End corporate welfare!

[Big Fitz]

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.

.

the first line is the only thing I've seen you say I agree with. The second smacks of black helicopter nonsense.

 

[Big Fitz]

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".

Your Avatar line is missing an adjective at the beginning.

"Bad".

Edmund: "I'm sorry Baldrick, are you still here?"
Baldrick: "I've no place to go, my lord!"
Edmund: "I'm sure you will be allowed to starve to death in one of the public parks."
Baldrick: "Couldn't I stay here and work for you for no wages?"
Edmund: "Well, you know where you'd have to stay."
Baldrick: "In the gutter."
Edmund: "That's right! And you'll have to work much harder too. Now go get Bob's things and chuck your filthy muck out into the street."
Baldrick: "God bless you, sweet master!"

 

[Contumacious]

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 **** that means!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

No the link didn't piss me off, because I didn't bother to open it. I asked YOU the question, not 'what's her nuts'. If I talk to her someday I'll be sure to ask her about it if I ever fail my save against 'giving a ****'.

But the fact you continue to dodge the question at hand (either being capable of original thought, OR if you're an anti-semite) is still on the table staring you in the face like a plate of gefilte fish you don't want to eat.

I see, so you are a zionist who can not believe that a high US government official has publicly exposed the Israeli Lobby. Life is a ***** then you die.

.

 

[Steelplate]

No, it's the one "solution" that would make the problem even worse.

Just imagine all the crooks we have right now, making up the laws as to which candidates would be deemed "viable" enough to campaign receive funds from......THEM.

Could you please at least try to have an original thought, that's not rooted in empty platitudes?

Well geez...If our taxpayer dollars were funding the elections, we would be the limiters, wouldn't we? Furthermore... it would give lesser parties an equal stake in the game. Want to get rid of the corrupt two party system? Give the Libertarians and the Green Party the same access to funding as the Dems and GOP.

I think it's a good idea. Put the power back into the people's hands, rather than the top 1%.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Can you prove me wrong in my assessment?

Using your own words would be a pleasant change. I'm not going to bother debating someone else's articles.

 

[Big Fitz]

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 **** that means!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

No the link didn't piss me off, because I didn't bother to open it. I asked YOU the question, not 'what's her nuts'. If I talk to her someday I'll be sure to ask her about it if I ever fail my save against 'giving a ****'.

But the fact you continue to dodge the question at hand (either being capable of original thought, OR if you're an anti-semite) is still on the table staring you in the face like a plate of gefilte fish you don't want to eat.

I see, so you are a zionist who can not believe that a high US government official has publicly exposed the Israeli Lobby. Life is a ***** then you die.

.

So tell me, what does the number 88 mean to you, simpleton?

 

[Big Fitz]

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

And I have said Awesome! Go do! End ALL welfare. I then challenged you to support such an effort and got crickets. It still stands there, untouched by you.

Now, you gonna confront the issue that all welfare is bad, or like Sir Robin and his minstrels... bravely run away?

 

[Big Fitz]

Wait a minute...

Isn't this the same Dianne Frankenstein who was booted off the Senate Armed Services Commission, because she had been illegally funneling defense contracts to her husband's company?

Is the concept of shame completely foreign to the American left?

Shame...? When you have no ethics shame magically disappears it seems.

 

[Contumacious]

No the link didn't piss me off, because I didn't bother to open it. I asked YOU the question, not 'what's her nuts'. If I talk to her someday I'll be sure to ask her about it if I ever fail my save against 'giving a ****'.

But the fact you continue to dodge the question at hand (either being capable of original thought, OR if you're an anti-semite) is still on the table staring you in the face like a plate of gefilte fish you don't want to eat.

I see, so you are a zionist who can not believe that a high US government official has publicly exposed the Israeli Lobby. Life is a ***** then you die.

.

So tell me, what does the number 88 mean to you, simpleton?

Oh that's easy. Your IQ.

.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

You'll have to ask the libtards. They are the ones who coined the phrase, and they invoke it at every opportunity.

Ruth DeWitt-Bukater: "Tell me Mr. Ismay, have you heard about Dr. Freud's thoughts on the male preoccupation with size?"

Bruce Ismay: (after her departure) "Who is this Dr. Freud? Is he a passenger?"

 

[Big Fitz]

I see, so you are a zionist who can not believe that a high US government official has publicly exposed the Israeli Lobby. Life is a ***** then you die.

.

