Corporate welfare: The gift that keeps on giving ... and giving ... and giving ... and giving ... and giving ... and giving ...

"Americans are sick and tired of 'crony capitalism,' and the way to solve the problem is to eliminate business subsidy programs."

 

Source: Cato Institute report referenced in Post No. 70

Crony capitalism? Is this like giving your friends a 660 million dollar no bid contract for a web site that doesn't work...

My college kid can find a job. My teenagers can find a job. I've worked in many fields in my life. I am currently a mechanic. If I lose my job then I'll find a job somewhere. I may not be a mechanic. Hell, I may be a janitor or go back to delivering pizzas but I bet I get a job. Or two. Whatever jobs I can get to support my family is where I'll be. If I don't have this job as a mechanic then obviously my family and I will be going through some lifestyle changes but I'll be working somewhere collecting a pay check from somebody. I can't help but wonder how many people don't want to lower themselves or look outside of their specialized field to find work. There is always work somewhere. I don't have a problem greeting you at Walmart or taking your order at McDonalds if I can get a check.

 

Great post!

Jobs period. They gave up months ago on jobs in their fields. Most recently the two with degrees have applied for call center positions, seasonal positions in retail, at UPS, Cafe Press, Zappos and Amazon, 1 at McDonalds. Two of the three have sold their homes and cars. One lives with her brother and his family, one is renting an apartment. The lady I'm her 60's has some physical limitations, so she has not been able to apply for the jobs that require standing or lifting over 50 lbs. She lost her home and is now living with her son and his wife and kids.

 

And there will always be people who for whatever reason are seen as not an attractive hire for companies. If they've had that many interviews with no success there could be factors like poor interview skills or such. The 60 year old obviously has the age factor which is very hard but not impossible to overcome.

The libertarian Cato Institute, founded in 1974 by your pal Charles Koch (and others), says corporate welfare costs U.S. taxpayers $100 billion a year.

 

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget | Cato Institute

 

My pals? I have my own mind. I agree that some incentive programs are outdated and we should only use these programs when they help grow the economy, but I don't consider the term welfare proper.

Corporate welfare: The gift that keeps on giving ... and giving ... and giving ... and giving ... and giving ... and giving ...

 

And yet you have not defined it, which tells me you don't really understand the mantra that you keep repeating. Not surprised though.

 

There is much that comes under the label the left calls corporate welfare. Many programs could and should be ended, just as there are with individual welfare. Others are effective in yeilding positive results in the way of holding costs down, promoting new and improved technologies and processes, and providing employment.

"Americans are sick and tired of 'crony capitalism,' and the way to solve the problem is to eliminate business subsidy programs."

 

Source: Cato Institute report referenced in Post No. 70

 

Crony capitalism is a problem. But again it's not welfare. The term is used as propganda. Lobbyist in Washington and their influence does irk me and it does stray from true capitlism, but again tax incentive programs to promote job growth are not welfare.

And yet you have not defined it, which tells me you don't really understand the mantra that you keep repeating. Not surprised though.

 

There is much that comes under the label the left calls corporate welfare. Many programs could and should be ended, just as there are with individual welfare. Others are effective in yeilding positive results in the way of holding costs down, promoting new and improved technologies and processes, and providing employment.

 

I agree 100%. I did find it funny I asked him to define a term he likes to use over and over and he can't. I guess if you read a term enough online it becomes second nature to some people.

My college kid can find a job. My teenagers can find a job. I've worked in many fields in my life. I am currently a mechanic. If I lose my job then I'll find a job somewhere. I may not be a mechanic. Hell, I may be a janitor or go back to delivering pizzas but I bet I get a job. Or two. Whatever jobs I can get to support my family is where I'll be. If I don't have this job as a mechanic then obviously my family and I will be going through some lifestyle changes but I'll be working somewhere collecting a pay check from somebody. I can't help but wonder how many people don't want to lower themselves or look outside of their specialized field to find work. There is always work somewhere. I don't have a problem greeting you at Walmart or taking your order at McDonalds if I can get a check.

 

I'm a registered Dem, but pretty middle of the road. That being said, unemployment benefits should only last so long. I'm thinking a year, AT MOST. Even that seems like a long time to me. If you can't find some kind of job in that amount of time, you aren't trying hard enough, IMO.

 

During rough times I do think 26 weeks can be too short, especially when the hiring process can now take up to 30 days or more and to do it right, it costs money and time to find a job. On the other end, 99 weeks just seems too long....that's almost 2 years...at some point you have to take some personal responsibility....maybe you're in the wrong field, or need to upgrade your skill set.

 

Excellent. :thumb:

Crony capitalism is a problem. But again it's not welfare. The term is used as propganda. Lobbyist in Washington and their influence does irk me and it does stray from true capitlism, but again tax incentive programs to promote job growth are not welfare.

