NDL Forum

IceMorbid wrote: The truth is, the government spends twice as much on an annual basis on Corporate Welfare and Subsidies than it does on Social Welfare Programs. Look it up.

I did and the US Government dissagrees with you...



Such anger.

IceMorbid wrote:

beercop wrote:

VeniVediV1ci wrote:

sixpackdan101 wrote:

jsence2 wrote:I listened to Rush on lunch for pure entertainment value.

Everyone who voted for Obama was "choosing Santa Clause, rather than being their own Santa Clause"

I work hard for what I have. Fuck Rush and fuck anybody who believes that bullshit. Not everyone who voted for Obama was looking for a handout.

You bitch a lot

fixed

You may work hard but you just helped the shitheads that do not. Btw, I hate lazy fuckers!

I think it's almost comical how people seem to think that the wealthy are more "hard working" than the middle class or the poor...

My mom worked fast food her whole life and I'm a Sr. Executive - and I can guarantee you that I've never worked as hard as she does... I'm a Republican's nightmare. I'm well educated (Ivy League grad), good credit, full time job that I've had for 12 years + I work as an independent contractor (small business) on the side - and I can tell you first hand that your message is 99% delusional. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

Are there poor people who are lazy and abuse the system? Absolutely.
Are there rich people who are corrupt and greedy and abuse the system? Absolutely.

The truth is, the government spends twice as much on an annual basis on Corporate Welfare and Subsidies than it does on Social Welfare Programs. Look it up. This is basically funneling OUR money up ~ this is just as much "redistribution of wealth" or really "concentration of wealth" as anything else, but nobody is yelling "socialism/communism/etc." It's only when that funnel tries to shift back in the OTHER direction that you hear these slanders.

All of the above is factual information - no opinion involved. The republicans when pressed would admit the truth but then say it's important that we have those Corporate subsidies so that we keep those big businesses (read money) in the US and if we don't provide them they will go elsewhere. That's a completely separate article, but let's get one thing straight...

Republicans provide TWICE as much Welfare as Democrats do, the only difference is WHO we give it to. Democrats want to give it to the "lazy" middle class and poor who you would have us believe don't want/try for a better life (cause that's how we all live right, we don't want anything better for our lives) - while the Republicans want to give it to the "greedy" rich who we should trust not to buy 2 jets and 5 summer homes and instead contribute to the economy...

And the kicker... The wealthy have gained 800% income over the past 10 years while the rest of the country has gained 2% and the economy is in the pits... yeah, how are those 2 jets and 5 summer homes looking?

The rich are wealthier than ever, fact. The economy is in the dumps, fact. Your economic "theory" is shot to hell. Stop drinking the Kool-aid.

I did not say middle class or poor Mr. I went to an Ivy league school. You have fallen into the class warfare hook line and sinker. You are a sheep.

Those jets and houses are fine with me. He earned them so he deserves it. I am not jealous of others success and want to steal it from them like you.

BTW, they should have let the banks and autos fail. I hate any kind of welfare except to help people who are unable to care for themselves. Anyway, Did your leader not bail out GM to the tune of 85 billion?

sixpackdan101 wrote:

jsence2 wrote:I listened to Rush on lunch for pure entertainment value.

Everyone who voted for Obama was "choosing Santa Clause, rather than being their own Santa Clause"

I work hard for what I have. Fuck Rush and fuck anybody who believes that bullshit. Not everyone who voted for Obama was looking for a handout.

If its just going to make you so upset why do you listen to it? You bitch a lot for a guy who's guy just got elected.

....my guy didn't get elected. My guy wasn't even allowed to come to the debate and show America what the two clowns were really all about--themselves and their corporate cronies.

I'm honestly somewhat hesitant to post this...but I'm going to. Trendon and I discussed it the other night.

So basically a law firm is suing the US Government, Obama, the Fed, the Treasury, Romney, the largest banks in the nation, etc.....accusing them of money laundering in the TRILLIONS. you'd think something like this would make news. But it's not. Only two organizations even reported it--CNBC's website and CBS Moneywatch's website.

Two hours after the article was posted, the two children of the CNBC's online department executive were found brutally murdered, with their nanny holding the knife, herself stabbed over and over in the neck. Authorities immediately blamed her and closed their investigation....despite this nanny being so devoted and loving to the children that the entire family just took a trip to meet the nanny's family in the Dominican Republic.

Two hours after that, the article was removed from the CNBC website and never seen again.

