OK, I'm all ears.

[softwaremama]

What do I think? Well, I think I'm happier living in a place like Massachusetts than I would be in, say Alabama. Sure I pay higher taxes here, but in I also have a higher standard of living. My state, unlike almost all the heartland "red" states, contributes more to the federal treasury than it gets back; we're not on the federal dole.

I live in Illinois, a "blue" state, but I wish I could move to Alabama. We pay enormous taxes here, get little back. What does "a higher standard of living" mean? More traffic and noise, too many stores, tear-downs? I think Huntsville sounds pretty good right about now.

 

[CSM]

any statistics you have. I did a quick google search and found the results for Chicago, when they instituted welfare-to-work, from the Center for Impact Research, which tracked the program.

Of 843 recipients,

"The mean number of children across the sample was 2.57.

46.7% had earned a high school diploma or GED.

Average reading levels were 7.70 and 6.46 for math.

81.5% of the sample had been employed at some point prior to entering the program.

The average length of time on welfare was 6.97 years."

Once more, though, I submit that corporate welfare dwarfs personal welfare, and I don't understand why those who favor low taxes support Bush's enormous corporate welfare programs, the most recent being a cool billion dollars in tax breaks to recipients of gov't military contracts.

Mariner.

Corporate welfare (as you call it) does indeed dwarf individual welfare. Again, I state that the large corporations are the entities that provide jobs and thus money to the majority of American citizens. Tax breaks also offer some incentive for corporations to keep jobs on US shores, spend more in research and development, and invest in modernizing their infrastructure. Do all corporations take advantage of the tax breaks in that manner? Admittedly not, some pass on the break to their investors as dividends (unfortunately). However, some corporations do indeed use the tax breaks as I have described and buy new equipment, do more research, and expand their businesses.

Small businesses, while providing some jobs simply cannot keep the US competitive on the world market nor provide the technilogical edge the US needs to compete.

 

[Mariner]

are the ones who should be the most irate about corporate welfare, since most of it goes to large businesses. If you're an energy company rich and well-connected enough to have a secret, private brunch with Deck Cheney, then you might see some nice legislation come your way that saves you millions of dollars. Your own lobbyist lawyers' actual words might even show up in the legislation. (This would sound cynical and exaggerated if it weren't actually true--but it is!)

Why do corportations needs so much unfairly distributed help? I thought the essence of capitalism was competition on a fair playing field. I think about Raytheon, which got itself some huge tax breaks in Mass. a few years ago in return for the promise to keep a certain number of jobs in state. Raytheon broke the promise but didn't give back the tax break. This type of state tax break competition simply pits richer states against poorer ones, and the richer (blue) states win: another reason conservatives might consider detesting corporate welfare with the same passion you bring to detesting personal welfare.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

are the ones who should be the most irate about corporate welfare, since most of it goes to large businesses. If you're an energy company rich and well-connected enough to have a secret, private brunch with Deck Cheney, then you might see some nice legislation come your way that saves you millions of dollars. Your own lobbyist lawyers' actual words might even show up in the legislation. (This would sound cynical and exaggerated if it weren't actually true--but it is!)

Why do corportations needs so much unfairly distributed help? I thought the essence of capitalism was competition on a fair playing field. I think about Raytheon, which got itself some huge tax breaks in Mass. a few years ago in return for the promise to keep a certain number of jobs in state. Raytheon broke the promise but didn't give back the tax break. This type of state tax break competition simply pits richer states against poorer ones, and the richer (blue) states win: another reason conservatives might consider detesting corporate welfare with the same passion you bring to detesting personal welfare.

Mariner.

As far as I know, Raytheon still has at least two large plants in Mass. You keep dodging the fact that it is the large corporations that provide the jobs. The little cottage industries just are not sufficient to sustain a robust job market and national economy. Defense corporations especially need careful handling by the Federal government. It would be a dangerous thing indeed if the US national security was dependent on products supplied by corporations from other nations (many of which are not only subsidized by their governments but actually a government enterprise). In many cases, because so many foriegn governments prop up THEIR corporations with huge subsidies, US companies need subsidies as well to compete. Unfortunately, not all nations are based on capitalism, which makes the playing field uneven in the first place.

 

[CSM]

Here is a different view of the deficit and it's impact:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=66&ncid=749&e=11&u=/bw/20041115/bs_bw/nf200411151729

Seems to me if our children are going to have more disposable income (as the article states) then the deficit is no big deal.

 

[Mariner]

that interesting link, which does make me feel a little better (though a 1-2% reduction in GDP by 2015, which sounds small, will still be something on the order of 100 billion dollars per year in lost business due to the drag of the deficit, in addition to the annual 300 billion in interest payments, hardly pocket change, and all of this ignores the potential destabilizing effect of having so much of our debt in foreign hands, since we Americans generally prefer to buy DVD players rather than treasury bonds.)

