So you're good with the CC companies just booking the revenue? Maybe paying out a nice CEO bonus with it? Maybe those airlines can use to buy back a few billion more shares of their stock? I am not good with giving money to them, but if we are going to do so then they need to use it for the public's good. How would you suggest that e.g. Discover do that so that only financially responsible people like you get the benefit and not those losers who might have charged payroll expenses on it last month when their cash flow dried up?

Is this all hypothetical, or is a credit card company actually trying to get or going to get CARE act funds?

Here, this will help your confusion.

https://www.govdocs.com/what-does-the-co...employers/

---

For the record, again, I am not in favor of this so-called Stimulus, but here we are.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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?

So you're good with the CC companies just booking the revenue? Maybe paying out a nice CEO bonus with it? Maybe those airlines can use to buy back a few billion more shares of their stock? I am not good with giving money to them, but if we are going to do so then they need to use it for the public's good. How would you suggest that e.g. Discover do that so that only financially responsible people like you get the benefit and not those losers who might have charged payroll expenses on it last month when their cash flow dried up?

That's a great question.  My position is, if a CC company is capable of using government bailout money to buy back stock or pay their CEO a bonus, then they don't need the money and they shouldn't get a bailout.  So the first thing they would have to do is prove they are actually going to go bankrupt if they don't get a bailout.  The second thing I would need to see is some sort of analysis of what would happen if they did go bankrupt.  Is it possible to just let them go bankrupt, in other words.  Capitalism ain't beanbag.  Companies have to be allowed to fail.

But what I would not do is tell the credit card company they have to lower their interest rates, because that is giving an unequal benefit, where the people with the most credit card debt get the biggest benefit.

---

So you're good with the CC companies just booking the revenue? Maybe paying out a nice CEO bonus with it? Maybe those airlines can use to buy back a few billion more shares of their stock? I am not good with giving money to them, but if we are going to do so then they need to use it for the public's good. How would you suggest that e.g. Discover do that so that only financially responsible people like you get the benefit and not those losers who might have charged payroll expenses on it last month when their cash flow dried up?

That's a great question.  My position is, if a CC company is capable of using government bailout money to buy back stock or pay their CEO a bonus, then they don't need the money and they shouldn't get a bailout.  So the first thing they would have to do is prove they are actually going to go bankrupt if they don't get a bailout.  The second thing I would need to see is some sort of analysis of what would happen if they did go bankrupt.  Is it possible to just let them go bankrupt, in other words.  Capitalism ain't beanbag.  Companies have to be allowed to fail.

But what I would not do is tell the credit card company they have to lower their interest rates, because that is giving an unequal benefit, where the people with the most credit card debt get the biggest benefit.

Kind of like how the people with the lowest income are getting the biggest benefit from the stimulus?

---

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?

I mean, they keep paying Trump, so...

Not just Trump (who donates away his paycheck anyway). They should zero out the pay for every high-level government official.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

For the record, again, I am not in favor of this so-called Stimulus, but here we are.

I still have mixed feelings about it. Putting money in the hands of those who need it is good. Putting raw cash into the hands of big corporations is not good. If American had kept its MD-80s flying and saved some/all of the huge amount of cash tied up in the 737 CRASH fleet that doesn't exist and probably never will now, they'd have had actual cash reserves and not gone to hell the second demand dropped. Ditto Delta. Buying a refinery is a great idea a lot of the time, but a refinery is only worth the demand for its product. If airlines aren't flying, they don't need fuel, and if they don't need fuel, Delta's refinery is dead weight...and they still don't have cash reserves. I actually have zero sympathy for airlines. If they can't turn the profits they've been raking in into cash reserves strong enough that CEOs don't have to beg employees to take unpaid leave, then they deserve to fail.

Now, zero-interest loans to large businesses while that cash is given mostly to small businesses, I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd be in favor of that. At least with a loan, there's a good chance that most of the fake money will be converted into real money down the line. Handing out large sums of imaginary cash...no bueno. It's a great move for right now to try and nudge things in the right direction, but I pity whoever's running the show in 2023-2024 when the I-bomb hits.

So you're good with the CC companies just booking the revenue? Maybe paying out a nice CEO bonus with it? Maybe those airlines can use to buy back a few billion more shares of their stock? I am not good with giving money to them, but if we are going to do so then they need to use it for the public's good. How would you suggest that e.g. Discover do that so that only financially responsible people like you get the benefit and not those losers who might have charged payroll expenses on it last month when their cash flow dried up?

