Corporate Welfare versus Invidual Welfare. Which Costs Taxpayers the Most?

[Vox]

Libs who want to cut military spending should examine the Constitution. Maintaining a military force for the common defense is one of the few enumerated tasks of the Fed. Providing a free ride via welfare is most definitely not a Constitutionally mandated duty of the Fed.

I'm a Lib(ertarian), fundamentally different, but the key word is "cut" not "eliminate." The only Constitutionally authorized role of the military is for defense of the US. It's not to manipulate governments in the Middle East or go nations building. If we stopped doing those things, we could defend the US more cheaply than what we are doing now.

It is a valid point, however, I would start with getting out from Europe - if those socialists want to withstand Putin - let them pay for themselves.
ME should be sorted out but it is a totally different issue and some parts and deals are vital for our national interests.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nation
Welfare expenditure (% of GDP)omitting education
Welfare expenditure(% of GDP)including education
GDP per capita (PPP US$)


Denmark 29.2 37.9 $37,700
Sweden 28.9 38.2 $41,700
France 28.5 34.9 $35,500
Germany 27.4 33.2 $39,100
Belgium 27.2 32.7 $38,100
Switzerland 26.4 31.6 $54,600
Austria 26.0 32.4 $42,400
Finland 24.8 32.3 $36,500
Netherlands 24.3 27.3 $42,300
Italy 24.4 28.6 $30,100
Greece 24.3 28.4 $25,100
Norway 23.9 33.2 $55,300
Poland 23.0 N/A $21,000
United Kingdom 21.8 25.9 $36,700
Portugal 21.1 25.5 $23,000
Luxembourg 20.8 N/A $53,780
Czech Republic 20.1 N/A $27,200
Hungary 20.1 N/A $19,800
Iceland 19.8 23.2 $39,400
Spain 19.6 25.3 $30,400
New Zealand 18.5 25.8 $28,800
Australia 18.0 22.5 $42,400
Slovakia 17.9 N/A $24,300
Canada 17.8 23.1 $41,500
Japan 16.9 18.6 $36,200
United States 14.8 19.4 $49,800
Ireland 13.8 18.5 $41,700
Mexico 11.8 N/A $15,300
South Korea 6.1 11.0 $32,400

Quit yer bitchin, nutters. We ain't Socialist yet.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Libs who want to cut military spending should examine the Constitution. Maintaining a military force for the common defense is one of the few enumerated tasks of the Fed. Providing a free ride via welfare is most definitely not a Constitutionally mandated duty of the Fed.

I'm a Lib(ertarian), fundamentally different, but the key word is "cut" not "eliminate." The only Constitutionally authorized role of the military is for defense of the US. It's not to manipulate governments in the Middle East or go nations building. If we stopped doing those things, we could defend the US more cheaply than what we are doing now.

Sorry, I use Lib for liberal. I'll stand corrected on that point.
I certainly don't disagree about defense vs. policing the world, or "nation building". We definitely need to pull out of those places, and take all our toys and money with us. They hate our guts, they've been fighting among themselves for generations, and they really don't give a shit about anything we have to offer except money. There are lots of places in the military budget that can be trimmed, but pay and benefits are not the place to start.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The majority of welfare benefits goes to RED states.

Not true. Top five States for TANF Welfare Payments (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Sources HHS


1. California $7,238,867,000


2. New York $5,346,657,000


3. Michigan $1, 703,006,000


4. Washington $1,494,308,308


5. New Jersey $1,445,745,000



The whole liberal Red State meme is another myth. I'll blow that up some other day. Those numbers included all Federal money that goes to States. My State, Virginia, gets an enormous amount of Federal dollars. Why? The largest navy base in the world is here. The Pentagon. Langley AFB. The CIA. Quantico. Yorktown NWS. I could go on.

Red States have the the bulk on the military and Federal facilities in the U.S. That is where the bulk of those dollars are coming from. Been to many Federal facilities in Vermont or Maine? See the difference?

Not really.

The military doesn't make anything to actually "sell". Putting those bases in Red States is simply another kind of welfare. And you can bet the arms and other goods going to those military bases are made in Blue States.

