You do realize first the government does not have money . All money used by the government is the tax payers money.

 

Secondly tax incentives , deductions or tax breaks are completly different from welfare. Those created for corporations are meant to spark growth , higher tax revenues through growth , job growth and innovation in the private sector .

 

Also corporate tax breaks isn't corporations taking money out of other tax payers pockets . They are tax incentives to allow them to keep more of their own money for the reasons I listed in the previous paragraph. That is the key difference keeping your own money.

 

Now we move on to individual welfare programs this is an actual act of taking money out of one persons pocket and giving it to a separate person. They are receiving funds that were taxed from one taxpayer and given to them. They are not receiving tax incentives or breaks on their own money .

 

Again I'm fine with welfare programs as short term to help get people off their feet . But to even try and make the correlation you are trying to make is dishonest and is proven wrong with simple breakdown.

 

 

The bolded accurately describes how the Bengals stadium came to be built. I could go on and on. I also could easily argue why welfare payments are much more beneficial to the economy (the money is put into circulation almost immediately) than, say, increasing the sales tax by a penny so a city can host 10 NFL games a year while a single owner benefits financially.

That would be amusing!

 

We'd be leaderless.

The bolded accurately describes how the Bengals stadium came to be built. I could go on and on. I also could easily argue why welfare payments are much more beneficial to the economy (the money is put into circulation almost immediately) than, say, increasing the sales tax by a penny so a city can host 10 NFL games a year while a single owner benefits financially.

 

What happens when you run out of other peoples money?

I don't quite understand your question/proposition. You seem to be defending the practice of drug-testing welfare recipients but feel it unnecessary to drug-test others higher up the economic ladder who also have their hat in hand for government funds ... because why?

 

Isn't the goal to remove drug users from getting government handouts? So why not move higher up the economic ladder, where the odds of success would be greatly improved by testing, say, CEOs of oil companies benefitting from oil depletion allowances ... or top execs of companies receiving tax breaks to locate their company in this or that city ... or owners of professional sports teams whose stadiums have been built with public money?

 

Returns from Tennessee have already shown that chasing welfare recipients is a waste of time and money. Time for these GOP state legislatures to pursue bigger fish.

 

Please read closer. I've said I don't care if they don't want to test, seems like a waste of dollars to me anyway.

 

However, I have asked you how the programs you list equate to each other since you seem to want to treat them similar.

 

I'll wait.

Its just too easy for you to vilify and squeeze the politically and economically vulnerable isn't it? If we implemented drug testing for members of Congress, how many would fail? I would say it is by far more important for those in decision making roles to held to the highest level of accountability. If you want to screen welfare recipients, fine. Then those receiving corporate welfare should be screened as well!

 

You really aren't reading my posts, are you? Please please support this accusation.

 

Also, do you have any answer to my question in your ravings?

 

I'll wait.

What happens when you run out of other peoples money?

 

You borrow from the next generation!

You really aren't reading my posts, are you? Please please support this accusation.

 

Also, do you have any answer to my question in your ravings?

 

I'll wait.

 

Too lazy to google yourself?

The bolded accurately describes how the Bengals stadium came to be built. I could go on and on. I also could easily argue why welfare payments are much more beneficial to the economy (the money is put into circulation almost immediately) than, say, increasing the sales tax by a penny so a city can host 10 NFL games a year while a single owner benefits financially.

This is hysterical watching you switch the argument in each post. Very amusing.

 

There isn't a human alive who doesn't know the the Bengals stadium deal was a bad deal for the city. It has nothing to do with this topic .

 

Secondly no you couldn't make the argument because it would be false. I mean I guess if your in the business of making factually incorrect arguments by all means go for it.

 

There is nothing efficent about welfare programs. Also it is always more in efficent when you take a dollar out of one pocket and try to put it in another. Just on the simple idea of government beuaracy that full dollar never makes it to the next pocket. Government redistribution is actually the least efficent way to stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and credits where people keep the dollar in their own pocket and eliminate government beuaracy is always more efficent. But why look at reason lol.

 

Welfare programs aren't in place for efficency. They are in place to help those who need help. There are plenty of arguments for having these programs but efficency is not even close to being one.

Too lazy to google yourself?

