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

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Forgive me for saying so, but government rewards the lazy with Welfare, and they reward the rich with welfare. They have no clue as to what "welfare" actually entails. And when you say "equal protection under the law" does that mean simply for the poor and middle class? Given the animosity I'm seeing for corporations in this thread, I'm beginning to think "equal protection" for you is quite different. I'm beginning to think that you want all corporations to be punished. Some should be, but we shouldn't pigeonhole them all into one category.

 

[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

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.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money...

It's a lot more money than you seem to think. Base consolidation saves a lot of money and congressmen endlessly block it. The military tries to consolidate weapons programs to buy more of fewer types which not only saves purchase money but money on parts, training, maintenance and so forth. They do it for weapons programs, vehicles and all sorts of things. It's a lot more money than you think.

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, we do where we have US interests, but where we have US interests, we have US territory to put them. I don't mean they should only be in the US proper, I mean they should only be on land controlled by the US. Also, planes fly further and further, aircraft carriers are practically naval bases. Where do we need them that we have no place of our own to put them?

The last two I would remove are Korea (until it's stable and safe) and Guantanamo Bay (to piss off the Communist Cuban government). But eventually, they should be no where but our territory.

 

[Vox]

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.

if that's the issue - I AGREE

 

[dblack]

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.

Forgive me for saying so, but government rewards the lazy with Welfare, and they reward the rich with welfare. They have no clue as to what "welfare" actually entails. And when you say "equal protection under the law" does that mean simply for the poor and middle class? Given the animosity I'm seeing for corporations in this thread, I'm beginning to think "equal protection" for you is quite different. I'm beginning to think that you want all corporations to be punished. Some should be, but we shouldn't pigeonhole them all into one category.

Well, you're beginning to think wrong. My issue is with regulatory and tax policy that Congress uses to hand out favors to its friends and punish its enemies. Whether those 'friends and enemies' are incorporated businesses, organized labor, religious groups, or any other special interest is irrelevant.

I want a government the protect the basic rights of everyone equally and we're rapidly tossing that idea aside in favor of government that treats everyone differently, depending on which class or interest group they belong to.

 

[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.

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.

Corporate welfare has more cost than the amount of money spent. It also warps free markets, which means that less efficient companies are artificially benefited by money and advantages confiscated by government force and provided to them. It's not right, and it's costly.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Defense contractors have enough pull to get weapons systems that nobody really wants, like the zillion dollar Joint Strike Fighter, into defense bills.

Orrin Hatch is one of the biggest peddlers of this deliberate waste.

 

[kaz]

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

That's an excellent point Helen. When I refer to corporate subsidies, I'm referring to things like TARP where money confiscated by force is provided to market place losers. Where farmers are paid to grow what government tells them rather than what the market does. When military decisions are made for the benefit of the congressman or senator for their district.

When the left talk about subsidies, they are generally referring to companies deducting their operating expenses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

corporate welfare also provides, jobs, services, research and development for improved products and services. public welfare provides a drain. there is nothing provided as a return. we don't even get a trained and ready workforce out of the deal.

Disagree with that. We are going to pay for it up front or the back end in rehabilitation and or incarceration costs.

Let's get those on public assistance they help they need to make them productive taxpayers.

Since almost 4 of 5 are children, I would suggest that this should be the priority.

So on the average one welfare mom has 4 bastard children? Don't you see a problem here?

Yup. You.

 

[Vox]

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.

No, no, you are not. I just used your post to expand on what I was telling. we essentially agree( I did not respond to other points as I do not object)

 

[bripat9643]

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.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money...

It's a lot more money than you seem to think. Base consolidation saves a lot of money and congressmen endlessly block it. The military tries to consolidate weapons programs to buy more of fewer types which not only saves purchase money but money on parts, training, maintenance and so forth. They do it for weapons programs, vehicles and all sorts of things. It's a lot more money than you think.

It's still a small part of the defense budget. The biggest part, by far, is wages and pensions.

 

[kaz]

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.

No, no, you are not. I just used your post to expand on what I was telling. we essentially agree( I did not respond to other points as I do not object)

I usually have the best debates with people that I usually agree with...

My brother and I have the best debates, and I don't know anyone I agree with on more things than I do with him.

 

[kaz]

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.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money...

It's a lot more money than you seem to think. Base consolidation saves a lot of money and congressmen endlessly block it. The military tries to consolidate weapons programs to buy more of fewer types which not only saves purchase money but money on parts, training, maintenance and so forth. They do it for weapons programs, vehicles and all sorts of things. It's a lot more money than you think.

It's still a small part of the defense budget. The biggest part, by far, is wages and pensions.

Maybe as a percent, but it's a lot of dollars. We should stop all waste of the people's money by greedy politicians.