Worse, I'm sure Hurricane Sandy had nothing to do with "temporary assistance" in a couple of those states.

The data is pre-Sandy.

 

[kaz]

How does that make defense spending a form of welfare? Congress has been steadily reducing the size of the defense budget since the 1960s. The idea that defense contractors have any kind of undue influence is laughable given the massive growth in other areas of the government. The NEA has more influence that the defense industry.

See red

it is still not equal CASH HANDOUTS.

preference in work assignment or decreased taxes paid ARE NOT equal the taxpayer's money handed out for NOTHING.

Guys, stop repeating the leftard's lying propaganda shit.

Well, then make sense. Farm subsidies and military decisions being made for non-defense reasons are definitely welfare. I agree for the defense part it does not equal cash handouts, but the delta between what we are spending and what we should spend is definitely welfare to the communities that did not earn them based on market forces but by government force.

These are legitimate points, I'm not going to gloss over them because it's convenient. I'm not a Democrat.

 

[Vox]

Nation
Welfare expenditure (% of GDP)omitting education
Welfare expenditure(% of GDP)including education
GDP per capita (PPP US$)


Denmark 29.2 37.9 $37,700
Sweden 28.9 38.2 $41,700
France 28.5 34.9 $35,500
Germany 27.4 33.2 $39,100
Belgium 27.2 32.7 $38,100
Switzerland 26.4 31.6 $54,600
Austria 26.0 32.4 $42,400
Finland 24.8 32.3 $36,500
Netherlands 24.3 27.3 $42,300
Italy 24.4 28.6 $30,100
Greece 24.3 28.4 $25,100
Norway 23.9 33.2 $55,300
Poland 23.0 N/A $21,000
United Kingdom 21.8 25.9 $36,700
Portugal 21.1 25.5 $23,000
Luxembourg 20.8 N/A $53,780
Czech Republic 20.1 N/A $27,200
Hungary 20.1 N/A $19,800
Iceland 19.8 23.2 $39,400
Spain 19.6 25.3 $30,400
New Zealand 18.5 25.8 $28,800
Australia 18.0 22.5 $42,400
Slovakia 17.9 N/A $24,300
Canada 17.8 23.1 $41,500
Japan 16.9 18.6 $36,200
United States 14.8 19.4 $49,800
Ireland 13.8 18.5 $41,700
Mexico 11.8 N/A $15,300
South Korea 6.1 11.0 $32,400

Quit yer bitchin, nutters. We ain't Socialist yet.

really? with that much throwing out the window?

 

[kaz]

Libs who want to cut military spending should examine the Constitution. Maintaining a military force for the common defense is one of the few enumerated tasks of the Fed. Providing a free ride via welfare is most definitely not a Constitutionally mandated duty of the Fed.

I'm a Lib(ertarian), fundamentally different, but the key word is "cut" not "eliminate." The only Constitutionally authorized role of the military is for defense of the US. It's not to manipulate governments in the Middle East or go nations building. If we stopped doing those things, we could defend the US more cheaply than what we are doing now.

It is a valid point, however, I would start with getting out from Europe - if those socialists want to withstand Putin - let them pay for themselves.
ME should be sorted out but it is a totally different issue and some parts and deals are vital for our national interests.

Deal, let's do both. And stop when no US troops are permanently stationed in any country outside the US.

 

[kaz]

Libs who want to cut military spending should examine the Constitution. Maintaining a military force for the common defense is one of the few enumerated tasks of the Fed. Providing a free ride via welfare is most definitely not a Constitutionally mandated duty of the Fed.

I'm a Lib(ertarian), fundamentally different, but the key word is "cut" not "eliminate." The only Constitutionally authorized role of the military is for defense of the US. It's not to manipulate governments in the Middle East or go nations building. If we stopped doing those things, we could defend the US more cheaply than what we are doing now.

Sorry, I use Lib for liberal. I'll stand corrected on that point.
I certainly don't disagree about defense vs. policing the world, or "nation building". We definitely need to pull out of those places, and take all our toys and money with us. They hate our guts, they've been fighting among themselves for generations, and they really don't give a shit about anything we have to offer except money. There are lots of places in the military budget that can be trimmed, but pay and benefits are not the place to start.

