Private jet company founded by Trump donor gets $27 million bailout

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did they meet the requirements or were they given special treatment?

a reply to: RazorV66

How do you feel about him signing those trillion dollar bills?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: RazorV66

How do you feel about him signing those trillion dollar bills?

Probably didn’t have much choice, now did he?

a reply to: RazorV66

The $27 million to the company in the OP is not really an issue to me because the Dems always jam sh!t in their bills that they want money to go to that is way less deserving than this.

What's this got to do with the dems ?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: RazorV66

The $27 million to the company in the OP is not really an issue to me because the Dems always jam sh!t in their bills that they want money to go to that is way less deserving than this.

What's this got to do with the dems ?

You do see the title of the thread, which is the headline at the link?
It’s obviously an attempt at a hit on Trump by the Liberal leaning CNBC, when they obviously know the bailout bill was passed with bipartisan approval.
So you tell me what it has to do with the Dems.

From the source in OP-

“The standard for determining air carrier eligibility was set by Congress on a bipartisan basis and each applicant’s eligibility is verified by the Department of Transportation before any funds are disbursed,” a spokesperson at the Treasury Department said in an email. “Political affiliation has absolutely no bearing on the Payroll Support Program, including applicant eligibility, the amount of assistance provided, or use of funds.”

Now, that doesn't mean there isn't any questionable dealings... But we don't have evidence that there is anything more to this than blanket spending which the bill offers.

To me, the issue is people are more willing to cherry pick aspects that paint their opponents in the light that fits their narrative. The reality is this bipartisan bill was passed in haste which inherently means there will be vast amounts of waste and inefficient spending.

Didn’t a performing arts center get $35 million?

originally posted by: face23785
This will surely get a few Trump voters to change their minds...

Desperate lol

Oh I know nothing will change the minds of Trump's ardent supporters.... after all, Trump was the one that stated rather clearly he could shoot somebody point-blank, and he'd still have his same core support.

He was right on the money on that one. That's what cult-like support gets you.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: RazorV66

The $27 million to the company in the OP is not really an issue to me because the Dems always jam sh!t in their bills that they want money to go to that is way less deserving than this.

What's this got to do with the dems ?

You do see the title of the thread, which is the headline at the link?
It’s obviously an attempt at a hit on Trump by the Liberal leaning CNBC, when they obviously know the bailout bill was passed with bipartisan approval.
So you tell me what it has to do with the Dems.

So let me ask you again, what's this got to do with the dems ?

Do you understand what bipartisan means ?

Im astounded you are getting screwed over by the government and are still blaming the other side, wake up already.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did they meet the requirements or were they given special treatment?

I don't see any indication that they didn't meet the requirements. This isn't being disputed in the OP. Neither is the fact these bail-outs were passed in part by the Democrats. It still doesn't change the facts in the OP, neither does it change who's amajority in the senate and who holds the Whitehouse.

Just because the government allows it so, doesn't make it right.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The reality is this bipartisan bill was passed in haste which inherently means there will be vast amounts of waste and inefficient spending

Which is one thing the goverment are really good at.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Didn’t a performing arts center get $35 million?

That's one of the big talking points from the other side that attempts to stir outrage directed at one party when both were complicit in the bill.

Moving aside the fact that 35 million in the context of a multi trillion dollars is a weird thing to laser focus on IMO, tax payers would have likely been footed with that either way had their 700+ employees moved to unemployment. Maybe it would have been less had it not been in the bill and we let things play out organically, but again, it's just crumbs for partisans to focus on when the reality is the bill was a giant disaster.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Do you even begin to understand the difference between a "million" and a "billion"?

A million $1 dollar bills stands 333' feet tall.

A "Billion" dollar bills stands 358,510 feet tall!! THREE HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND FEET!!! That's 10x higher than an a commercial airliner flies!! AND, technically into "SPACE"!!!

A "Trillion" dollars stands 67,866 MILES high, a quarter of the way to the MOON!!

And you're worried about $27 million???????

What a JOKE!!!

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did they meet the requirements or were they given special treatment?

I don't see any indication that they didn't meet the requirements. This isn't being disputed in the OP. Neither is the fact these bail-outs were passed in part by the Democrats. It still doesn't change the facts in the OP, neither does it change who's amajority in the senate and who holds the Whitehouse.

Just because the government allows it so, doesn't make it right.

Well the wording of the thread title and OP seemed to make it appear that they got it because he was a donor.

Problem is, once the government decided they were going to bailout almost every element of the economy, kind of hard to pick and choose who can receive help. I've been very vocal that I'm against the whole thing in general... But saying something is frivolous (like a private jet company or performing arts center) and therefor shouldn't receive help doesn't change the reality defaults and layoffs would still put a burden on taxpayers in one way or another.

The whole thing is screwed, and I don't think painting it as a partisan issue helps when both were complicit.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Do you even begin to understand the difference between a "million" and a "billion"?

How about a trillion?

And you're worried about $27 million???????

What a JOKE!!!

I see you're not disputing the OP. Gosh, we're making a lot of progress here.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Michelle Obama spent TWICE this, of taxpayer monies, on her "vacation" trips to Africa!!

Hell, Obama himself spent twice this golfing in Hawaii!!

You really need to go re-think your OP!

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well the wording of the thread title and OP seemed to make it appear..

I just had to read the start of this post to not worry about responding any further.

Thanks.

OOPS!!!

LOL!

Makes my blood boil. These private jet companies cater to the rich, people who can afford to stay at home without a paycheck. But here we are focused on throwing some old guy trying to cut hair to pay bills in jail, small business and workers behind on bill payments worried how to put food on the table for their children. We are certainly living in an altered universe.