The program now covers people regardless if they are "self-employed," lack work history or are otherwise affected by the virus shutdown.

Eric Kramer,

Pinetop

(16) comments

Russ_in_WML

Another deranged democrat who believes Pelosi's added pork to the Cares act was for the good of the people.

2rusty

[thumbup] You nailed it, Russ.

Buss_in_WML

Another deranged person who believes their added comments to the WMI were sane an rational.

2ndKnoll

And Democrats use every opportunity to achieve their agenda even when they can't convince the people at the ballot box.

That $600 extra a week in unemployment just happens to equal democrats $15 an hour social engineering agenda.

sensible

I don't know what is wrong with this man but he should stay in WML and leave us out of his derangement syndrome. Go away Russ!!

Russ_in_WML

I think you have me mixed up with the deranged guy who wrote this

libertyminded

No, no mistake.

mdmaag

So Eric, you don't support saving Boeing through loan guarantees, and it's thousands of tax paying employees, right? What other large American Companies and their employees don't you support? Or maybe you didn't know that direct payments to citizens and extending unemployment benefits were Republican ideas.

2rusty

[thumbup]

Buss_in_WML

I don't support companies that purposefully hide life threatening information from Americans. How much taxes does Boeing pay? Direct payments and extending unemployment benefits are socialist tools, so how can they be Republican ideas? Tell me how many of these companies are going to buy back their stock? 

(Comment edited by WMI)

(Edited by staff.)

ronzim

A little Econ 101: About 70% of U.S. GDP is comprised of consumer spending; 18% comes from business spending and the rest from government and net exports. The best way to counter an economic contraction is to channel dollars to that segment of the economy which has the greatest impact, which would, of course, be to consumers and small businesses. This is because of the marginal propensity to spend which prevails among various groups. That is to say the tendency for groups to spend increasing amounts of new income as opposed to other uses. We have long historical records which demonstrate the geometric level of spending of new dollars as one goes down the income spectrum.

During the Great Recession, in the face of hundreds of billions of bailout dollars (not recovery money, but pure bailouts) funneled into the coffers of big business, the business component of GDP fell from 18% to 1.5%. This was largely because the large companies who received the dystopian federal largess used it to buy back stock, enrich large stockholders, and line the pockets of corporate executives. Hence, there was very little which actually went into the recovery venue. In short, even the 18% of GDP comprised of business spending crashed due to the greed and corruption of most of the recipients. Their propensity to spend was vanishing small, as was fully predictable.

On the other hand, money sent to individual consumers will be increasingly spent on consumer goods with the highest percentage of spending occurring at the very bottom of the income spectrum. It is therefore good policy during a contraction to provide direct payments to consumers with the bulk going to the poorest households where it will be almost immediately spent on consumer goods which is the fastest route to recovery.

One of the things that Republican lawmakers always seek to do in such circumstances is to shovel untold, unaccountable dollars into big business coffers thus exploiting adverse national conditions to further enrich them (and often themselves to boot). Even with strong input by DEMS, the current bill still contains unwarranted federal largesse to big businesses, every one of which should be left to the efficiencies of the market place to sort out. The best managed firms will survive and there will be some consolidating, but there is no justification for federal dollars thus spent.

Russ_in_WML

Took a pandemic, a 35% drop in the stockmarket, social distancing, and a stay at home order to bring the US economy back down to Obama's high water mark.

Imagine being a Democrat and having to pretend Joe Biden is competent, Hillary is innocent, and Obama did a good job!

[beam][beam][beam][beam]

Buss_in_WML

It took a con man to bungle the work that his predecessor setup so carefully.

No one has to pretend.

(Comment edited by WMI)

(Edited by staff.)

ronzim

A little Econ 101: About 70% of U.S. GDP is comprised of consumer spending; 18% comes from business spending and the rest from government and net exports. The best way to counter an economic contraction is to channel dollars to that segment of the economy which has the greatest impact, which would, of course, be to consumers and small businesses. This is because of the marginal propensity-to-spend which prevails among various groups. That is to say the tendency for groups to spend increasing amounts of new income as opposed to other uses. We have long historical records which demonstrate the geometric level of spending of new dollars as one goes down the income spectrum.

During the Great Recession, in the face of hundreds of billions of bailout dollars (not recovery money, but pure bailouts) funneled into the coffers of big business, the business component of GDP still fell from 18% to 1.5%. This was largely because the large companies who received the dystopian federal largess used it to buy back stock, enrich large stockholders, and line the pockets of corporate executives. Hence, there was very little which actually went into the recovery venue. In short, even the 18% of GDP comprised of business spending crashed due to the vanishing small propensity-to-spend of most of the recipients, as was fully predictable.

For exchange listed firms, investors examine their potential for earnings and take the high-risk course of buying their stock. These equity purchases provide the funding for those firms to operate and expand; thus, firms which are well managed are rewarded with more stock purchases and those which are badly managed are punished with stock selling. This risk analysis applies not only to market conditions arising from excellent management and innovation, but also from disasters which beset the general economy. If a firm is well managed, investors will still buy in and vice versa. In these current conditions there is no need for federal funds to flow to the companies which are failing. The should stand or fail (usually consolidate) according to their perceived future earnings potential. The money should go, instead, to lower echelon employees to ensure their economic survival.

Moreover, money sent to individual consumers will be increasingly spent on consumer goods with the highest percentage of spending occurring at the very bottom of the income spectrum. It is therefore good policy during a contraction to provide direct payments to consumers with the bulk going to the poorest households where it will be almost immediately spent on consumer goods which is the fastest route to recovery.

One of the things that Republican lawmakers always seek to do in such circumstances is to shovel untold, unaccountable dollars into big business coffers thus exploiting adverse national conditions to further enrich them (and often themselves to boot). Even with strong input by DEMS, the current bill still contains unwarranted federal largesse to big businesses, every one of which should be left to the efficiencies of the market place to sort out. The best managed firms will survive and there will be some consolidating, but there is no justification for federal dollars thus spent.

ronzim

For the eight years of Obama's administration, real U.S. GDP grew from $15.209 trnl to $17.689 trln, an average annual increase of $.6 trnl/year. During the three years of the Trump administration, real GDP grew from $17.689 trln to $19,073 trln, an average annual increase of $.461trln per year. Those of course are just the raw numbers and make no allowance for the fact that Obama inherited a massive contraction, resulting from the PUBS dystopian administration. If that adjustment were made, Obama nearly doubles Trump's achievements.

Russ_in_WML

I see I have a fan

...and Ron's delusion is ever stronger

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.