I agree with that on the pay and benefits. Also, I did realize you meant lib for liberal, I was just joking about it.

 

[dblack]

How does that make defense spending a form of welfare? Congress has been steadily reducing the size of the defense budget since the 1960s. The idea that defense contractors have any kind of undue influence is laughable given the massive growth in other areas of the government. The NEA has more influence that the defense industry.

See red

it is still not equal CASH HANDOUTS.

preference in work assignment or decreased taxes paid ARE NOT equal the taxpayer's money handed out for NOTHING.

Guys, stop repeating the leftard's lying propaganda shit.

I think I'm probably what you'd call a 'leftard', Vox, so I'll repeat the arguments that make the most sense to me. I certainly don't subscribe to your version of conservatism.

I'm not sure what you're after with 'preference in work assignment'. And decreasing taxes is fine, as long as it's done across the board, for everyone. The question is equal protection - the idea that everyone has equal rights under the law. When the government instead implements policies that reward some and not others it's a violation of that concept. That's what I'm referring to as 'corporate welfare'. Even when it's not in the form of direct subsidies, the preferential treatment is corrosive to freedom and democratic government, and redistributes wealth every bit as much as entitlement programs.

 

[Vox]

See red

it is still not equal CASH HANDOUTS.

preference in work assignment or decreased taxes paid ARE NOT equal the taxpayer's money handed out for NOTHING.

Guys, stop repeating the leftard's lying propaganda shit.

Well, then make sense. Farm subsidies and military decisions being made for non-defense reasons are definitely welfare. I agree for the defense part it does not equal cash handouts, but the delta between what we are spending and what we should spend is definitely welfare to the communities that did not earn them based on market forces but by government force.

These are legitimate points, I'm not going to gloss over them because it's convenient. I'm not a Democrat.

Let's put defense out of the picture altogether as defense is an essential part of government and the country existence to start with.

welfare is NEVER a necessity and essential part of why we have the country or a government.
It is a LUXURY part of the affluent country and appears when the citizens reach an agreement to help the less fortunate - if they CAN.


Farm subsidy is a tax credit, which just means farmers are paying less in taxes.

How does it equal cash handouts which are essentially spending the others people money?

you are taking the bait of leftard's math where spending the people's money as welfare handouts is equal with money NEVER COLLECTED.

you can not count on something that was never there, as a "loss".

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly.

I was referring to Eisenhower's warnings about the "military industrial complex", and its power and propensity to manipulate US foreign policy for its own gain.

How does that make defense spending a form of welfare? Congress has been steadily reducing the size of the defense budget since the 1960s. The idea that defense contractors have any kind of undue influence is laughable given the massive growth in other areas of the government. The NEA has more influence that the defense industry.

See red

That's only a small part of the defense budget. The government has closed hundreds of bases and only a few programs are continued despite the Defense Dept's requests.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is a no bid contract to a favored corporation qualify as welfare? No, but it should.

And do you have any idea why corporations (that have been making billions of dollars) why do we spend a dime on a corporation that is doing very well? do you know?

And did you know that those hated welfare funds going to individuals and families are.....wait for it......
among the poorest people in the country.

See the difference? Corporations are very rich and the bottom third of our population is very poor.

Who you think should get the welfare? I know. You want the corporations to have your money.

I made no moral argument. You are. I just provided data. The facts speak for themselves. Corporate welfare costs are a tiny fraction of individual welfare costs. One more talking point destroyed. I feel my work is done here.

bullshit. The op was an attempt to draw an equilvancy of moral or social benefit.

Actually, what I'm hearing is this:

It is more moral to demand benefits than to earn them. It is more moral to bash the prosperous for prospering, than to emulate what made them prosperous in the first place. The false equivalencies I see being drawn here is between the rich and the poor, by that I mean some say that the rich shouldn't be rich, simply because the poor need the money more.

What?

