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 sure you always agree what each have to say. You would never just pick and choose points to help your argument.:ohbrother:

 

I consider myself a libertarian and I know crony capitalism is a problem. I just don't think you understand what it is and I don't think corporate welfare is a real term .

 

If you want to say we need to revist some of our tax incentive programs that aren't promoting economic growth then I would agree with you.

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.

 

Like I said above I don't think corporate welfare is the proper term to be used in what you describe. But I agree if any program in place in proven not to provide economic growth or provide a positive return for the general public then those programs should be revisited.

Like I said above I don't think corporate welfare is the proper term to be used in what you describe. But I agree if any program in place in proven not to provide economic growth or provide a positive return for the general public then those programs should be revisited.

 

We are on the same page with the phrase corporate welfare. It is a term that is filled with emotion so it works great when being thrown out in a discussion or a debate, especially a debate you are losing. Throwing out an emotion filled phrase or term can (unjustifiably) put the debate back in your corner.

 

When corporate welfare/tax incentives are used, I prefer it be done on the state or local level rather than the federal level. I think it is easier for the electorate to stay informed of projects or whatever that receive tax incentives when they occur in their own communities rather than across the country and can there for make better decisions on validity of the projects receiving tax incentives when it comes to voting or complaining to elected officials.

Here's something to chew on: Every person now drawing unemployment HAD A JOB in the not-too-distant past. Every person now drawing unemployment was PAYING TAXES in the not-too-distant past. We're not talking about stumblebums or work shirkers.

 

It's really too bad that the majority who post on these political threads consider them fair game, simply because they're economically disadvantaged.

 

The extended benefits for many just mean an extended time off of having to work. I have family members and close friends who have lost jobs due to no fault of their own, but I would also admit, and I love these people to death, that they took full advantage of the extended benefits eg. in one case to bridge to retirement without having to really look for an interim job and in another looked for the "perfect" opportunity for ages it seemed.

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?

 

Thank you for a voice of moderation. I'm so worn out by national politics mainly because nobody seems willing to take a total view of what's wrong, and only points fingers at the usual ideological suspects.

 

On this board, you get a litany of people griping and moaning about welfare/welfare reform as if that's the single biggest thing saddling our economy. Mention federal giveaways to the corporate world, however, and a shout-down ensues.

 

Liberals are just as bad with their pet causes; we just don't get as much of it on here because of the ideological makeup of this state.

 

I'm sure you always agree what each have to say. You would never just pick and choose points to help your argument.:ohbrother:

 

I consider myself a libertarian and I know crony capitalism is a problem. I just don't think you understand what it is and I don't think corporate welfare is a real term .

 

If you want to say we need to revist some of our tax incentive programs that aren't promoting economic growth then I would agree with you.

 

Semantics, really. You could call it corporate welfare, corporate kickbacks in exchange for campaign donations, or, more simply, the corporate looting of the US treasury. Regardless of what it's called, there's too much of it, and our country can't survive it, or unlimited unemployment benefits, or generational welfare, or a litany of other things one side of the aisle loves while the other side alternately hates.

 

 

Semantics, really. You could call it corporate welfare, corporate kickbacks in exchange for campaign donations, or, more simply, the corporate looting of the US treasury. Regardless of what it's called, there's too much of it, and our country can't survive it, or unlimited unemployment benefits, or generational welfare, or a litany of other things one side of the aisle loves while the other side alternately hates.

100% truth.

Thank you for a voice of moderation. I'm so worn out by national politics mainly because nobody seems willing to take a total view of what's wrong, and only points fingers at the usual ideological suspects.

 

On this board, you get a litany of people griping and moaning about welfare/welfare reform as if that's the single biggest thing saddling our economy. Mention federal giveaways to the corporate world, however, and a shout-down ensues.

 

Liberals are just as bad with their pet causes; we just don't get as much of it on here because of the ideological makeup of this state.

 

 

 

Semantics, really. You could call it corporate welfare, corporate kickbacks in exchange for campaign donations, or, more simply, the corporate looting of the US treasury. Regardless of what it's called, there's too much of it, and our country can't survive it, or unlimited unemployment benefits, or generational welfare, or a litany of other things one side of the aisle loves while the other side alternately hates.

I'm not saying what you describe isn't a problem. It might be semantics but welfare isn't the proper term. Pay to play kick backs lobbying etc... , all problems. It just isn't welfare.

I'm not saying what you describe isn't a problem. It might be semantics but welfare isn't the proper term. Pay to play kick backs lobbying etc... , all problems. It just isn't welfare.

 

Why? Because "welfare" is the right-wing code word for lazy, shiftless layabouts, and how dare liberals twist it around on us?

 

Semantics …

It just isn't the proper term. Just like if something is blue I can't call it red (red is an ugly color). If we want to discuss crony capitalism start a thread I'll be more than happy to discuss my gripes. But corporate welfare is a myth like unicorns.

It just isn't the proper term. Just like if something is blue I can't call it red (red is an ugly color). If we want to discuss crony capitalism start a thread I'll be more than happy to discuss my gripes. But corporate welfare is a myth like unicorns.

 

Neither is "pro-life," when the overwhelming majority of those who consider themselves "pro-life" also support capital punishment. It is what it is, by any name.

First drug addicts ... then spoiled kids. What's next? Worthless slugs?

In order to become eligible for unemployment compensation, one must have lost his or her job "through no fault of his or her own." Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Most everyone who sides with the Republicans on this issue needs to realize that they're one bad boss or one merger away from becoming unemployed. And if you're over 50 and suddenly unemployed, good luck.

 

Then this over 50 guy with a college degree would flip burgers, mop floors, muck out toilets or any combination needed to make ends meet. There's work to be had if you're willing to do it.

No need to get sidetracked. Hellbird asked how I intended to pay for expanded benefits, and I gave him an answer. Exxon, which makes billions in profits every quarter, doesn't need to receive a welfare check from U.S. taxpayers.

 

Translation. All I can do is regurgitate liberal talking points, I have no clue what they mean so when asked to explain I'll play Obama and dodge the question.

I'm not saying what you describe isn't a problem. It might be semantics but welfare isn't the proper term. Pay to play kick backs lobbying etc... , all problems. It just isn't welfare.

Read all about it: "Rand Paul Speaks Out Against Corporate Welfare"

 

If the Bluegrass State's junior senator uses the term "corporate welfare" on his website, that's good enough for me.

 

Sen. Paul Speaks Out Against Corporate Welfare Rand Paul | United States Senator

Then this over 50 guy with a college degree would flip burgers, mop floors, muck out toilets or any combination needed to make ends meet. There's work to be had if you're willing to do it.

"Are there no prisons?”

 

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

 

"Both very busy, sir."

 

"Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I’m very glad to hear it."

 

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

 

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

Then this over 50 guy with a college degree would flip burgers, mop floors, muck out toilets or any combination needed to make ends meet. There's work to be had if you're willing to do it.

 

I don't disagree with your willingness to do whatever job it takes to survive. However, I think a lot of people overestimate just how difficult it is for a highly qualified individual to get a minimum wage/entry level job. Employers are reluctant to hire a person like that for many reasons.....some assume that you won't be around long (as you'll likely still be looking for a "better" job), don't believe you'll be happy doing menial work, or are intimidated by your credentials. Not saying it isn't possible, but it's not as easy as you think.