

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin asks the media for social distancing before delivering remarks on the coronavirus relief package after the Senate Republican Policy luncheon in Russell Building on Tuesday, March 17, 2020. Larry Kudlow, right, White House economic adviser, and Eric Ueland, legislative affairs director, also appear. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Cognizant of the bad taste left in the mouths of many American taxpayers who saw Wall Street banks and corporate interests bailed out with trillions of dollars during the financial crash of 2008 while workers and homeworkers were left to fight for themselves, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reportedly told Republican lawmakers during a closed-door meeting this week to avoid using the provocative word "bailout" and collective GOP laughter ensued when one senator in the room (jokingly or not) suggested using the term "freedom payments" instead.
Reminiscent of putting the word "freedom" in front of anything right-wingers want the American people to swallow without question--like "freedom fries" ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq after "french" became a dirty word due to France's vocal objections--the private exchange helped further elucidate that corporate interests and their Republican allies are very much aware that no-strings-attached bailouts of corporations and financial institutions will not sit well with the U.S. public, especially as working class families, small business owners, and whole communities suffer due to the economic fallout from the coronavirus outbreak.
The exchange between Mnuchin and the GOP lawmakers was reported by the Washington Post:
When Mnuchin visited with Republican senators at their Tuesday lunch, the secretary pleaded with them not to use the politically charged word "bailout" in describing the proposed relief for Boeing, one of many large corporations that stands to benefit from the administration's plan. One senator raised a hand and asked if they should instead call them "freedom payments," which prompted laughter, according to a person briefed on the closed-door meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about the discussion.
The reported episode spurred both ridicule and anger on social media.
"God," said one user on Twitter, "could they show their contempt for us more clearly? They want to direct the aid solely to the corporations that own them...that couldn't be clearer."
With the battle of the scope of and conditions for federal bailouts of U.S. industries raging on Capitol Hill, economist Dean Baker at the Center for Economic & Policy Research argued in an op-ed Wednesday that any corporate rescue operation funded by taxpayers must come with strict provisions, including future caps on executive pay, putting shareholders last, and making sure industry workers receive full pay and benefits.
"This is not just a question of envy," Baker wrote. "More money for those at the top means less for everyone else."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Cognizant of the bad taste left in the mouths of many American taxpayers who saw Wall Street banks and corporate interests bailed out with trillions of dollars during the financial crash of 2008 while workers and homeworkers were left to fight for themselves, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reportedly told Republican lawmakers during a closed-door meeting this week to avoid using the provocative word "bailout" and collective GOP laughter ensued when one senator in the room (jokingly or not) suggested using the term "freedom payments" instead.
Reminiscent of putting the word "freedom" in front of anything right-wingers want the American people to swallow without question--like "freedom fries" ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq after "french" became a dirty word due to France's vocal objections--the private exchange helped further elucidate that corporate interests and their Republican allies are very much aware that no-strings-attached bailouts of corporations and financial institutions will not sit well with the U.S. public, especially as working class families, small business owners, and whole communities suffer due to the economic fallout from the coronavirus outbreak.
The exchange between Mnuchin and the GOP lawmakers was reported by the Washington Post:
When Mnuchin visited with Republican senators at their Tuesday lunch, the secretary pleaded with them not to use the politically charged word "bailout" in describing the proposed relief for Boeing, one of many large corporations that stands to benefit from the administration's plan. One senator raised a hand and asked if they should instead call them "freedom payments," which prompted laughter, according to a person briefed on the closed-door meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about the discussion.
The reported episode spurred both ridicule and anger on social media.
"God," said one user on Twitter, "could they show their contempt for us more clearly? They want to direct the aid solely to the corporations that own them...that couldn't be clearer."
With the battle of the scope of and conditions for federal bailouts of U.S. industries raging on Capitol Hill, economist Dean Baker at the Center for Economic & Policy Research argued in an op-ed Wednesday that any corporate rescue operation funded by taxpayers must come with strict provisions, including future caps on executive pay, putting shareholders last, and making sure industry workers receive full pay and benefits.
"This is not just a question of envy," Baker wrote. "More money for those at the top means less for everyone else."
Cognizant of the bad taste left in the mouths of many American taxpayers who saw Wall Street banks and corporate interests bailed out with trillions of dollars during the financial crash of 2008 while workers and homeworkers were left to fight for themselves, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reportedly told Republican lawmakers during a closed-door meeting this week to avoid using the provocative word "bailout" and collective GOP laughter ensued when one senator in the room (jokingly or not) suggested using the term "freedom payments" instead.
Reminiscent of putting the word "freedom" in front of anything right-wingers want the American people to swallow without question--like "freedom fries" ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq after "french" became a dirty word due to France's vocal objections--the private exchange helped further elucidate that corporate interests and their Republican allies are very much aware that no-strings-attached bailouts of corporations and financial institutions will not sit well with the U.S. public, especially as working class families, small business owners, and whole communities suffer due to the economic fallout from the coronavirus outbreak.
The exchange between Mnuchin and the GOP lawmakers was reported by the Washington Post:
When Mnuchin visited with Republican senators at their Tuesday lunch, the secretary pleaded with them not to use the politically charged word "bailout" in describing the proposed relief for Boeing, one of many large corporations that stands to benefit from the administration's plan. One senator raised a hand and asked if they should instead call them "freedom payments," which prompted laughter, according to a person briefed on the closed-door meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about the discussion.
The reported episode spurred both ridicule and anger on social media.
"God," said one user on Twitter, "could they show their contempt for us more clearly? They want to direct the aid solely to the corporations that own them...that couldn't be clearer."
With the battle of the scope of and conditions for federal bailouts of U.S. industries raging on Capitol Hill, economist Dean Baker at the Center for Economic & Policy Research argued in an op-ed Wednesday that any corporate rescue operation funded by taxpayers must come with strict provisions, including future caps on executive pay, putting shareholders last, and making sure industry workers receive full pay and benefits.
"This is not just a question of envy," Baker wrote. "More money for those at the top means less for everyone else."