 

[bripat9643]

Nation
Welfare expenditure (% of GDP)omitting education
Welfare expenditure(% of GDP)including education
GDP per capita (PPP US$)


Denmark 29.2 37.9 $37,700
Sweden 28.9 38.2 $41,700
France 28.5 34.9 $35,500
Germany 27.4 33.2 $39,100
Belgium 27.2 32.7 $38,100
Switzerland 26.4 31.6 $54,600
Austria 26.0 32.4 $42,400
Finland 24.8 32.3 $36,500
Netherlands 24.3 27.3 $42,300
Italy 24.4 28.6 $30,100
Greece 24.3 28.4 $25,100
Norway 23.9 33.2 $55,300
Poland 23.0 N/A $21,000
United Kingdom 21.8 25.9 $36,700
Portugal 21.1 25.5 $23,000
Luxembourg 20.8 N/A $53,780
Czech Republic 20.1 N/A $27,200
Hungary 20.1 N/A $19,800
Iceland 19.8 23.2 $39,400
Spain 19.6 25.3 $30,400
New Zealand 18.5 25.8 $28,800
Australia 18.0 22.5 $42,400
Slovakia 17.9 N/A $24,300
Canada 17.8 23.1 $41,500
Japan 16.9 18.6 $36,200
United States 14.8 19.4 $49,800
Ireland 13.8 18.5 $41,700
Mexico 11.8 N/A $15,300
South Korea 6.1 11.0 $32,400

Quit yer bitchin, nutters. We ain't Socialist yet.

So your point is that we should follow all the other lemmings over the cliff?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a Lib(ertarian), fundamentally different, but the key word is "cut" not "eliminate." The only Constitutionally authorized role of the military is for defense of the US. It's not to manipulate governments in the Middle East or go nations building. If we stopped doing those things, we could defend the US more cheaply than what we are doing now.

It is a valid point, however, I would start with getting out from Europe - if those socialists want to withstand Putin - let them pay for themselves.
ME should be sorted out but it is a totally different issue and some parts and deals are vital for our national interests.

Deal, let's do both. And stop when no US troops are permanently stationed in any country outside the US.

I think we'll still need some Air Force and Navel bases.

 

[Vox]

See red

it is still not equal CASH HANDOUTS.

preference in work assignment or decreased taxes paid ARE NOT equal the taxpayer's money handed out for NOTHING.

Guys, stop repeating the leftard's lying propaganda shit.

I think I'm probably what you'd call a 'leftard', Vox, so I'll repeat the arguments that make the most sense to me. I certainly don't subscribe to your version of conservatism.

I'm not sure what you're after with 'preference in work assignment'. And decreasing taxes is fine, as long as it's done across the board, for everyone. The question is equal protection - the idea that everyone has equal rights under the law. When the government instead implements policies that reward some and not others it's a violation of that concept. That's what I'm referring to as 'corporate welfare'. Even when it's not in the form of direct subsidies, the preferential treatment is corrosive to freedom and democratic government and effectively redistributes wealth every bit as much as entitlement programs.

government contracting is a preference in work assignment - it is still WORK being done, not a cash handout for NOTHING.

the amount of "corporate welfare" which is not a cash handout of already collected money but money which exist only in greedy leftist imagination is NOT a problem in this country.
Neither for our debt, nor for our society.

HOWEVER, as I already stated before, for the normal healthy conditions of free market I certainly support the tax overhaul, where the tax code is written anew and NOBODY has tax preferences - this is long overdue as the last tax code was written over 40 years ago and obviously it needs to be changed as the social politics should be changed as well - this should be done ROUTINELY every 30-35 years as demography and economy change and that should reflect bot taxes and welfare ( I mean the real one) spending.

 

[bripat9643]

it is still not equal CASH HANDOUTS.

preference in work assignment or decreased taxes paid ARE NOT equal the taxpayer's money handed out for NOTHING.

Guys, stop repeating the leftard's lying propaganda shit.

Well, then make sense. Farm subsidies and military decisions being made for non-defense reasons are definitely welfare. I agree for the defense part it does not equal cash handouts, but the delta between what we are spending and what we should spend is definitely welfare to the communities that did not earn them based on market forces but by government force.

These are legitimate points, I'm not going to gloss over them because it's convenient. I'm not a Democrat.

