January 9, 201412 yr 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. Not here to defend the incestuous relationship between Govt and large companies/corporations by any means.................but I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. I have always believed that many earned belongs to the earner. I don't operate under the dangerous assumption that it "belongs" to the Govt.
January 9, 201412 yr TRANSLATION: I still have no comeback so here comes more mud. We are now so far away from the original topic that we'll probably never get back to it. Mission accomplished. Saul would be proud of me. Sometimes the best way to answer a question is by asking a question in response.
January 9, 201412 yr Sometimes the best way to answer a question is by asking a question in response. That'll get you a pat on the back and a 0 on the ACT.
January 9, 201412 yr Haven't I already established that it doesn't make a lick of difference? Stop getting hung up on silly semantics. Would you prefer "federal gifts to the corporate world?" I wasn't quoting you.
January 9, 201412 yr I wasn't quoting you. Doesn't matter because you're still harping on small stuff while missing the overall point. Don't let semantics get in the way of progress. It's like Bill Clinton trying to clarify what "is" is.
January 9, 201412 yr That'll get you a pat on the back and a 0 on the ACT. More truth in that post than you realize. Ha ha ha.
January 10, 201412 yr I've read 7 pages and now I'm dizzy? Twotoplace, if you were fighting Ali in his prime I'd put money on you to last at least 9 rounds. You might not win but no chance Ali is landing a solid punch for at least 9-10 rounds.
January 10, 201412 yr The title of the thread says 'leader' and then opened it and found it was about Boehner. That was a dirty trick...
January 10, 201412 yr Doesn't matter because you're still harping on small stuff while missing the overall point. Don't let semantics get in the way of progress. It's like Bill Clinton trying to clarify what "is" is. It does matter when a poster uses a term and doesn't understand what it means or how its defined.
January 10, 201412 yr It does matter when a poster uses a term and doesn't understand what it means or how its defined. Since you're so hung up on it, why don't you define it for us? Your libertarian icons seem OK with condemning it -- whatever it should be called -- so why are you all in on going after select people? I just don't get it ...
January 10, 201412 yr Since you're so hung up on it, why don't you define it for us? Your libertarian icons seem OK with condemning it -- whatever it should be called -- so why are you all in on going after select people? I just don't get it ... Well since I don't think it's a proper term I really can't define it but I have an idea of what he means. I just want to know examples or what he means by coroporate welfare to see if I have a problem in what he describes. Corporate welfare is a boogie man word meant to inflict emotion, I want specifics so I can determine if I agree.
January 10, 201412 yr I've read 7 pages and now I'm dizzy? Twotoplace, if you were fighting Ali in his prime I'd put money on you to last at least 9 rounds. You might not win but no chance Ali is landing a solid punch for at least 9-10 rounds. Unfortunately, he probably thinks it's a compliment.
January 10, 201412 yr Well since I don't think it's a proper term I really can't define it but I have an idea of what he means. I just want to know examples or what he means by coroporate welfare to see if I have a problem in what he describes. Corporate welfare is a boogie man word meant to inflict emotion, I want specifics so I can determine if I agree. Talk about a cop-out. Even people like Sarah Palin can hold semi-intelligent conversations regarding corporate welfare.
January 10, 201412 yr Unfortunately, he probably thinks it's a compliment. I started a couple of replies to Woodsrider's post, then decided saying nothing was probably the best option. I was afraid I was being set up for a knock-out punch.
January 10, 201412 yr Talk about a cop-out. Even people like Sarah Palin can hold semi-intelligent conversations regarding corporate welfare. I'm guessing you are referring to tax incentive programs in general. But I think a vast majority do promote economic growth. It isn't welfare because a tax incentive allows the corporation to keep more of their own money, they do not recieve a check from the government. Now there are programs such as the green job program where checks are actually cut to promote advancements in that field, but I'm guessing you don't have a problem with that. I'm asking you to point to specific tax incentive programs right now you have a problem with and why. The Exxon Mobil point has already been shot down by other posters. Your problem is you are using blanket terms you read on the internet and can't point to specifics. Now if you want to discuss the problem with lobbyist in Washington I'm all ears.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.