End corporate welfare!

[Big Fitz]

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

.

So... what are you trying to say by singling out Israel? I know what you DON'T want people to think you're saying... but it sure SEEMS like that's why you're saying it.

 

[Contumacious]

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

.

So... what are you trying to say by singling out Israel? I know what you DON'T want people to think you're saying... but it sure SEEMS like that's why you're saying it.

According to US Air Force Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski , the zionists hijacked our foreign policy apparatus and drove the country to an unnecessary and expensive war.

.

.

 

[Big Fitz]

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




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

.

So... what are you trying to say by singling out Israel? I know what you DON'T want people to think you're saying... but it sure SEEMS like that's why you're saying it.

According to US Air Force Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski , the zionists hijacked our foreign policy apparatus and drove the country to an unnecessary and expensive war.

.

.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for your reasoning. aka, your own words. You DO have the capacity for original thought, yes?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.



.

No, you're a jew-hating asshole. I don't know what political movement that falls under. National Socialism perhaps?

 

[The Rabbi]

So... what are you trying to say by singling out Israel? I know what you DON'T want people to think you're saying... but it sure SEEMS like that's why you're saying it.

According to US Air Force Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski , the zionists hijacked our foreign policy apparatus and drove the country to an unnecessary and expensive war.

.

.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for your reasoning. aka, your own words. You DO have the capacity for original thought, yes?

No he does not. I don't know who Karen Kwiatowski is or what her qualifications for pontificating on U.S. foreign policy are. Neither does Condomlicious. But she hates jews like he does and that's all he needs to hear.

 

[ROBESPIERRE]

I understand we live in a democracy and citizens have a nominal right to vote and make laws which limit the power of big corporations and the banking and finance system, but in the end, Capitalism is your form of government.

Big Industry and Big Finance are responsible for managing the wealth and resources of the world. You can't be too supprized when they squeeze, push and shove your nominal governemnt around. And, in case of an economic emergency, they will simply reach for your "government" by the neck; flip it on its head, and shake it around until money starts jingling out of it pockets ! This is reality.

The Old Feudal Order worked flawlessly. There was no unemployment. The Masters lived in a big mansion or fortress on top of a hill. The peasants and merchants did their business in the village and payed taxes to the Royals. Criminals were haged in public on Fridays.

This well functioning system eventually gave way to the more complicated and streamlined wealth managing system called Capitalism.
The Socialists and Communists tried to modify or replace Capitaism as a governing form. They all failed.

We must all live within the Capitalist system and be happy. It is the best and fairest system and the greatest source of "welfare".

 

[Contumacious]

So... what are you trying to say by singling out Israel? I know what you DON'T want people to think you're saying... but it sure SEEMS like that's why you're saying it.

According to US Air Force Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski , the zionists hijacked our foreign policy apparatus and drove the country to an unnecessary and expensive war.

.

.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for your reasoning. aka, your own words. You DO have the capacity for original thought, yes?

Why did the link piss you off?

I bet you actually thought that there wasn't a FACTUAL basis for my position. That I was just an "anti-semite", whatever the fuck that means!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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

Simple first-step to a solution:

Don't make Iowa one of the first caucus states in presidential elections.

Amazing the number of people who agree with this sentiment. Left/right/middle. And yet we still allow politicians to get away with having a dishonest dialogue on the whole corn/ethanol thing.

I'd LOVE to see a presidential contender come out of the box with the intention of losing the Iowa caucus, simply to get a conversation going on this issue. Hell, it might even help them in the other states. It certainly would generate a lot of media attention, and would probably get that person over the hump of losing Iowa. IOW, it would take the importance of Iowa off of the board.

 

[Contumacious]

I understand we live in a democracy and citizens have a nominal right to vote and make laws which limit the power of big corporations and the banking and finance system, but in the end, Capitalism is your form of government.
m.

Correction.

Capitalism is SUPPOSED to be our socioeconomic system. that ended in 1913 with the adoption of the central bank and the heavy graduated income tax.

Also corporations exist because of government intervention. They are not creatures of the free market.

Just so you know.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

It's too bad you two know everything (at least believe you do). I guess that describes best the willfully ignorant, a characteristic common to all members of the echo chamber.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It's too bad you two know everything (at least believe you do). I guess that describes best the willfully ignorant, a characteristic common to all members of the echo chamber.

Translation: I am outclassed with nothing to answer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

It's too bad you two know everything (at least believe you do). I guess that describes best the willfully ignorant, a characteristic common to all members of the echo chamber.

Translation: I am outclassed with nothing to answer.

Peter Sellers and "The Mouse that Roared" if I recall. Declare victory and believe it is true. Pretty pitiful Rabbi, even for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those who have may have missed the article which was posted to begin this thread, please see:

Feinstein, GOP senator fight subsidies for ethanol

Both conservative and liberal members of The Congress are beginning to see the absurdity of corn-based ethanol. The following link was produced by Exxon-Mobil on the Ethanol issue.

The economics of ethanol | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog

 

[The Rabbi]

For those who have may have missed the article which was posted to begin this thread, please see:

Feinstein, GOP senator fight subsidies for ethanol

Both conservative and liberal members of The Congress are beginning to see the absurdity of corn-based ethanol. The following link was produced by Exxon-Mobil on the Ethanol issue.

The economics of ethanol | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog

Wasn't the Left among the most ardent supporters of ethanol?

 

[JBeukema]

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?

if all the poor people starve to death, average income increases. Just the way math works.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

When does it get returned to the Ammonites?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

In other words, you want to go back to 1900

 

[JBeukema]

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

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



.

No, you're a jew-hating asshole. I don't know what political movement that falls under. National Socialism perhaps?

Not wanting to out a target on American backs by playing favourites in the ME and backing Israel's crimes doesn't make someone a NAZI. It just makes them smarter than you.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Then corporations won't have to build factories in Mexico or other countries, because Americans will work cheap. That's the plan, of course.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Then corporations won't have to build factories in Mexico or other countries, because Americans will work cheap. That's the plan, of course.

As opposed to now when people can sit around waiting for dat gummint check.