Let's put defense out of the picture altogether as defense is an essential part why government and the country existence altogether.

welfare is NEVER a necessity and essential part of why we have the country or a government.
It is a LUXURY part of the affluent country and appears when the citizens reach an agreement to help the less fortunate - if they CAN.


Farm subsidy is a tax credit, which just means farmers are paying less in taxes.

How does it equal cash handouts which are essentially spending the others people money?

you are taking the bait of leftard's math where spending the people's money as welfare handouts is equal with money NEVER COLLECTED.

you can not count on something that was never there, as a "loss".

Incorrect. Farmers receive actual cash payments for not growing crops. Farms subsidies are one of the biggest socialist boondoggles ever perpetrated on the American taxpayers. They need to go. They should be the first spending on the chopping block.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nation
Welfare expenditure (% of GDP)omitting education
Welfare expenditure(% of GDP)including education
GDP per capita (PPP US$)


Denmark 29.2 37.9 $37,700
Sweden 28.9 38.2 $41,700
France 28.5 34.9 $35,500
Germany 27.4 33.2 $39,100
Belgium 27.2 32.7 $38,100
Switzerland 26.4 31.6 $54,600
Austria 26.0 32.4 $42,400
Finland 24.8 32.3 $36,500
Netherlands 24.3 27.3 $42,300
Italy 24.4 28.6 $30,100
Greece 24.3 28.4 $25,100
Norway 23.9 33.2 $55,300
Poland 23.0 N/A $21,000
United Kingdom 21.8 25.9 $36,700
Portugal 21.1 25.5 $23,000
Luxembourg 20.8 N/A $53,780
Czech Republic 20.1 N/A $27,200
Hungary 20.1 N/A $19,800
Iceland 19.8 23.2 $39,400
Spain 19.6 25.3 $30,400
New Zealand 18.5 25.8 $28,800
Australia 18.0 22.5 $42,400
Slovakia 17.9 N/A $24,300
Canada 17.8 23.1 $41,500
Japan 16.9 18.6 $36,200
United States 14.8 19.4 $49,800
Ireland 13.8 18.5 $41,700
Mexico 11.8 N/A $15,300
South Korea 6.1 11.0 $32,400

Quit yer bitchin, nutters. We ain't Socialist yet.

So your point is that we should follow all the other lemmings over the cliff?

Yes. That is my point. Good call!

 

[kaz]

it is still not equal CASH HANDOUTS.

preference in work assignment or decreased taxes paid ARE NOT equal the taxpayer's money handed out for NOTHING.

Guys, stop repeating the leftard's lying propaganda shit.

Well, then make sense. Farm subsidies and military decisions being made for non-defense reasons are definitely welfare. I agree for the defense part it does not equal cash handouts, but the delta between what we are spending and what we should spend is definitely welfare to the communities that did not earn them based on market forces but by government force.

These are legitimate points, I'm not going to gloss over them because it's convenient. I'm not a Democrat.

Let's put defense out of the picture altogether as defense is an essential part why government and the country existence altogether.

I agree that "defense" is Constitutional. But do you agree that bases should not be kept open or weapons programs the military doesn't want be kept in operation because of how powerful the politicians in their district are? Do you see how I consider that decision not to be defense?

welfare is NEVER a necessity and essential part of why we have the country or a government.
It is a LUXURY part of the affluent country and appears when the citizens reach an agreement to help the less fortunate - if they CAN.

And it if done by government should be at the local level. It's Unconstitutional for the Feds by the 10th amendment, and it should be. Local governments are far more accountable to the people paying the bills and far more aware what the needs of the local communities are. Government should still be the last resort though and not the first.

Farm subsidy is a tax credit, which just means farmers are paying less in taxes.

How does it equal cash handouts which are essentially spending the others people money?

Oh, they do far more than that. Government sets minimum prices for crops, buys what isn't sold, pays farmers not to grow crops. It's endless. And it's definitely welfare. We need some serious free market reform in our agricultural areas. And BTW, I grew up hearing farm reports on the rock station I listened to as a teenager in Kalamazoo. I mean Kazmania...

you are taking the bait of leftard's math where spending the people's money as welfare handouts is equal with money NEVER COLLECTED.

you can not count on something that was never there, as a "loss".