 

[Vox]

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.

Corporate welfare has more cost than the amount of money spent. It also warps free markets, which means that less efficient companies are artificially benefited by money and advantages confiscated by government force and provided to them. It's not right, and it's costly.

Let's do tax overhaul.
Let's go to flat tax.

No incentives, no rewards. Everything from the scratch.

Same with social welfare - it is way overdue to change the spending formula, so the amount of money spent on the system "serving" the recipients is not 40% of the whole expenditure.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well, we do where we have US interests, but where we have US interests, we have US territory to put them. I don't mean they should only be in the US proper, I mean they should only be on land controlled by the US. Also, planes fly further and further, aircraft carriers are practically naval bases. Where do we need them that we have no place of our own to put them?

The last two I would remove are Korea (until it's stable and safe) and Guantanamo Bay (to piss off the Communist Cuban government). But eventually, they should be no where but our territory.

You can't ask the Mediterranean fleet to sail all the way back to the East Coast of the USA to be refueled and restocked. It would spend half it's patrol time just getting to its destination and returning. That's why we have a Navel base in Italy. We also have one in Diego Garcia so we can patrol the Indian Ocean.

We also have a number of air force bases in strategic locations throughout the world that couldn't be located on U.S. territory. If you want to have the ability to project force to any part of the world on short notice, then you need these bases. However, I think we can pretty much dispense with all the overseas army bases.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Defense contractors have enough pull to get weapons systems that nobody really wants, like the zillion dollar Joint Strike Fighter, into defense bills.

Orrin Hatch is one of the biggest peddlers of this deliberate waste.

The military originally did want the Joint Strike fighter. Unfortunately it has turned into an overpriced boondoggle. But we need a replacement for the F16, which is getting quite long in the tooth. It was developed in the 1970s, for god's sake. There is nothing better than the F35 on the drawing board.

 

[bripat9643]

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money...

It's a lot more money than you seem to think. Base consolidation saves a lot of money and congressmen endlessly block it. The military tries to consolidate weapons programs to buy more of fewer types which not only saves purchase money but money on parts, training, maintenance and so forth. They do it for weapons programs, vehicles and all sorts of things. It's a lot more money than you think.

It's still a small part of the defense budget. The biggest part, by far, is wages and pensions.

Maybe as a percent, but it's a lot of dollars. We should stop all waste of the people's money by greedy politicians.

You're dreaming if you think you can eliminate all waste from any government program. Waste is an intrinsic feature of government. That's one reason to keep it as small as possible.

 

[bripat9643]

Disagree with that. We are going to pay for it up front or the back end in rehabilitation and or incarceration costs.

Let's get those on public assistance they help they need to make them productive taxpayers.

Since almost 4 of 5 are children, I would suggest that this should be the priority.

So on the average one welfare mom has 4 bastard children? Don't you see a problem here?

Yup. You.

How am I the problem, numskull?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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

Well, we do where we have US interests, but where we have US interests, we have US territory to put them. I don't mean they should only be in the US proper, I mean they should only be on land controlled by the US. Also, planes fly further and further, aircraft carriers are practically naval bases. Where do we need them that we have no place of our own to put them?

The last two I would remove are Korea (until it's stable and safe) and Guantanamo Bay (to piss off the Communist Cuban government). But eventually, they should be no where but our territory.

You can't ask the Mediterranean fleet to sail all the way back to the East Coast of the USA to be refueled and restocked. It would spend half it's patrol time just getting to its destination and returning. That's why we have a Navel base in Italy. We also have one in Diego Garcia so we can patrol the Indian Ocean.

We also have a number of air force bases in strategic locations throughout the world that couldn't be located on U.S. territory. If you want to have the ability to project force to any part of the world on short notice, then you need these bases. However, I think we can pretty much dispense with all the overseas army bases.

Speaking of relics form the 1970s, projecting air power from Europe is one of them.

Let the the individual European nations and NATO defend their own territories.

If you want to talk about subsidies, America is basically subsidizing the European socialist programs, like their horribly inefficient socialized medicine schemes, by flying military air cover for them.

 

[kaz]

It's still a small part of the defense budget. The biggest part, by far, is wages and pensions.

Maybe as a percent, but it's a lot of dollars. We should stop all waste of the people's money by greedy politicians.

You're dreaming if you think you can eliminate all waste from any government program. Waste is an intrinsic feature of government. That's one reason to keep it as small as possible.

Word parsing. OK, we should accept no waste without trying to eliminate it. It seems what I meant was pretty obvious, but if it makes you feel better, no, we can't eliminate it all. But that doesn't mean I'll accept any of it that we can eliminate. I'm not sure what point you think you just made there.