I read today that people for whom the economy was the number one concern voted 4:1 for Kerry. I guess what that says is I worry about the economy more than most people here.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

that interesting link, which does make me feel a little better (though a 1-2% reduction in GDP by 2015, which sounds small, will still be something on the order of 100 billion dollars per year in lost business due to the drag of the deficit, in addition to the annual 300 billion in interest payments, hardly pocket change, and all of this ignores the potential destabilizing effect of having so much of our debt in foreign hands, since we Americans generally prefer to buy DVD players rather than treasury bonds.)

I read today that people for whom the economy was the number one concern voted 4:1 for Kerry. I guess what that says is I worry about the economy more than most people here.

Mariner.

If you read it closely the article doesn't say the GDP drops buy 1 - 2%. It says the GROWTH of the GDP is reduced. Not stopped, not reversed, but instead of 4% GROWTH it is 3.x% GROWTH. Are you going to be another one on this board who makes pumpkins into oranges?

 

[Mariner]

"An average budget deficit of 3.5% of GDP over the next 10 years 'will reduce national income by 1 to 2 percent in 2015.'"

Those tenth-of-a-percent drags add up over time, I think. By 2015, in current dollars, apparently, the deficit will cost us more than the entire defense budget. The current deficit works out to $85,000 in debt for each baby born this year.

If I ever do make an error in quoting something or understanding something, I will admit it immediately. I'm interested in truth, not just trying to prove a priori beliefs right.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

"An average budget deficit of 3.5% of GDP over the next 10 years 'will reduce national income by 1 to 2 percent in 2015.'"

Those tenth-of-a-percent drags add up over time, I think. By 2015, in current dollars, apparently, the deficit will cost us more than the entire defense budget. The current deficit works out to $85,000 in debt for each baby born this year.

If I ever do make an error in quoting something or understanding something, I will admit it immediately. I'm interested in truth, not just trying to prove a priori beliefs right.

Mariner.

Not calling you a liar here, just pointing out that the 1-2% drop referred to national income and not GDP. The GDP is expected to continue to grow. One big question I have is if the deficit is 3.5% of the GDP, what is the other 96.5%?

 

[CSM]

Also, that 85000 in debt is not borne soley by individuals, in fact, most of it is borne by corporations.

 

[Mariner]

to know the difference between national income and GDP--I assumed they were the same... ?

The other 96.5% is the percentage of the economy where we actually pay for the things we buy, rather than borrowing the money from nice people in other countries.

Yes, the $85K is borne by corporations and individuals--but the individuals still have to work for the corporation in order to pay it off, so it's fair to assign it to people. It's not really fair to assign it to one year's worth of babies except as a way to dramatize its unbelievable size.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

to know the difference between national income and GDP--I assumed they were the same... ?

The other 96.5% is the percentage of the economy where we actually pay for the things we buy, rather than borrowing the money from nice people in other countries.

Yes, the $85K is borne by corporations and individuals--but the individuals still have to work for the corporation in order to pay it off, so it's fair to assign it to people. It's not really fair to assign it to one year's worth of babies except as a way to dramatize its unbelievable size.

Mariner.

I understood you were making a point through exageration.

 

[insein]

I work with people who are on welfare every day. They have disabilities, mental illnesses, and subnormal intelligence. Why does a beef farmer deserve a subsidy more than one of my patients? In my view, it would be better to let capitalism work and raise the price of beef to its real value.

Mariner.

what is your disabled, retarded, stupid welfare receipiant going to eat when American beef goes out of business? Falafal?

 

[Mariner]

Yes, falafel--you cn feed 10 ten times as many vegetarians from the same acreage as meat-eaters.

The arguments of the supposed capitalists suggesting that corporations need welfare are extremely contradictory, guys! On the one hand capitalism is the engine of the economy, and businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want to make money for the good of us all (PCBs in the Hudson? No problem!) On the other, they are such delicate flowers that you have to keep them on gov't life support.

What would happen to the beef farmer? Well, a few of them would go out of business, and others would raise their prices. The environment would improve, and so would people's health, since they would eat less artery-clogging beef. Where's the downside? And we'd all save money in taxes. Does McDonald's really need my tax money?

A disabled person isn't "mine" just because I work with him. He's "yours" too, and a compassionate society figures out what to do to give such people fulfilling lives. How would you have such a person live? One way of looking at this type of welfare is that it's a price we pay to free ourselves up to go to work. By paying professionals to take care of our sick, elderly, and infirm we boost the efficiency of capitalism. In the old days, caring for family members prevented people from moving from state to state and kept them home from work a lot more. So there's a pro-capitalist argument to be made in favor of a little socialism.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have some problems with corporate welfare, but I find it superior in some ways to individual welfare. At least with corporate welfare, the people who would otherwise be at home collecting unemployment are kept working and being productive.