I am not clear what you mean here, but I doubt I'm saying anything the liberals are. I know what I'm talking about, they don't. It's a fundamentally different thing.

 

[AVG-JOE]

One of our liberal posters used the phrase "Corporate Welfare" today. We have all heard the term, mostly used by folks on the left, and they use the typical moral equivalency argument. You know..."well maybe we spend a lot on welfare...but those bastard Corporations get Corporate welfare and that is just as much money and it's even worse."

So I had to look it up. How much does "Corporate Welfare" cost we the Taxpayers versus Individual Welfare?


According to the Cato Institute Corporate Welfare costs the U.S. taxpayer $100 billion a year. Self-identified Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders puts the number at $125 billion a year. For the sake of argument...we'll go with Bernie.


Corporate Welfare Costs $125 billion. Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Individual Welfare Costs $927 billion. These are programs strictly for the poor. No Medicare or Social Security. This is just for Medicaid, AFDC, SNAP, CHIP, Housing Assistance, Energy Cost Assistance, SSI, and TANF

Link: Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in Federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States--later (after 2010) expenditures are unknown but higher."[3]



So in summary. The Federal Government spends $125 billion a year in Corporate Welfare. The Federal Government spends $927 billion a year on individual Welfare. Corporate Welfare accounts for 13% of the costs of Individual Welfare. Individual Welfare Costs have gone up 31% over the last 10 years. Corporate Welfare costs have remained flat.


Hope these facts clear things up for everyone and kill yet another phony talking point. Your welcome.

Perhaps you've just discovered a way to save the tax payers over a trillion per year...

 

[HelenaHandbag]

See red

it is still not equal CASH HANDOUTS.

preference in work assignment or decreased taxes paid ARE NOT equal the taxpayer's money handed out for NOTHING.

Guys, stop repeating the leftard's lying propaganda shit.

Well, then make sense. Farm subsidies and military decisions being made for non-defense reasons are definitely welfare. I agree for the defense part it does not equal cash handouts, but the delta between what we are spending and what we should spend is definitely welfare to the communities that did not earn them based on market forces but by government force.

These are legitimate points, I'm not going to gloss over them because it's convenient. I'm not a Democrat.

James Delingpole wrote a very interesting piece on the Orwellian nature of how left has declared tax breaks and credits as subsidies.

Everyone – every normal, reasonably well-educated, English-speaking person, at any rate – would know instantly what constitutes "subsidy", regardless of whether or not the word "energy" is put in front of it. It means a cash incentive.

What it definitely doesn't mean is a tax reduction. Why doesn't it mean this? Well, let's examine the logic for a moment. Suppose I were to mug you in the street and steal, say, £100 from you. But then, in a fit of generosity, I decided to hand you back a tenner so you could get a cab home. Could that tenner be reasonably described as a "gift" or a "donation"? Well, yes, I suppose at an enormous stretch, it could just about. "Dono" means "I give" in Latin, so, yes, when I give you back that "tenner" it could be construed as a gift or a donation.

But only by someone lacking in any kind of moral responsibility, or intellectual consistency, or understanding of sense, context and nuance. No sensitive user of the English language would ever employ the word "gift" or "donation" in such a perverted way.

The same applies to this new usage of "subsidy" – as endorsed above by the Environmental Audit Committee, by the Guardian's Damian Carrington, by the Sunday Times's Jonathan Leake, by Barry "Dork Brain" Gardiner, by the Overseas Development Institute, by Bloomberg New Energy, by the IMF and so on. Every one of these people and institutions is using it in the novel sense "being granted a tax reduction by the state." So, for example, if you are a fracking company which would normally be taxed at say 20 per cent, but the government decides to kick start your industry by reducing the tax rate to, say, 15 per cent you are – according to this new tortured definition of the word – receiving a subsidy. But how can this be? If the government takes less of your money in tax it is not actually giving you that money, any more than I was giving that tenner a moment ago just after I mugged you.

When a tax is not a tax; when a subsidy is not a subsidy: the liberal-left's Orwellian assault on our language ? Telegraph Blogs