- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fed Investments of 9 Billion has a return of 17 Billion.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:10 am to BillysIsland
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:10 am to BillysIsland
quote:
You must really hate the tariffs then
Hate is a strong word, but I'm certainly not in favor of them.
0
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:19 am to BCreed1
It's the biggest issue I have with the Trump Administration. They have no business being in business. It's the government. They shouldn't pick winners or losers. Get out.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:31 am to BCreed1
quote:
Is this the way?
Not only no, but hell no.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:46 am to frogtown
quote:
Hell no. Our government has no business buying shares in companies. Zero, zilch, nada.
Why should the American people not profit directly on the pro-business environment we have created? Yes we profit through jobs and some tax collection, but tons of govts have sovereign wealth funds, essentially what Trump is doing. Additionally, there are some critical sectors where America needs control of its interests, and this gives America a seat on the board to influence business decisions where those critical interests outweigh the other risks
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:53 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Why should the American people not profit directly on the pro-business environment we have created?
Will the American taxpayers benefit if the company goes bankrupt and the stock goes to zero?
Posted on 10/14/25 at 12:33 pm to HogPharmer
quote:Oh but it’s safe in the Social Security LOCKBOX.
If only they would do this with my social security.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 12:55 pm to RoyalWe
However thats not the history of the USA. We have always been involved in businesses in some form.
We use the power of tax dollars. We use regulations. We use threats... etc.
Without running a search, I can go all the way back to the 1860s when the federal government gave pensions to union soilders.
In running a search I found them from our very foundation as a nation.
Agricultural bounties: Governments offered various rewards to incentivize agricultural production, such as the effort in Virginia in the mid-1600s to produce silk. In 1656, the assembly paid an Armenian man 4,000 pounds of tobacco to stay in the country to produce silk.
When the United States was formally established, the new federal government also moved quickly to implement its own subsidies.
Tariff Act of 1789: One of the first acts passed by the U.S. Congress on July 4, 1789, served as an early form of subsidy. It provided a 10% reduction on customs duties for goods imported on American vessels, as well as a "tonnage tax" that favored American ships. This subsidized American shipping and shipbuilding industries.
Fisheries subsidy: As part of the same 1789 act, fishermen were subsidized by receiving five cents for every barrel of pickled fish they exported.
We use the power of tax dollars. We use regulations. We use threats... etc.
Without running a search, I can go all the way back to the 1860s when the federal government gave pensions to union soilders.
In running a search I found them from our very foundation as a nation.
Agricultural bounties: Governments offered various rewards to incentivize agricultural production, such as the effort in Virginia in the mid-1600s to produce silk. In 1656, the assembly paid an Armenian man 4,000 pounds of tobacco to stay in the country to produce silk.
When the United States was formally established, the new federal government also moved quickly to implement its own subsidies.
Tariff Act of 1789: One of the first acts passed by the U.S. Congress on July 4, 1789, served as an early form of subsidy. It provided a 10% reduction on customs duties for goods imported on American vessels, as well as a "tonnage tax" that favored American ships. This subsidized American shipping and shipbuilding industries.
Fisheries subsidy: As part of the same 1789 act, fishermen were subsidized by receiving five cents for every barrel of pickled fish they exported.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 12:59 pm to frogtown
quote:
Will the American taxpayers benefit if the company goes bankrupt and the stock goes to zero?
This ignores what is already happening.
We are giving these dollars to companies already through various means. And no direct return on that money.
We have done that from the beginning of our nation.
None of that money is ever coming back. The way we are doing this
- either a return on investment or its the same as just giving the money away.
- and its done via non voting shares.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 1:45 pm to Jjdoc
I'm arguing from principle. You're arguing from precedent.
Longevity doesn't equal legitimacy. Slavery, tariffs, and poll taxes have deep roots in U.S. history. The question isn't what has been done, it's what should be done. A free market isn't free when the referee also owns a team.
The Founders also taxed tea. That doesn't mean we should nationalize Starbucks.
Government interference in markets has always been a temptation, but the American idea was that liberty works better than central planning. The history of bad habits doesn't make them virtues.
Longevity doesn't equal legitimacy. Slavery, tariffs, and poll taxes have deep roots in U.S. history. The question isn't what has been done, it's what should be done. A free market isn't free when the referee also owns a team.
The Founders also taxed tea. That doesn't mean we should nationalize Starbucks.
Government interference in markets has always been a temptation, but the American idea was that liberty works better than central planning. The history of bad habits doesn't make them virtues.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 2:02 pm to RoyalWe
quote:
The question isn't what has been done, it's what should be done. A free market isn't free when the referee also owns a team
Disagree. It does matter. 100%. Btw, a free market has never existed. But I do not think these shares allows the gov votes.
Also, the fed gov has always been the referee. We are not a libertarian utopia. We are a republic.
As a conservative, I understand that gov has a role and that it needs to be narrow. I dont see this as an expansion in that role.
quote:
The Founders also taxed tea. That doesn't mean we should nationalize Starbucks.
Government interference in markets has always been a temptation, but the American idea was that liberty works better than central planning. The history of bad habits doesn't make them virtues.