Here's an article about the situation, the very scary possibilities behind it, the covering-up of the lawsuit, and the almost CIA-style way this whole thing went down. It's long, and if you subscribe to the notion it's very scary. But ask yourself this....if there wasn't something going on here and the government didn't have control over things like the media, why, in a 24/7/365 culture where ratings are everything, would this have not been discussed by our media?

http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/10/who-k ... -leo-krim/

I got abducted last night

brwnbear wrote:

IceMorbid wrote: The truth is, the government spends twice as much on an annual basis on Corporate Welfare and Subsidies than it does on Social Welfare Programs. Look it up.

I did and the US Government dissagrees with you...



Such anger.

that graph doesn't show any government subsidies or corporate welfare, so I'm not sure what that graph is supposed to prove.

jsence2 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

IceMorbid wrote: The truth is, the government spends twice as much on an annual basis on Corporate Welfare and Subsidies than it does on Social Welfare Programs. Look it up.

I did and the US Government dissagrees with you...



Such anger.

that graph doesn't show any government subsidies or corporate welfare, so I'm not sure what that graph is supposed to prove.

spending.

curious, what do you consider corporate welfare?

brwnbear wrote:

jsence2 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

IceMorbid wrote: The truth is, the government spends twice as much on an annual basis on Corporate Welfare and Subsidies than it does on Social Welfare Programs. Look it up.

I did and the US Government dissagrees with you...



Such anger.

that graph doesn't show any government subsidies or corporate welfare, so I'm not sure what that graph is supposed to prove.

spending.

Ok but again....there's no wedge in that pie chart that accounts for subsidies or corporate welfare. So again I ask, what does the chart prove?

jsence2 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

jsence2 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

IceMorbid wrote: The truth is, the government spends twice as much on an annual basis on Corporate Welfare and Subsidies than it does on Social Welfare Programs. Look it up.

I did and the US Government dissagrees with you...



Such anger.

that graph doesn't show any government subsidies or corporate welfare, so I'm not sure what that graph is supposed to prove.

spending.

Ok but again....there's no wedge in that pie chart that accounts for subsidies or corporate welfare. So again I ask, what does the chart prove?

1st - what is corporate welfare?
2nd - subsidies are not an expenditure. The chart shows what the government "spends" money on. Its pretty simple.

Ok.....so how does your graph prove that the "government disagrees with him" when all it does is show the money they put out in programs? It doesn't show the money they give to corporations as subsidies. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm saying that posting a graph that only gives half the facts and then saying the government disagrees is a logical fail.

Corporate welfare is akin to them giving money to poor people to help them get by....like tax breaks, subsidies, etc. The same kinds of things they give to social welfare (food stamps, tax breaks, etc) just in a different form.

beercop wrote: Did your leader not bail out GM to the tune of 85 billion?

Didn't GM pay it back already?

jsence2 wrote:Ok.....so how does your graph prove that the "government disagrees with him" when all it does is show the money they put out in programs? It doesn't show the money they give to corporations as subsidies. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm saying that posting a graph that only gives half the facts and then saying the government disagrees is a logical fail.

You have lost me. What are the other 50% of fact that you are aware of that the U.S. Gov and S&P and the other rating agencies are not aware of? The chart is a summary of spending. The claim is that the US spends more on corporate welfare and subsidies than it does on Social welfare programs. According to the US Government (their numbers, back-up by the rating agencies, not mine) the US spends 13% in income security and technically 2/3 of medicare went to Medicaid. So 13% plus 2/3 of 14% is equal to around 21%.

As a function of expenses, corporate welfare and subsidies are part of the other, which is 4%.

21% is greater than 4%. Thats what the chart proves.

jsence2 wrote: Corporate welfare is akin to them giving money to poor people to help them get by....like tax breaks, subsidies, etc. The same kinds of things they give to social welfare (food stamps, tax breaks, etc) just in a different form.

Can you provide an example of why this is a problem? I really have a hard time understanding why its bad to help out an industry fight in a global economy.

buckeye76 wrote:

beercop wrote: Did your leader not bail out GM to the tune of 85 billion?

Didn't GM pay it back already?

Unfortunately, no. They got a "loan" from the government to pay back the money that was originally from the TARP that by law had to be closed out. The effect was a bookeeping manuever that would be the equivalent of refinacing my house and claiming ive paid it off. Technically I did, but I used another loan to do so.

GM is still something around $37B in the hole even after the IPO. Like AIG, we will never see that money back.

brwnbear wrote:

buckeye76 wrote:

beercop wrote: Did your leader not bail out GM to the tune of 85 billion?