I'm just going by what the Koch brothers and the Cato Institute say. If these libertarian patriots are uncomfortable with the fact that crony capitalism/corporate welfare is costing Uncle Sam $100 billion a year, then who am I to question them?

 

If you don't like their choice of terms, then send them a registered letter.

I'm just going by what the Koch brothers and the Cato Institute say. If these libertarian patriots are uncomfortable with the fact that crony capitalism/corporate welfare is costing Uncle Sam $100 billion a year, then who am I to question them?

 

If you don't like their choice of terms, then send them a registered letter.

 

As a country, why don't we do something truly crazy like try to solve both corporate and individual welfare instead of excusing one but allowing the other to fester forever? Is that such a crazy idea?

The biggest issue I believe with unemployment is that it can be a double edged sword. On one hand, if unemployment is provided for too long or the benefit is too much, SOME (notice I said some) recipients will look at their unemployment check, look at what their old paychecks used to be and look at a date way out on the calendar and come to the conclusion they have a long term paid vacation and not take looking for a job serious until that future cut off date gets closer. On the other had, if unemployment is provided for too short time frame or the benefit is too small, some recipients who truly need help and due to age, lack of job skills or (this will sound mean but in some cases it is what makes finding or keeping a job difficult) they are just not very intelligent, will not receive the help they truly need.

 

Some people say unemployment should be not be receive the same amount each week and then suddenly receive nothing, instead, slowly phase recipients off. That may entice those taking advantage of welfare to get back to work earlier but it does not solve the issue of those who truly need it. A friend of mine who teaches of UofL had a colleague who was from Southeast Asia. In his country (don't recall which), the unemployed are taken care of but don't touch a single dollar (whatever currency they use) of their aid. If they need something, they contact the assigned case worker who approves the expenditure or declines it based upon what recipients are allowed. The basics are covered; food, shelter, utilities, simple clothing, etc. but unnecessary luxuries are not. This would help prevent or alteast limit the purchases of the stereotypical view that much of unemployment benefits are spent on beer, cigarettes, cable TV, etc.. The downside of a system like this is that it is expensive to administer on per recipient basis due to the number of case workers that would need to be employed but the hope is that because those who are only using unemployment as a paid vacation can no longer touch their cash to buy luxuries, they have an incentive to search for employment and got off unemployment. Now, how long do you let people stay on such a program? I don't know. The gist of this type of program is that people are having their needs met (able to eat, not losing their homes, etc.) but are not leading a life of convenience so as to prevent an incentive to find work.

How is the amount of benefit someone receives on unemployment determined?

How is the amount of benefit someone receives on unemployment determined?

 

It varies by state. OH & KY are based on wages earned with minimum and maximum limits. I believe OH still takes into account the number of qualifying dependents.

As a country, why don't we do something truly crazy like try to solve both corporate and individual welfare instead of excusing one but allowing the other to fester forever? Is that such a crazy idea?

 

I am glad I received a like on this, thank you PP92. I was starting to worry that I was the only person who is bothered by both individuals and corporations receiving unneeded aid.

 

As I have said before, corporate welfare is probably the most bastardized term used today. If the government offers tax incentives to entice businesses to hire people who were on welfare (commonly called the Welfare to Work Credit). The amount of revenue lost to offer that tax incentive is much less than continued welfare payments. Is this corporate welfare? If so, it sounds like corporate welfare I can live with. There are also tax incentives to hire people released from prison. Finding a job with a recent crime on your record is pretty difficult. So if someone is released and they cannot find legitimate work, the odds are pretty good they will go to illegitimate work (that is criminal in nature) to get by therefor tying up the courts, public defenders, prosecutors, and require feeding and housing the guy/gal again when he is arrested and sent back to jail. The hope is that some released really did learn from their time served and if given a chance, will avoid crime in the future. So offering a business tax incentive to give that guy/gal a chance is again, corporate welfare I can live with.

 

There are several parts of Louisville that are being revitalized. 5 - 10 years ago these area were dumps and were constant problems for the city. Now they are vibrant areas where investors have and are continuing to hire contractors to rehabilitate the building in the areas resulting in jobs which pay payroll taxes, property values to increase resulting in higher property taxes and other benefits. So, again, is this corporate welfare? If so, again, I can live with it because of the city had to go in and clean things up, the cost to tax payers would be much higher.

 

Now, where I have a problem with corporate welfare is where is really doesn't provide much of a benefit. I never had understood offering incentives to search for oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. The argument is that such incentives increase the oil supply to keep gas prices down. My argument is what good is it to take a dollar from me today so I can save a dollar (or less) tomorrow at the pump???? The same with farm subsidies. The are argued the subsidies help the family farmer keep crop prices down. Well, if those subsidies were not provided then supply and demand would cause crop prices to go up some and make up for the subsidies no longer received so again, pay a dollar today so I save a dollar (or less) in the produce aisle at Kroger. And paying farmers not to farm has to be the worst of all.