CowboyGal2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 That is something of a weasel answer. Clearly the point being made is that while the right rants about the mythical Latasha and her Cadillac, the massively larger costs to the taxpayer of subsidizing already profitable industry that is sitting on a mountain of cash are ignored by those same people. I've not read anyone supporting ethanol subsidies. GE gifts and tax breaks to move jobs overseas, solydra type scams, the list goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 That is something of a weasel answer. Clearly the point being made is that while the right rants about the mythical Latasha and her Cadillac, the massively larger costs to the taxpayer of subsidizing already profitable industry that is sitting on a mountain of cash are ignored by those same people. The same applies to defense - it is grotesquely bloated beyond all possible reason yet the right refuses to even look at cutting it. By the way, here are some of the folks protesting about taxes but don't want to cut defense - you can see their intellectual strength here. So one cannot believe that both are problematic and largely inappropriate? We must decide which is worse when both are wrong and set one aside as we exclusively address the situations in a hierarchical order? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 So one cannot believe that both are problematic and largely inappropriate? We must decide which is worse when both are wrong and set one aside as we exclusively address the situations in a hierarchical order? Exactly - I would think most people would be in favor of cutting both. It seems like it is always a one or the other with you guys. I for one make it obvious that I want entitlements cut - no way would I ever be against closing the loopholes for corporations like GE - I am against the bailouts and wish we would not have done them. I also think defense has a major chink of money that could be cut (I actually think each and every govt dept could easily cut 5-10 percent without a blink of an eye. Does it really have to be one or the other?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Exactly - I would think most people would be in favor of cutting both. It seems like it is always a one or the other with you guys. I for one make it obvious that I want entitlements cut - no way would I ever be against closing the loopholes for corporations like GE - I am against the bailouts and wish we would not have done them. I also think defense has a major chink of money that could be cut (I actually think each and every govt dept could easily cut 5-10 percent without a blink of an eye. Does it really have to be one or the other?? Actually - I think it is the useless politicians that are in office that would rather fight about crap than do what is needed so I guess maybe because of them it is one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Exactly - I would think most people would be in favor of cutting both. It seems like it is always a one or the other with you guys. I for one make it obvious that I want entitlements cut - no way would I ever be against closing the loopholes for corporations like GE - I am against the bailouts and wish we would not have done them. I also think defense has a major chink of money that could be cut (I actually think each and every govt dept could easily cut 5-10 percent without a blink of an eye. Does it really have to be one or the other?? With so many disgraced and embarrassed neoconservatives masquerading as Libertarians or Constitutionalists one cannot blame folks for having suspicions that any who appear as such might have a true agenda hidden behind a new and convenient rap. It is frustrating to be the subject of suspicion, but not wholly unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Actually - I think it is the useless politicians that are in office that would rather fight about crap than do what is needed so I guess maybe because of them it is one or the other. Partisanship has consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 50,000 marched down Portland's streets. http://civiliansnews.com/2011/10/06/50000-...-rally-protest/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Did you know corporate welfare costs 10 times more annually than social welfare? So which do you support cutting? The one that costs more or less? You got anything to back that up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 Seems like it might be more like 3 to 1, instead of 10 times. For a couple of reasons we should also examine how America's corporations are faring tax-wise. Firstly, one of the things we hear is how it would help the economy and help businesses if we reduce their tax burden. Second, since complaints from some Conservatives seem to be are that the poor in America "live on welfare" and represent a drain on society, it is instructive to examine how much welfare America's big corporations get. Our findings are that:a. Corporate taxes in the United States are essentially near multi-decade lows. b. Corporate welfare is astonishing high and represents ~3 times the welfare for poor individuals. Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/corporate_welfare.htm It seems as if the poor need to pool their money together and form a corporation so they can have jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Seems like it might be more like 3 to 1, instead of 10 times. http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/corporate_welfare.htm It seems as if the poor need to pool their money together and form a corporation so they can have jobs. So I'm guessing we're leaving out other social programs from this equation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Here's what I did for fun; I pulled up the costs of "welfare" programs (things I group into welfare. Nopt including S, Medicare/Caid, etc) 2011 Budget, Welfare items: Section 8 - 28.64 B SSI (Welfare) - 53.22 B Food Stamps - 80.08 B TANF - 18.59 B Child Nut. Programs - 18.35 B WIC - 7.16 B Low Income Home Energy Ass. - 5.3 B Child Care - 2.93 B Public Housing - 2.02 B Other Nutrition - .63 B Total - 217.36 B Looks like we may be propping up the poor in this county a bit more than we are the wealthy, evil, disgusting, greedy corporations. ETA: I forgot to include the 4.7 Billion for additional public housing funds. But, since it is an insignificant amount, I'll let it slide. THere is also 3.58 Billion in "Child Support/Family Support Services" that I have no clue as to what it is, I've left that out as well. ETA 2: I have also left out the 83.26 Billion for unemployment and the 47.27 Billion for the EITC. Oh, and the 3.8 billion for SSI administration. Oh, yeah, and the 3.17 for "other income security". ETA 3: How could I forget the .88 Billion