I know you libs hate business people and villify them in all contexts. I know you would like business owners to be rounded up and shot.

Good luck in your Stalinizatin of America, yet I know you will fail.

 

[Mariner]

I don't vilify business people at all--please don't put words into my mouth. I have said clearly in the thread above that I agree with conservatives that capitalism is the engine of the economy, and that communism has been shown not to work. Also, I have plenty of contact with business-type people, including many in my own family. And politically speaking, I don't generally blame corporate welfare solely on Republicans either--except right now, when they control both Congress and the White House, and instead of decreasing it they're increasing it.

Isn't corporate welfare unfair to the corporations that don't get it? Doesn't it un-level the playing field? If my state can afford to give a corporation a tax break that your state can't, doesn't that cheat your state out of badly needed business? Doesn't corporate welfare hurt our image abroad, and the economies of free countries? And isn't it kind of sick that corporations can give large donations and then expect nice legislation in return? If Republicans are truly for small gov't, now's the time to act.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't vilify business people at all--please don't put words into my mouth. I have said clearly in the thread above that I agree with conservatives that capitalism is the engine of the economy, and that communism has been shown not to work. Also, I have plenty of contact with business-type people, including many in my own family. And politically speaking, I don't generally blame corporate welfare solely on Republicans either--except right now, when they control both Congress and the White House, and instead of decreasing it they're increasing it.

Isn't corporate welfare unfair to the corporations that don't get it? Doesn't it un-level the playing field? If my state can afford to give a corporation a tax break that your state can't, doesn't that cheat your state out of badly needed business? Doesn't corporate welfare hurt our image abroad, and the economies of free countries? And isn't it kind of sick that corporations can give large donations and then expect nice legislation in return? If Republicans are truly for small gov't, now's the time to act.

Mariner.

I will put words in your mouth and you will accept it gladly and ask for more.

I'm against corporate welfare.
Usually insane libs hate corporate welfare and love it for individuals. I was just gauging.

 

[Mariner]

Right Wing, is that I don't "love" welfare for individuals either. I dislike paying taxes as much as the next person, and don't want to have to pay any more than necessary. I see perfectly well that able-bodied people get off their behinds and work when they have no choice, and when some sort of work is available. I supported welfare reform, and believe it's worked out fairly well, although at times the requirements, especially on single mothers, have been too harsh.

But I also see in my daily work just how down and out some people can be (imagine having, say, schizophrenia and diabetes), and I have no problem paying a little to keep such people off the streets via a reasonable social safety net. We hardly have a lavish welfare system in this country. After all, there but for the grace of God go we.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Right Wing, is that I don't "love" welfare for individuals either. I dislike paying taxes as much as the next person, and don't want to have to pay any more than necessary. I see perfectly well that able-bodied people get off their behinds and work when they have no choice, and when some sort of work is available. I supported welfare reform, and believe it's worked out fairly well, although at times the requirements, especially on single mothers, have been too harsh.

But I also see in my daily work just how down and out some people can be (imagine having, say, schizophrenia and diabetes), and I have no problem paying a little to keep such people off the streets via a reasonable social safety net. We hardly have a lavish welfare system in this country. After all, there but for the grace of God go we.

Mariner.

That's called charitable giving. Government confiscation of private funds has nothing to do with charity.

Did you know charitable giving was at an all time high during the 80's:The Decade Of Greed?

You libs will always paint all rich people as evil. It's your party modus operandi.

 

[Mariner]

evil. I have quite a few acquaintances who qualify as rich, and none of them is evil. Some of them are lazy, though--the conservative pitch that "we're just giving money to the people who create jobs for the rest of us" doesn't always apply. Many a rich person spends days by the pool at the health club and contributes zilch to society beyond buying luxury goods. Their lifestyle is only made possible by all the rest of us working, and if you look back in many of their histories just a generation or two, you'll often find that they wouldn't be where they are now if some kin hadn't benefited from a gov't social program, e.g. the G.I. bill, a depression-era anti-poverty program, an 18th century gov't land giveaway ("40 acres and a mule") or a mid-centure tariff (work for General Motors and make enough to support your family--but only because of unionization and tariffs that kept out cheaper cars from abroad).

Besides, you guys don't have good answers for a bunch of challenging questions. E.g. 1/6 of all American kids are growing up in poverty right now, or that if you earn minimum wage you can't actually feed and house yourself in many localities. What would you have such people do? If you enact a flatter tax or a consumption tax, you increase that number. You also ignore the fact that the economic booms of the 80s and 90s followed small tax increases, not cuts. The rich don't take care of the poor all by themselves. That's why gov't has to step in. I don't think Bush is going to have any luck making major changes in the tax code. I'd be happy with some simplification, but I don't think you can undo redistributive taxation.

Mariner.