End corporate welfare!

[Wry Catcher]

better still. "end all welfare".

Can i get any liberals to agree to that? After all, if corporate welfare is bad, welfare is probably bad.

notice the roaring silence from the leftloons since i floated that very proposition in #28.

yep... A brief, loud sound of a needle being dragged off a record... Then embarrassed silence and crickets. Then finally on post #55, the wet sound of wry unclenching his sphincter pulling his head out and then vomiting out a mass of libberish he'd been chewing on.

lol.

 

[bripat9643]

Nailed it. Real conservatives and libertarians want to end all welfare regardless of subject. Charity is one thing, welfare is not charity.

... huh... flash realization... corporate welfare is money laundering. Think about it. Profits are higher, donations increase to the politicians and parties who give it, so it's more or less about enriching a political class by siphoning money from the tax payer on failed industrial and corporate models kept in place by political power. So technically, corporate welfare is nothing short of racketeering and a criminal enterprise. Wow. that's a big realization for me. Then again, I always knew something was wrong... just never why.

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

 

[Contumacious]

Nailed it. Real conservatives and libertarians want to end all welfare regardless of subject. Charity is one thing, welfare is not charity.

... huh... flash realization... corporate welfare is money laundering. Think about it. Profits are higher, donations increase to the politicians and parties who give it, so it's more or less about enriching a political class by siphoning money from the tax payer on failed industrial and corporate models kept in place by political power. So technically, corporate welfare is nothing short of racketeering and a criminal enterprise. Wow. that's a big realization for me. Then again, I always knew something was wrong... just never why.

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

 

[Jack Fate]

Today the government pays refiners 45 cents a gallon through a tax credit to refine corn-based ethanol. An additional 54 cents a gallon tarirff blocks imports of less expensive and more energy efficient sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Corn-based ethanol is mandated by federal law benefitting the farm belt.

Big oil, big agra benefit and we the people lose. For details on this bill, which is supported by members of both parties, and opposed by those who represent special interests, see the source below.


Feinstein, GOP senator fight subsidies for ethanol

Good luck. The ethanol lobby owns BO.

 

[Jack Fate]

Nailed it. Real conservatives and libertarians want to end all welfare regardless of subject. Charity is one thing, welfare is not charity.

... huh... flash realization... corporate welfare is money laundering. Think about it. Profits are higher, donations increase to the politicians and parties who give it, so it's more or less about enriching a political class by siphoning money from the tax payer on failed industrial and corporate models kept in place by political power. So technically, corporate welfare is nothing short of racketeering and a criminal enterprise. Wow. that's a big realization for me. Then again, I always knew something was wrong... just never why.

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

How about we stop subsidizing Pakistan. Do you agree with me on that one?

 

[Big Fitz]

notice the roaring silence from the leftloons since i floated that very proposition in #28.

yep... A brief, loud sound of a needle being dragged off a record... Then embarrassed silence and crickets. Then finally on post #55, the wet sound of wry unclenching his sphincter pulling his head out and then vomiting out a mass of libberish he'd been chewing on.

lol.

The test of a good insult. Even the target laughs.

Reminds me of when I was in Poli Sci courses and the Prof gave the definition of diplomacy.

"The art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way, they look forward to taking the trip."

 

[Gadawg73]

Today the government pays refiners 45 cents a gallon through a tax credit to refine corn-based ethanol. An additional 54 cents a gallon tarirff blocks imports of less expensive and more energy efficient sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Corn-based ethanol is mandated by federal law benefitting the farm belt.

Big oil, big agra benefit and we the people lose. For details on this bill, which is supported by members of both parties, and opposed by those who represent special interests, see the source below.


Feinstein, GOP senator fight subsidies for ethanol

Good luck. The ethanol lobby owns BO.

The ethanol lobby would own Mickey Mouse or anyone else that occupies the White House.
The ethanol lobby is Archer Daniels Midland and they give about 50-50 to Pacs be it Democrats or Republicans.
Anyone that knows business knows that they could care less who is in office. They contribute to both sides.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nailed it. Real conservatives and libertarians want to end all welfare regardless of subject. Charity is one thing, welfare is not charity.

... huh... flash realization... corporate welfare is money laundering. Think about it. Profits are higher, donations increase to the politicians and parties who give it, so it's more or less about enriching a political class by siphoning money from the tax payer on failed industrial and corporate models kept in place by political power. So technically, corporate welfare is nothing short of racketeering and a criminal enterprise. Wow. that's a big realization for me. Then again, I always knew something was wrong... just never why.

