Corporate vs. Social Welfare

The US spends much more on corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthy, government bestowal of money grants, corporate privilege, oil company subsidies, corporate tax refunds, giveaways of land and resources, funding of research and development, crop subsidies, property tax credits, funds for stadiums and casinos, Wall Street bailouts and zero interest loans ($trillions), etc., etc., than we do on social welfare (food stamps, TANF, AFDC).

Why are you righties so blinded that you can't see this? Why? Why are you so vociferous when your precious tax dollars are used to assist hungry children or needy seniors but say nothing when we dish out billions to the already wealthy? Why? I just don't get it. You people are so brainwashed and devoid of reality. Keep believing the lies...

 

Most corporate welfare right now is subsidies for green technology.

Kill it, I say.

 

Why not simply kill it all? It isn't a Free Market approach at all and it is more aligned with the Protectionist philosophies of the past.

 

Abolish all welfare.

 

Some people actually really need welfare. Rich corporations and individuals do not.

 

Nobody needs to be dependent.

 

The welfare state is a mechanism under the control of individuals guided by a theory that need, any need, is a mortgage on your life, income and property. You should expect that there will be individuals and groups guided by the same thinking with their hands in the collective cookie jar and that the beneficiaries of the loot will include industry as well individuals regarded as poor. That's the nature of the game. The problem is that you are not likely guided by any actual theory of rights here. You are merely exposing an alleged hypocrisy. If you were properly guided, you would not be selective in your condemnation and the focus of your criticism would be the philosophy that guides the general policy. You have no case here unless and until you renounce 'altruism' as the proper code of morality and adopt the implicit moral code that guided the founders.

 

We have garbage dumps already; so where are the 'people' dumps going to be?

Are you and others so willing to discard those who likely will not be able to fend for themselves?

 

Apples and oranges.

Corporations do not legitimately need tax-payer welfare. Individuals who face misfortune do legitimately need it.

The "moral code that guided the founders" is crystal clear:
Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

We the People, not, We the Corporations.

 

Thats modern day christian values for you....

 

Individual welfare extends far beyond the "unfortunate who need it."

 

Amen, to that!

 

Well said!! You are so very RIGHT ON!!

 

You'll end up paying more in taxes for the construction of more prisions, corrections officers, staff support, medical, dental, heating, water, electicity, land to build the prisions, contractor fees and other ancillary costs. This does not take into account court costs, lawsuits against the Fed, state and local governments.

Abolishing welfare will have severe social issues, including but not limited to; increased crime, violence, medical costs (not including those admitted to hospitals for medical related conditions), etc.

There's really no rational way you can wave a magic wand and cause everyone to leave the system without placing a severe financial strain on the public.

 

There is no connection betwen poverty and crime.

 

There is no connection betwen poverty and crime.

 

There is no real world successful example of what you advocate.

 

Well, yes, real crime statistics are down now, and they were down during the Great Depression.

 

Congratulations on repeating the talking points ad nauseum. I especially like the details you've given.

Why are you lefties so blinded that you can't see what you're doing? Why? Oh, why? Why are you so vociferous when protecting deadbeats and bums but hate for tax monies, mostly not yours, to be used for anything that might produce jobs and aid the economy? Why are you only interested in giving money to crack addicts and bums and relegating their children to perpetual poverty.

Why? Why? I just don't get it? You people are so brainwashed and devoid of reality. Keep believing the lies....

 

Major entitlements alone are 43% of the budget; discretionary spending is only 19%: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

lol

 

Very grown-up of you...

If you would stop bloviating for five minutes and actually look at the facts and reality, and stop regurgitating the lies from Fox News you could see the truth. Leftist advocate for what they do because the fact of the matter is that social democratic policies produce better outcomes across the board. Societies and countries who apply the principles we advocate experience better outcomes on almost all social, economic and health factors. Guess what, if you have a strong social safety net, poverty rates go down. Guess what, if you have stronger gun laws, crime goes down. Guess what, if you provide access to healthcare to all citizens, overall health, life expectancy, and infant mortality rates improve. Crazy, huh? I know it seems paradoxical, but you can look at the numbers.

Either way, keep believing the lies...

Feel free to educate yourself:
www.equalitytrust.org

 

Stop the lies. Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment benefits, Disability, etc., are insurance programs (hence Federal Insurance Contributions Act), they are not programs where you get something for nothing. They are not welfare programs.

 

Not even close.

 

They're insurance programs that all the other taxpayers buy for you. "Something for nothing" is exactly what they are.

 

You assume that conservatives favor corporate welfare, which is a false assumption. Your guy, Obama, is the guy dishing out corporate welfare. GE made a big profit this year and paid no taxes, thanks to their in the bed relationship with Obama.