(04-15-2020, 11:18 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(04-15-2020, 10:16 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: That sounds like back-door nationalization to me.  If the federal government forces a business to close, then offers bailout money, but only if the company operates in a way prescribed by the federal government, haven't they basically nationalized that company?  My position is that they shouldn't be forcing businesses to close.

[It's also ironic that people who support widespread deregulation now want to impose a whole bunch of regulations on these companies. Regulation in exchange for a handout, not different than regulating welfare.  

So it sounds like you think that if the government bails out a company, they should take the opportunity to take control over it.  Otherwise, they can go out of business.  Is that your position? A handout comes with strings, fro the term of a loan but especially if it doesn't have to be paid back.

And I would add, if the government forces the CC companies to lower their interest rates in order to accept a bailout, then the government is using my tax money to subsidize someone else's credit card debt.   I don't want to subsidize someone else's irresponsibility. Not so, it forces a credit card company to eat into their own profits as a condition of subsidy. I don't really agree with giving them money to begin with but I'm fine with conditions once they agree to accept it.

Health care organizations received a grant from the government over the weekend because of CARES ACT funding. The rules around the grant specify the applications for the funds, if the recipient doesn't use it appropriately it must be paid back. Not significantly different than requiring the CC companies to lower interest rates for a while in exchange for cash flow now. If the money is being paid out then the lender or grantor has a stake and claim to how it's used. As they say in Goodfellas, "[BLEEP] you, pay me."

But the benefit of the lower interest rate goes to the people who carry credit card debt.  People who are responsible and do not carry credit card debt do not get this benefit.  In addition, the size of the benefit depends on the size of the debt.  So the more credit card debt you are carrying, the greater the benefit.  Why should the government subsidize people who are irresponsible?

---