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

Israel is the nation last on the list of foreign allies I'd stop giving to. All others are before it. Then again, I'm a Christian and know that they are the rightful masters of that land, long stolen from them recently returned to them.

 

[bripat9643]

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

Eventually, that's true, I would endorse that, but there is a long list of spending I would like to abolish first.

However, you can't argue with the truth of what Mencken said. Politicians are nothing more than auctioneers of stolen property.

 

[Gadawg73]

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

Israel is the nation last on the list of foreign allies I'd stop giving to. All others are before it. Then again, I'm a Christian and know that they are the rightful masters of that land, long stolen from them recently returned to them.

I agree with you but religion has nothing to do with security.
They could worship the spaghetti monster for all I care. Their intelligence and military have nothing to do with religion. They are the finest in that region and our main ally.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing. Get our economy in order and the demand for welfare will evaporate.

Actually that's backwards. Get rid of welfare and the economy will benefit.

Nailed it. Real conservatives and libertarians want to end all welfare regardless of subject. Charity is one thing, welfare is not charity.

... huh... flash realization... corporate welfare is money laundering. Think about it. Profits are higher, donations increase to the politicians and parties who give it, so it's more or less about enriching a political class by siphoning money from the tax payer on failed industrial and corporate models kept in place by political power. So technically, corporate welfare is nothing short of racketeering and a criminal enterprise. Wow. that's a big realization for me. Then again, I always knew something was wrong... just never why.

Real conservatives and Libertarians hold true to an ideology, which, similar to ideologically communism never existed and never will. In a theoretical model explain how might Libertarianism govern or not govern, and what might be the consequences to the whole of our nation?
There is a middle ground between Authoritarianism and Anarchy, both of which are extreme. I'm off to CostCo, I'll read your comprehensive answer on my return.

 

[Contumacious]

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

Israel is the nation last on the list of foreign allies I'd stop giving to. All others are before it. Then again, I'm a Christian and know that they are the rightful masters of that land, long stolen from them recently returned to them.

I agree with you but religion has nothing to do with security.
They could worship the spaghetti monster for all I care. Their intelligence and military have nothing to do with religion. They are the finest in that region and our main ally.

It true that we are their benefactor.

But then why the fuck did they sink our USS Liberty and REFUSED to share the intelligence they had gathered about the 09/11 attackers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Big Fitz]

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

Israel is the nation last on the list of foreign allies I'd stop giving to. All others are before it. Then again, I'm a Christian and know that they are the rightful masters of that land, long stolen from them recently returned to them.

I agree with you but religion has nothing to do with security.
They could worship the spaghetti monster for all I care. Their intelligence and military have nothing to do with religion. They are the finest in that region and our main ally.

RAWR! Spaghetti Monstarrrr!!

Beware his noodilly appendage!

Now in all seriousness, that's fine with me if you don't agree on that front. but... If you do believe in the Bible it can't hurt to support God's chosen people, and also realize that if it IS true, Israel would triumph even without our help.

 

[Big Fitz]

Actually that's backwards. Get rid of welfare and the economy will benefit.

Nailed it. Real conservatives and libertarians want to end all welfare regardless of subject. Charity is one thing, welfare is not charity.

... huh... flash realization... corporate welfare is money laundering. Think about it. Profits are higher, donations increase to the politicians and parties who give it, so it's more or less about enriching a political class by siphoning money from the tax payer on failed industrial and corporate models kept in place by political power. So technically, corporate welfare is nothing short of racketeering and a criminal enterprise. Wow. that's a big realization for me. Then again, I always knew something was wrong... just never why.

Real conservatives and Libertarians hold true to an ideology, which, similar to ideologically communism never existed and never will. In a theoretical model explain how might Libertarianism govern or not govern, and what might be the consequences to the whole of our nation?
There is a middle ground between Authoritarianism and Anarchy, both of which are extreme. I'm off to CostCo, I'll read your comprehensive answer on my return.

The 'no true Scotsman' defense? really?

 

[Contumacious]

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

How about we stop subsidizing Pakistan. Do you agree with me on that one?

The federal government has NO AUTHORITY TO SUBSIDIZE ANYONE. NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER.

In the case of Pakistan , American politicians were paying officials so that they would allow the US to hunt Ben Laden and Co. Well, the boogey man is dead. So,what is their fucking excuse now?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing. Get our economy in order and the demand for welfare will evaporate.