This isn't nationalizing anything. The gov has no more say than usual. These are non voting shares.
History shows the gov was set up to have some fed gov involvement.
The only question is how far does that extend.
A libertarian view is no gov which leads to no control over the border. Thats not practical.
A communist view is that everybody works and gets the same. Great on paper, in practice its horrible.
We are neither. We are a republic. In a republic, the government does have a function and a duty to a degree. That is the balance of our system.
What I see you saying is an idea that has never been in practice in all of human history that I know of.
This post was edited on 10/14/25 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 10/14/25 at 2:09 pm to Jjdoc
quote:The ref's job is to call fouls, not cash dividends. When the referee starts buying players, it's not a republic -- it's a racket. The government's role is rulebook, not roster.
the fed gov has always been the referee.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 2:13 pm to RoyalWe
That is an opinion drawn from the idea that we are nationalizing businesses.
We are not. If we were, I'm with you on that.
It also ignores history. So we have never been a republic?
Btw... thank you for a decent civil conversation.
We are not. If we were, I'm with you on that.
It also ignores history. So we have never been a republic?
Btw... thank you for a decent civil conversation.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 2:18 pm to Jjdoc
The Founders didn't fight for a system where government and business merge interests. A referee investing in the game isn't maintaining order, it's creating dependency. That's how liberty erodes: slowly, and always "for good reasons." Freedom itself had never been done until America tried it. If we, as a people, were so worried about precedent then we would still be paying taxes to the Crown.
I never thought we were really arguing. Just sharing ideas. I don't deny what government has done. I just wish they'd have done and would do less of it.
I never thought we were really arguing. Just sharing ideas. I don't deny what government has done. I just wish they'd have done and would do less of it.
This post was edited on 10/14/25 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 10/14/25 at 2:32 pm to RoyalWe
quote:
The Founders didn't fight for a system where government and business merge interests.
They did. An example, the US government and business merging for interest was the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791. The bank was a mixed-ownership corporation designed to serve both the financial needs of the new federal government and the commercial interests of the nation's elite.
The fed gov own 20% of that.
quote:
That's how liberty erodes: slowly, and always "for good reasons." Freedom itself had never been done until America tried it.
Rome was a republic at one point. Athens... Sparta.
Arwad is cited as one of the earliest examples of a republic, where the people were sovereign.
quote:
never thought we were arguing. Just sharing ideas. I don't deny what government has done. I just wish they'd have done and would do less of it.
I would love less of it. This is just my opinion. If we are going to tax the people and businesses and then use that money to prop up businesses and sectors of the economy, then I ok with the gov own shares as along as they have no control over the business making decisions and voting rights.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 4:45 pm to Jjdoc
Rome, Athens, and Sparta had assemblies, but their checks failed. Power and wealth merged until the few ruled the many. The Founders saw that pattern and built America to avoid it. That's why limits matter.
The government's 20% stake in the First Bank was real, but it wasn't about owning a business -- it was about survival. The early U.S. had no stable currency, no credit, and no fiscal infrastructure. Hamilton's bank was a pragmatic bridge. It was part public to earn trust, part private to attract capital, and temporary by design.
That's a far cry from modern government equity in private enterprise. The First Bank existed to make a market possible, not to compete in one. Once the system matured, its charter ended as intended.
The government's 20% stake in the First Bank was real, but it wasn't about owning a business -- it was about survival. The early U.S. had no stable currency, no credit, and no fiscal infrastructure. Hamilton's bank was a pragmatic bridge. It was part public to earn trust, part private to attract capital, and temporary by design.
That's a far cry from modern government equity in private enterprise. The First Bank existed to make a market possible, not to compete in one. Once the system matured, its charter ended as intended.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 5:20 pm to BCreed1
This is a way forward for Social Security. Eventually, our country’s citizens should be getting a fair market return on their mandatory retirement contributions. Of course, that will require several presidents in a row who truly give a crap about the citizens.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 6:18 pm to frogtown
quote:
Will the American taxpayers benefit if the company goes bankrupt and the stock goes to zero?
Well, does the American taxpayers benifit from subsidies to industries or bail outs?
Posted on 10/14/25 at 6:27 pm to RoyalWe
quote:
The government's 20% stake in the First Bank was real, but it wasn't about owning a business -- it was about survival.
Truth. That is whats happening now though. Can you explain how it is different?
The U.S. government has owned stocks or equity in companies during crises like the 2008 financial crisis, taking stakes in banks and automakers to prevent collapse. It also did so in the past, such as during the World Wars and the Great Depression, when the Reconstruction Finance Corporation bought stocks in various companies to provide stability.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 6:48 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Well, does the American taxpayers benifit from subsidies to industries or bail outs?
No. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
This post was edited on 10/14/25 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 10/14/25 at 7:36 pm to frogtown
Then there's no difference in this.
- both show gov spending tax dollars.
- only one shows a possibility of getting dollars back.
- in both, should the company go out of business the money is gone.
- both show gov spending tax dollars.
- only one shows a possibility of getting dollars back.
- in both, should the company go out of business the money is gone.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News