Didn't GM pay it back already?

Unfortunately, no. They got a "loan" from the government to pay back the money that was originally from the TARP that by law had to be closed out. The effect was a bookeeping manuever that would be the equivalent of refinacing my house and claiming ive paid it off. Technically I did, but I used another loan to do so.

GM is still something around $37B in the hole even after the IPO. Like AIG, we will never see that money back.

Thanks BB.

The circus this time around has officially squashed the last of my Republican roots. The government will just keep growing and growing with spending not being cut really, just moved around. I would think most of you would agree this very far from the ideas our founders had.

BB - Im intrigued by the chart but I dont understand the titles of each slice. What is income security, what is health, i have zero idea what net interest could be. Education, training, employment and social services is that also part of social welfare programs or is that social welfare programs.

Personally I agree and disagree with both sides of the arguments.Basically due to the generalizations that are always made. Does every hardworking american obtain wealth (no), alot of it is hard work,timing, networking and luck. Has every wealthy person worked hard (no). Flip side, is everyone who receives government welfare a lazy piece of shit who wont work at all (no) alot of it has to do with oppurtunity, getting out of an environment that continues to pull you down. Does every lazy piece of shit collect gov't welfare (no) (i work with plenty lazy pieces of shit who make good money).

I googled, and find a ton of links to a study from 2006 saying the government spent "nearly double" on corporate wellfare than it did social welfare.

2 things:

- Granted it was 2006, but there is no chance that that number would go from nearly double to 5 times less as suggested by Bear(21% vs 4%)

- My first point is contingent on the "nearly double" study being accurate, as I have no clue if the study was legit or not. It said in 2006, the US spent $92billion on corporate welfare and $59billion on social, or something like that.

I saw that same study and even looked at the documents they pulled their figures from, now I didn't read them in full detail but I did skim through it.. seemed legit.

shel311 wrote:I googled, and find a ton of links to a study from 2006 saying the government spent "nearly double" on corporate wellfare than it did social welfare.

2 things:

- Granted it was 2006, but there is no chance that that number would go from nearly double to 5 times less as suggested by Bear(21% vs 4%)

- My first point is contingent on the "nearly double" study being accurate, as I have no clue if the study was legit or not. It said in 2006, the US spent $92billion on corporate welfare and $59billion on social, or something like that.

shel311 wrote:I googled, and find a ton of links to a study from 2006 saying the government spent "nearly double" on corporate wellfare than it did social welfare.

2 things:

- Granted it was 2006, but there is no chance that that number would go from nearly double to 5 times less as suggested by Bear(21% vs 4%)

- My first point is contingent on the "nearly double" study being accurate, as I have no clue if the study was legit or not. It said in 2006, the US spent $92billion on corporate welfare and $59billion on social, or something like that.

A few things:

- tax cuts, tax breaks, and vouchers are not an expense. The data you pointed to adds them as an expense. If I reduce my products/services by 15%, i didnt spend an extra 15%, I just collected 15% less. Its symantics I know but the core concept is that the taxes we collect are not being spent, given, or transferred to corporation, we are just collecting less from them.

- A part of "corporate welfare" or subsidies is done to control inflation on products and services that are specifically targeted towards the poor. Like credits towards low income housing, subsidies to control the price of corn, ect. This is part of the breaks given to corporation. Like it or not, its another form of welfare that is aimed at the poor but given through breaks on corporations to control costs/inflation. No ones is going to want to invest in housing that will collect 80% less from a poor tenant than it will from a rich one. The only way to provide for those that cant afford housing is to provide subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that rent to the poor. Its really just another form of social welfare but itemized under your subsidies and corporate welfare line.

- Politicians also combine normal tax breaks, given to every company, with subsidies, which are not the same. Ill use an exampe, people always complain about the amount given to gasoline companies. Here is an exerpt from the NYP when talking about the "corporate welfare" given to gas companies:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... 0BKHs1Be7M

"But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies...

A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.

Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.

Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence."

- A large portion of real subsidies are spent on trying to make a particular product or industry more competitive. The best example is renewable energy. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies. You may or may not agree with them (I dont), but its the price of creating demand for an industry that doesn't exist.

- If tax deductions become corporate welfare, then we can also lump tax deductions on families as "social welfare." Since 136,000,000 familes file with average deductions of $12,000 and on average 3 personal exemptions, we can also make a case that this type of "social welfare" adds up to around $3T per year in "spending" on social welfare, which is almost half of current spending and 30% more than all the revenue we take in.