Actually that's backwards. Get rid of welfare and the economy will benefit.

Please explain how?

Let's start with a basic distinction between liberals and conservatives: Liberals see people as liabilities, conservatives see them as assets.
With no welfare (or greatly reduced) businesses and individuals will have more disposable income as taxes can be lowered. Further this will make available a large pool of potential labor, which will add value to the economy as they get hired and work. It might require changing the min wage to accomodate low skilled workers. But that is an easy trade-off.
The economy does not benefit from millions of otherwise-able people sitting idle.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nailed it. Real conservatives and libertarians want to end all welfare regardless of subject. Charity is one thing, welfare is not charity.

... huh... flash realization... corporate welfare is money laundering. Think about it. Profits are higher, donations increase to the politicians and parties who give it, so it's more or less about enriching a political class by siphoning money from the tax payer on failed industrial and corporate models kept in place by political power. So technically, corporate welfare is nothing short of racketeering and a criminal enterprise. Wow. that's a big realization for me. Then again, I always knew something was wrong... just never why.

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

Maybe because he is not a raging anti-semite jew-hater like yourself.

If we cut off ever ounce of aid to Israel (a lot of which gets spent here, btw) we would save about $3B a year. That is enough to fund the government for about 6 hours.
Enjoy!

 

[Big Fitz]

Actually that's backwards. Get rid of welfare and the economy will benefit.

Please explain how?

Let's start with a basic distinction between liberals and conservatives: Liberals see people as liabilities, conservatives see them as assets.
With no welfare (or greatly reduced) businesses and individuals will have more disposable income as taxes can be lowered. Further this will make available a large pool of potential labor, which will add value to the economy as they get hired and work. It might require changing the min wage to accomodate low skilled workers. But that is an easy trade-off.
The economy does not benefit from millions of otherwise-able people sitting idle.

Excellent post.

Deadbeats living on the dole spend money, but no where near as much as could be spent if they were productive individuals supporting themselves.

Remember, they are living off of the taxes taken from the income of someone else... therefore decreasing the taxed person's purchasing power, and giving it to someone else. This is further decreased because the government, in administering the money, takes a cut to pay for itself. This money creates the wealth of a government worker, who does not increase the productivity of a nation but exists on it, just like the welfare recipient. So now, instead of increasing the economy by 2 people, you have cut it to a third, since two people are existing (for example) on the wealth of one person.

This is why unemployment for 99 weeks among all the other private welfare is a net loss. It minimizes the need for people to get out and earn and be productive citizens, thereby increasing the overall economic pie as well as makes 'busy work' in coordinating transfer payments, taking yet another person out of producing.

That is why.

Oh, and before anyone says "Government workers and welfare recipients are taxed too!" as if that's a defense for why they are 'producing', I'll explain why THIS is a false argument. That government worker is paid by the taxpayers. The fact they are also taxed is a spot of irony that the government is actually just taking back part of their pay in which to keep the 'churn' going. Their paid taxes, come from taxpayers who then put it back into the system so they can support themselves.

It's like recycling water. BUT, for every dollar "churning" back from government employee and welfare recipient, back INTO government by taxes... is a dollar effectively removed from the economy.

Therefore, welfare at all levels is a net loss when all is said and done.

 

[Contumacious]

that's true of almost all government spending.

H.L. Mencken called elections "a present auction on future goods." When a politician makes promises, he's giving away your future income.

You are a fucking hypocrite.

You would demand that the US stop subsidizing Israel if you TRULY were against government spending .

.

Maybe because he is not a raging anti-semite jew-hater like yourself.

Excuse me Mr. zionut, but I am an American Firster.

If we cut off ever ounce of aid to Israel (a lot of which gets spent here, btw) we would save about $3B a year. That is enough to fund the government for about 6 hours.

Foreign Aid to Israel since 1949 Grand Total 103,614.67 BBBBBBBBBBBBillions

.

 

[slukasiewski]

Won't happen. Big Oil wants Corn to be the only Ethanol in town. It allows people to have the illusion of freedom and alternative energy sources without constituting a real threat to the existing system.

Why would oil companies give a crap about corn? If anything, it cuts into their business.

Libtards can't go three posts without blaming "big oil" for something.

What's "Big Oil." Is that like Exxon corporate?

Is "Small Oil" the camel jockey running the corner 7/11 gas station?

Just curious why the "Big" emphasis.