 

No because he already knows the answer like I do. There is no comparison or correlation. It's a stretch and when challenged you notice the poster who asserted his claims has avoided answering it and switched the topic of the debate multiple times when challenged. It's quite humorous how easy and predictable this poster is when confronted with any sort of challenge to any insane far left talking point.

 

Any idea sounds great when surrounded by like minded people and assertion and ideas go unchallenged. You find the validity of these ideas when confronted with resistance there is no credible response.

This is hysterical watching you switch the argument in each post. Very amusing.

 

There isn't a human alive who doesn't know the the Bengals stadium deal was a bad deal for the city. It has nothing to do with this topic .

 

Secondly no you couldn't make the argument because it would be false. I mean I guess if your in the business of making factually incorrect arguments by all means go for it.

 

There is nothing efficent about welfare programs. Also it is always more in efficent when you take a dollar out of one pocket and try to put it in another. Just on the simple idea of government beuaracy that full dollar never makes it to the next pocket. Government redistribution is actually the least efficent way to stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and credits where people keep the dollar in their own pocket and eliminate government beuaracy is always more efficent. But why look at reason lol.

 

Welfare programs aren't in place for efficency. They are in place to help those who need help. There are plenty of arguments for having these programs but efficency is not even close to being one.

 

It has everything to do with this topic. Did you ask the parents and school administrators that went unfunded during the time of PBS construction? A public municipality building stadiums for a multi billion dollar organization is the WORSE kind of corporate welfare. But I guess in your perspective, it is just a wise investment.

It has everything to do with this topic. Did you ask the parents and school administrators that went unfunded during the time of PBS construction? A public municipality building stadiums for a multi billion dollar organization is the WORSE kind of corporate welfare. But I guess in your perspective, it is just a wise investment.

 

It has nothing to do with this topic. Citizens elect representatives to make the best decisions for them. The Bengals job is to get the best deal for their company. If it was bad deal for the city it is the fault of elected officials. It still isn't the same as welfare because again there is no correlation between the topics.

 

You can keep saying the word corporate welfare and is if it is the same as welfare programs themselves, but it doesn't make it so.

 

Let's say I even agree that are the same which I don't it goes back to the question asked earlier in understandi ng the difference in impact and reasons for the actions. Attach a string like that to a business they go elsewhere. There is a concept called leverage in negotiations . But it is funny to watch posters who don't understand a topic rant.

It has nothing to do with this topic. Citizens elect representatives to make the best decisions for them. The Bengals job is to get the best deal for their company. If it was bad deal for the city it is the fault of elected officials. It still isn't the same as welfare because again there is no correlation between the topics.

 

You can keep saying the word corporate welfare and is if it is the same as welfare programs themselves, but it doesn't make it so.

 

Let's say I even agree that are the same which I don't it goes back to the question asked earlier in understandi ng the difference in impact and reasons for the actions. Attach a string like that to a business they go elsewhere. There is a concept called leverage in negotiations . But it is funny to watch posters who don't understand a topic rant.

 

That makes about as much sense as a welfare recipient threatening to commit a crime so that a municipality or state government will have to pay higher costs for prosecution, judicial and incarceration costs in order to extort a higher welfare check!

 

The only people other that ownership that benefit are the seasonal low wage employees and the folks who operate/own the parking garages!

That makes about as much sense as a welfare recipient threatening to commit a crime so that a municipality or state government will have to pay higher costs for prosecution, judicial and incarceration costs in order to extort a higher welfare check!

 

The only people other that ownership that benefit are the seasonal low wage employees and the folks who operate/own the parking garages!

 

You really made that comparison in the first paragraph. Haha.

 

I'm not a fan of governments over spending on stadiums. My only point is this isn't comparable to this topic.

You borrow from the next generation!

 

Typical Liberal response. Just pass it along. Sooner or later the bill comes due. Guess my kids or grand kids (which I don't have yet) will need to learn to speak Chinese.

Typical Liberal response. Just pass it along. Sooner or later the bill comes due. Guess my kids or grand kids (which I don't have yet) will need to learn to speak Chinese.

Be careful of what you wish for, Captain. Balancing the budget might be the worst thing that can happen to our great country. Budget-cutting can be riskier than deficit spending. The United States experienced six periods of depression in the 110 years beginning 1819. Every significant reduction of the outstanding debt was followed by a depression, and every depression was preceded by significant debt reduction.

 

Was I off-topic yet again by pointing this out?