That's a great question.  My position is, if a CC company is capable of using government bailout money to buy back stock or pay their CEO a bonus, then they don't need the money and they shouldn't get a bailout.  So the first thing they would have to do is prove they are actually going to go bankrupt if they don't get a bailout.  The second thing I would need to see is some sort of analysis of what would happen if they did go bankrupt.  Is it possible to just let them go bankrupt, in other words.  Capitalism ain't beanbag.  Companies have to be allowed to fail.

But what I would not do is tell the credit card company they have to lower their interest rates, because that is giving an unequal benefit, where the people with the most credit card debt get the biggest benefit.

Aren't there actually some pretty strong teeth in the stimulus package that allow the government to seize a stake in any company that uses stimulus funds to pay bonuses or dividends?

---

I mean, they keep paying Trump, so...

Not just Trump (who donates away his paycheck anyway). They should zero out the pay for every high-level government official.

I know he donates it all, but the money comes from somewhere.

I don't care if the President makes $400k and Members of Congress make $174k (mostly) per year. It's the lobbyist funding that needs to be capped. Who here really thinks that a former Raytheon employee becomes Secretary of Defense if Raytheon doesn't sink billions of dollars a year into "lobbying" efforts?

---

Is this all hypothetical, or is a credit card company actually trying to get or going to get CARE act funds?

Here, this will help your confusion.

https://www.govdocs.com/what-does-the-co...employers/

---

For the record, again, I am not in favor of this so-called Stimulus, but here we are.

That article didn't speak specifically to credit card companies. I'm still confused.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you're good with the CC companies just booking the revenue? Maybe paying out a nice CEO bonus with it? Maybe those airlines can use to buy back a few billion more shares of their stock? I am not good with giving money to them, but if we are going to do so then they need to use it for the public's good. How would you suggest that e.g. Discover do that so that only financially responsible people like you get the benefit and not those losers who might have charged payroll expenses on it last month when their cash flow dried up?

That's a great question.  My position is, if a CC company is capable of using government bailout money to buy back stock or pay their CEO a bonus, then they don't need the money and they shouldn't get a bailout.  So the first thing they would have to do is prove they are actually going to go bankrupt if they don't get a bailout.  The second thing I would need to see is some sort of analysis of what would happen if they did go bankrupt.  Is it possible to just let them go bankrupt, in other words.  Capitalism ain't beanbag.  Companies have to be allowed to fail.

But what I would not do is tell the credit card company they have to lower their interest rates, because that is giving an unequal benefit, where the people with the most credit card debt get the biggest benefit.

Reasonable take if you ask me. 

Also, got my direct deposit today.

---

Reasonable take if you ask me. 

Also, got my direct deposit today.

Whattt? How the hell you hiding all that money you are making?

I thought 99,000 grand was the cut off? I'm not going to get a damn dime. ...and the tax man telling me my estimated was still short by about $4K, double [BLEEP]

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Some Democrats pitching $2,000 per month for anyone under $130,000, so most families get $4,000 plus for kids. Why limit it to $130,000, you are going to piss off people who worked hard to get a good salary and they still have bill's and may not be working. Then you are going to make it better for some people to just stay home and not work with all the money you are giving out.

---

Reasonable take if you ask me. 

Also, got my direct deposit today.

Whattt? How the hell you hiding all that money you are making?

I thought 99,000 grand was the cut off? I'm not going to get a damn dime. ...and the tax man telling me my estimated was still short by about $4K, double [BLEEP]

They need to give anyone not getting money a tax credit on next year's taxes since we just had to pay now

---

Some Democrats pitching $2,000 per month for anyone under $130,000, so most families get $4,000 plus for kids. Why limit it to $130,000, you are going to piss off people who worked hard to get a good salary and they still have bill's and may not be working. Then you are going to make it better for some people to just stay home and not work with all the money you are giving out.

---

Whattt? How the hell you hiding all that money you are making?

I thought 99,000 grand was the cut off? I'm not going to get a damn dime. ...and the tax man telling me my estimated was still short by about $4K, double [BLEEP]

They need to give anyone not getting money a tax credit on next year's taxes since we just had to pay now

That’s what I was thinking.  If I owe “x” deduct the stimulus.  But NOO! 

