Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if you believe the nonsense that because Walmart gets a tax break, it automatically means someone else has to pay more to make up the difference (any taxes Walmart pays are a net gain) tax breaks aren't "welfare".
Keeping more of your own money is not "welfare" whether it's corporate or an individual. If Walmart went out of business tomorrow, that fact in and of itself would not make your taxes go up.
"Corporate welfare" is another made up Left wing buzz word like "Assault Weapon".
No it is not. There is more to the argument than tax breaks. We lost $10 billion dollars (likely more) on the auto bail out. How is that not corporate welfare?
We lost $10 billion dollars (likely more) on the auto bail out. How is that not corporate welfare?
I haven't kept up with this enough to know if that is accurate but let's suppose it is.
What do you do you do though? You may have lost 10 billion but the alternative is far worse. If the banking industry, auto industry and on down the list had been allowed to collapse there would have been severe consequences for that. It's not just the banking industry and auto industry that goes under, it's everyone. As much as despise it you have to grit your teeth and bare it.
How you address this so it doesn't happen again becomes difficult question. The banking industry and such large industries like the auto industry necessarily need to be "to big to fail" to remain players on the global market.
So if you haven't been keeping up, maybe you shouldn't comment?
Quote:
What do you do you do though? You may have lost 10 billion but the alternative is far worse. If the banking industry, auto industry and on down the list had been allowed to collapse there would have been severe consequences for that. It's not just the banking industry and auto industry that goes under, it's everyone. As much as despise it you have to grit your teeth and bare it.
Whether we should or shouldn't have is not the argument. It was corporate welfare. That is what we are discussing.
Quote:
How you address this so it doesn't happen again becomes difficult question. The banking industry and such large industries like the auto industry necessarily need to be "to big to fail" to remain players on the global market.
Again, a different subject. Are you still going to argue that there is no corporate welfare?
So the people who support the tax loopholes for the rich should also get a pass for pretending to give two ****s about the middle class, who pay most of the taxes. Why don't they got loopholes? Hell, why don't the poor get loopholes? Why do only the super wealthy (the ones who can afford politicians...) get these little treats under the guise of "it's their money." The suburban guy making $60,000 a year earned his money too and why isn't he getting magic loopholes?
Aww, you want to take my tax money? Too bad. When Paul Ryan voucherizes Medicare I will laugh and laugh and laugh. Seniors are an incredibly selfish bunch and it's time we call them on it. They literally protested others receiving health coverage for themselves while demanding those same people pay for seniors.
And by the way, seniors started receiving health coverage in 1965 without paying a single penny. So while you are going after all these government "takers", remember that seniors are the biggest takers of all. We need to give them what they paid in and not a penny more.
You are the selfish person. You want now what seniors had to wait their whole working lives to get. My neighbor's car is paid off, mine is not. How unfair.
How many of them seniors who never paid in a penny are still above ground?
No it is not. There is more to the argument than tax breaks. We lost $10 billion dollars (likely more) on the auto bail out. How is that not corporate welfare?
Congresswoman Gwen Moore and the OP aren't talking about bailouts (of course, since Dems support them) .
They are calling tax breaks welfare.
I, like most Conservatives don't support bailouts.
Congresswoman Gwen Moore and the OP aren't talking about bailouts (of course, since Dems support them) .
They are calling tax breaks welfare.
I, like most Conservatives don't support bailouts.
Tax breaks are incentives not welfare as characterized by Ms Moore. Rich are paying taxes (most of them) and US Corporations are employing Americans - big difference between that and simply living off Government subsistence payments.
You can armchair the bank and auto bailouts all day long; different articles paint different outcomes but personally, I think the Auto bailout was absolutely necessary if you value at all the US auto industry jobs.
The alternative was to let those companies get bought for pennies on the dollar by foreign auto companies, all of whom are subsidized to some extent by their national governments. That is not in the national interest and we have allowed enough of that over the last 30 years or so. The bailout of the US Investment banks and AIG are quite another matter. IMHO the biggest shortcoming of the bailouts was the the Treasury's lack of profit incentive. IF they had held their majority shares in the bailed out companies until the market recovered fully (say 2013 or later) they would have achieved enormous profits for the Treasury and hence the taxpayer. Instead they got out just when the companies were stable and venture money was available to buy their shares and then make the big returns.
Tax breaks are incentives not welfare as characterized by Ms Moore. Rich are paying taxes (most of them) and US Corporations are employing Americans - big difference between that and simply living off Government subsistence payments.
You can armchair the bank and auto bailouts all day long; different articles paint different outcomes but personally, I think the Auto bailout was absolutely necessary if you value at all the US auto industry jobs.
The alternative was to let those companies get bought for pennies on the dollar by foreign auto companies, all of whom are subsidized to some extent by their national governments. That is not in the national interest and we have allowed enough of that over the last 30 years or so. The bailout of the US Investment banks and AIG are quite another matter. IMHO the biggest shortcoming of the bailouts was the the Treasury's lack of profit incentive. IF they had held their majority shares in the bailed out companies until the market recovered fully (say 2013 or later) they would have achieved enormous profits for the Treasury and hence the taxpayer. Instead they got out just when the companies were stable and venture money was available to buy their shares and then make the big returns.
It's still welfare whether you agreed with it or not.
So now you know of one corporation receiving government welfare.
No, we don't. You need to learn the difference between a deduction that allows one to keep more of THEIR OWN money and welfare which takes money from one person and gives it to another.
A better example of corporate welfare would be Solyndra but you Big Government supporters would rather not talk about Solyndra.
Quote:
The link is referring to the fact that people of welfare are perceived to be getting something for nothing, therefore the call to drug test them all.
When companies receive something for nothing, it's called corporate welfare and the CEOs of these corporations should likewise be drug tested.
The 1% are being used as one example of those who should also be drug tested.
So you are still confused by the 1% and corporate welfare. These are two totally different topics.
So which one is this thread about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