for "Refugee Assistance". Silly me, so that brings us to like 218.24 B. ETA 4: 'Child Care entitlements to States", 2.92 Billion... Gotta add that one... Call it 221 B. Edited October 10, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Looks like we may be propping up the poor in this county a bit more than we are the wealthy, evil, disgusting, greedy corporations. I guess I'd like to see some before and after numbers. The cost of propping up the poor before The Great Recession as opposed to now. I guess if the numbers are a lot higher now, it would lead me to believe that some of the poor having to be propped up now did not have to be propped up before the recession. I can see why this group would be upset and for them I have empathy. For those that have made public assistance a way of life I do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 You People... (YOU PEOPLE...) Absolutely Must... (ABSOLUTELY MUST...) Watch This Clip... (WATCH THIS CLIP...) Mic Check! (MIC CHECK!) Mic Check! (MIC CHECK!) Mic Check! (MIC CHECK!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 You People... (YOU PEOPLE...) Absolutely Must... (ABSOLUTELY MUST...) Watch This Clip... (WATCH THIS CLIP...) Mic Check! (MIC CHECK!) Mic Check! (MIC CHECK!) Mic Check! (MIC CHECK!) kinda looks like church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 kinda looks like church? "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." - GK Chesterton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Here's what I did for fun; I pulled up the costs of "welfare" programs (things I group into welfare. Nopt including S, Medicare/Caid, etc) 2011 Budget, Welfare items: Section 8 - 28.64 B SSI (Welfare) - 53.22 B Food Stamps - 80.08 B TANF - 18.59 B Child Nut. Programs - 18.35 B WIC - 7.16 B Low Income Home Energy Ass. - 5.3 B Child Care - 2.93 B Public Housing - 2.02 B Other Nutrition - .63 B Total - 217.36 B Looks like we may be propping up the poor in this county a bit more than we are the wealthy, evil, disgusting, greedy corporations. ETA: I forgot to include the 4.7 Billion for additional public housing funds. But, since it is an insignificant amount, I'll let it slide. THere is also 3.58 Billion in "Child Support/Family Support Services" that I have no clue as to what it is, I've left that out as well. ETA 2: I have also left out the 83.26 Billion for unemployment and the 47.27 Billion for the EITC. Oh, and the 3.8 billion for SSI administration. Oh, yeah, and the 3.17 for "other income security". ETA 3: How could I forget the .88 Billion for "Refugee Assistance". Silly me, so that brings us to like 218.24 B. ETA 4: 'Child Care entitlements to States", 2.92 Billion... Gotta add that one... Call it 221 B. That will teach Waterman to attempt a post that exceeds 10 words. Hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 That will teach Waterman to attempt a post that exceeds 10 words. Hilarious. Not sure I find evidence to show we are spending 80 billion dollars on food stamps to be all that hilarious. Median household income drops a lot since recession. household income declined more in the two years after the recession ended than it did during the recession itself, new research has found. Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession - from December 2007 to June 2009 - household income fell 3.2 percent. Looks like those food stamp bills are gonna keep on coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I like the lie about how much of the people on welfare want to stay on welfare. Do you think during the great amount of downsizing in corporations since the 90's, those people making good money with good jobs want to stay on welfare? The only people who would want to stay on welfare are the fast food workers who would make more on welfare than work at Taco Bell. Seems an easy fix would be to have jobs in America. It's pretty easy to see that jobs that aren't fast food/retail/gas have vanished in this country. Ask Perch, if he is on welfare, if he would rather be on welfare or have his old business back. Edited October 10, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I like the lie about how much of the people on welfare want to stay on welfare. Do you think during the great amount of downsizing in corporations since the 90's, those people making good money with good jobs want to stay on welfare? It's pretty easy to see that jobs that aren't fast food/retail/gas have vanished in this country. Ask Perch, if he is on welfare, if he would rather be on welfare or have his old business back. well dah who does not like smoken cheap cigarettes, drinken keystone and eating ramen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 well dah who does not like smoken cheap cigarettes, drinken keystone and eating ramen? I'm led to believe everyone on welfare enjoys Ramen more than steak. But I know from personal experience this can't be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I like the lie about how much of the people on welfare want to stay on welfare. Do you think during the great amount of downsizing in corporations since the 90's, those people making good money with good jobs want to stay on welfare? The only people who would want to stay on welfare are the fast food workers who would make more on welfare than work at Taco Bell. Seems an easy fix would be to have jobs in America. It's pretty easy to see that jobs that aren't fast food/retail/gas have vanished in this country. Ask Perch, if he is on welfare, if he would rather be on welfare or have his old business back. Not arguing who does or does not want to stay on welfare. Simply arguing the point that the numbers you rely on with regard to welfare vs. corporate welfare are (though technically correct) very disingenuous. Further, you can argue all you would like about people wanting to or not wanting to stay on forms of public assistance, some do, some don't. Regadless, the system needs to be revamped. Then again, most of government spending needs to be revamped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 Further, you can argue all you would like about people wanting to or not wanting to stay on forms of public assistance, some do, some don't. Regadless, the system needs to be revamped. Then again, most of government spending needs to be revamped. I agree with you Georgian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Wow!?!?! What the hell was that all about? That dude w. John Lewis, the one in the white shirt, you know the one I'm talking about... He's definitely been on the receiving end of man love. ETA: If I were John Lewis I would have just started shaking my head and slowly walked off, gotten in my car, gone to a bar and gotten drunk after having to go through that... Edited October 10, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.