I guess I get it if I was unemployed or hours cut back.  Take that to buy groceries or pay mortgage.  They extended tax deadline to June or July 15.   We paid ours because I know damn well I’m not gonna be thinking about it then.

---

There's a link to check on the status of your gubmint money. It might be worth a few minutes of your time to check it out. I did and it said there was insufficient data on file to direct deposit the money into my account, even though I just paid my taxes last week. Then it gives you the option to fill in the information yourself. 

https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof-wmsp/notic...Pf77bG_.10

---

There's a link to check on the status of your gubmint money. It might be worth a few minutes of your time to check it out. I did and it said there was insufficient data on file to direct deposit the money into my account, even though I just paid my taxes last week. Then it gives you the option to fill in the information yourself. 

https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof-wmsp/notic...Pf77bG_.10

It’s it’s.gov correct?  You’ve posted www4.irs.gov

The link provided just give the “thinking” thing.

---

There's a link to check on the status of your gubmint money. It might be worth a few minutes of your time to check it out. I did and it said there was insufficient data on file to direct deposit the money into my account, even though I just paid my taxes last week. Then it gives you the option to fill in the information yourself. 

https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof-wmsp/notic...Pf77bG_.10

It’s it’s.gov correct?  You’ve posted www4.irs.gov

The link provided just give the “thinking” thing.

It links from here: 

https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/get-my-payment

---

It’s it’s.gov correct?  You’ve posted www4.irs.gov

The link provided just give the “thinking” thing.

It links from here: 

https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/get-my-payment

Thank you

---

Trump to exercise Executive Authority to adjourn Congress so he can pass recess appointments in their absence.

Good for him.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There's a link to check on the status of your gubmint money. It might be worth a few minutes of your time to check it out. I did and it said there was insufficient data on file to direct deposit the money into my account, even though I just paid my taxes last week. Then it gives you the option to fill in the information yourself. 

https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof-wmsp/notic...Pf77bG_.10

I filled in the info 8 times and it was ‘unable to process’ each time. Then the IRS said I had logged in too many times and it was locking me out for 24 hours. This is exactly what I expect from the government. Just like healthcare.gov

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Trump to exercise Executive Authority to adjourn Congress so he can pass recess appointments in their absence.

Good for him.

The Senate has been doing this pro-forma nonsense my entire life. If they're going to claim to be in session, then they need to discuss the things that the President and the House send to them in a timely manner.  They don't.  They do none of their jobs.  I don't know if having a do-nothing Senate is a symptom of our national lethargy, or a cause, or both, but it should bother everyone who wants America to be great.

The best solution is for all 100 of them to repent, and start to vigorously discuss things on the floor and voting in a timely fashion. While the virus is around, set up a system where they all meet in 10 or 12 different rooms.  If CBS can start with 22 players and 4 coaches with 15 cameras and turn it all into a coherent presentation in real time, someone can do the same thing for the US Senate.

And if they won't stand up for themselves and do that, then President should get every recess appointment he wants.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Trump to exercise Executive Authority to adjourn Congress so he can pass recess appointments in their absence.

Good for him.

No. Dissolving Congress because they won’t confirm your political appointments is something that would have made Hitler proud.

---

Trump to exercise Executive Authority to adjourn Congress so he can pass recess appointments in their absence.

Good for him.

No. Dissolving Congress because they won’t confirm your political appointments is something that would have made Hitler proud.

He will not and can not dismiss them.
He might adjourn them.
In general, yes, it is bad for an executive to stop a legislature from meeting, even for a little while.
But, this particular legislature, anytime during the last 10 years, no.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Trump to exercise Executive Authority to adjourn Congress so he can pass recess appointments in their absence.

Good for him.

No. Dissolving Congress because they won’t confirm your political appointments is something that would have made Hitler proud.

Lolz

---

No. Dissolving Congress because they won’t confirm your political appointments is something that would have made Hitler proud.

He will not and can not dismiss them.
He might adjourn them.
In general, yes, it is bad for an executive to stop a legislature from meeting, even for a little while.
But, this particular legislature, anytime during the last 10 years, no.

Congress isn't there.  This isnt about sending them home, it's about pushing aside pro forma mumbo jumbo to recognize the truth that they aren't there.

---