So tell me, what does the number 88 mean to you, simpleton?

Oh that's easy. Your IQ.

.

Okay, thanks for clarifying you're a STUPID neo-nazi then. Redundant I know.

Seig heil and don't forget your armband is reversible.

 

[The Rabbi]

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 **** that means!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

No the link didn't piss me off, because I didn't bother to open it. I asked YOU the question, not 'what's her nuts'. If I talk to her someday I'll be sure to ask her about it if I ever fail my save against 'giving a ****'.

But the fact you continue to dodge the question at hand (either being capable of original thought, OR if you're an anti-semite) is still on the table staring you in the face like a plate of gefilte fish you don't want to eat.

I see, so you are a zionist who can not believe that a high US government official has publicly exposed the Israeli Lobby. Life is a ***** then you die.

.

High overnment official? High like high on drugs, you mean. Anyone who believes that shit must be high. Or stupid.

 

[Big Fitz]

No, it's the one "solution" that would make the problem even worse.

Just imagine all the crooks we have right now, making up the laws as to which candidates would be deemed "viable" enough to campaign receive funds from......THEM.

Could you please at least try to have an original thought, that's not rooted in empty platitudes?

Can't... the steel plate in his forehead is getting signals from a Tijuana radio station.

 

[Contumacious]

No the link didn't piss me off, because I didn't bother to open it. I asked YOU the question, not 'what's her nuts'. If I talk to her someday I'll be sure to ask her about it if I ever fail my save against 'giving a ****'.

But the fact you continue to dodge the question at hand (either being capable of original thought, OR if you're an anti-semite) is still on the table staring you in the face like a plate of gefilte fish you don't want to eat.

I see, so you are a zionist who can not believe that a high US government official has publicly exposed the Israeli Lobby. Life is a ***** then you die.

.

High overnment official? High like high on drugs, you mean. Anyone who believes that shit must be high. Or stupid.

Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born September 24, 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.

.

 

[Oddball]

No, it's the one "solution" that would make the problem even worse.

Just imagine all the crooks we have right now, making up the laws as to which candidates would be deemed "viable" enough to campaign receive funds from......THEM.

Could you please at least try to have an original thought, that's not rooted in empty platitudes?

Well geez...If our taxpayer dollars were funding the elections, we would be the limiters, wouldn't we? Furthermore... it would give lesser parties an equal stake in the game. Want to get rid of the corrupt two party system? Give the Libertarians and the Green Party the same access to funding as the Dems and GOP.

I think it's a good idea. Put the power back into the people's hands, rather than the top 1%.

Right...Like the taxpayers have been the "limiters" on any of the other litany of taxes, regulations, fees, fines, bureaucracies and other encroachments upon out liberties, foisted upon us by the ruling class.

Dude, put down the bong.

 

[Big Fitz]

I see, so you are a zionist who can not believe that a high US government official has publicly exposed the Israeli Lobby. Life is a ***** then you die.

.

High overnment official? High like high on drugs, you mean. Anyone who believes that shit must be high. Or stupid.

Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born September 24, 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.

.

And? Appeal to authority fail.

 

[Contumacious]

High overnment official? High like high on drugs, you mean. Anyone who believes that shit must be high. Or stupid.

Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born September 24, 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.

.

And? Appeal to authority fail.

You and your ilk do not view her as an authority figure. The only individual you respect is your prophet Meir Kahane .

.

 

[Steelplate]

Right...Like the taxpayers have been the "limiters" on any of the other litany of taxes, regulations, fees, fines, bureaucracies and other encroachments upon out liberties, foisted upon us by the ruling class.

Dude, put down the bong.

Kind of tough when you're competing with billionaires, Corporations and the Banking Community, isn't it?

Bong? I haven't smoked dope in 20 years, nice try though.

 

[Big Fitz]

Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born September 24, 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.

.

And? Appeal to authority fail.

You and your ilk do not view her as an authority figure. The only individual you respect is your prophet Meir Kahane .

.

ooOOOooooo! I'm an "Ilk" now! my my my... such a damning statement!

 

[Big Fitz]

Right...Like the taxpayers have been the "limiters" on any of the other litany of taxes, regulations, fees, fines, bureaucracies and other encroachments upon out liberties, foisted upon us by the ruling class.

Dude, put down the bong.

Kind of tough when you're competing with billionaires, Corporations and the Banking Community, isn't it?

Bong? I haven't smoked dope in 20 years, nice try though.

apparently the damage was done.