The risk of income inequality

[Redfish]

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

what exactly do you mean when you say "corporate welfare" ?

See my response to the last time you asked a similar question.

Yes, you clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what those words mean, you just repeat them because some left wing blogger told you to.

 

[Andylusion]

The 'income inequality' thing reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a real problem, that we ought to be taking seriously, but it ends up co-opted for a largely unrelated political agenda. And the problem gets ignored in favor of debated the agenda.

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

I have no problem with income or wealth disparity resulting from voluntary free market exchange. But I think there's plenty of evidence that wealth and power are being consolidated through other means.

Such as....

 

[Brain357]

You talk like a poor person who feels like a victim. maybe you're not, I really don't care.

Tell me what you think "corporate welfare" is. Give me 5 examples.

We have obamacare because those on the left see it as a way for the govt to take control of 1/6 of our economy. No one in the USA was being denied healthcare before ACA, NO ONE. uninsured did not mean untreated.

So poor people talk about wanting smaller government?

1. Subsidies.
2. Bailouts
3. Tax advantages
4. Grants
5. Government contracts

I certainly think Walmart is a great example of corporate welfare. We all know how rich the Waltons are. And there are lots of execs at that company making tons of money. But some of their employees are on welfare? So the Waltons get rich while the government takes care of their employees. That's a great formula if you like big government.

Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers - Jun. 4, 2013

1. very few corporations get subsidies, do you know what a subsidy is?
2. bailouts are a form of welfare, democrats always favor bailouts. corporations should be allowed to fail, the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM
3. the tax code was written by congress, congress has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 75 years
4. Grants are given for a specific study, like the ones to the fools that claim that man is destroying the planet by driving SUVs. Again, dems vote for them.
5. govt contracts are not welfare, is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a destroyer or a tank? Is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a bridge?

last time I checked, no one was forced to work for walmart. Do you know that walmart gives shares of stock to employees and makes them owners of the company?

I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about balancing the budget and decreasing the size of government. How are we going to do that when corporations are paying so little that the employees have to collect welfare?

From the link:
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

 

[dblack]

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

I have no problem with income or wealth disparity resulting from voluntary free market exchange. But I think there's plenty of evidence that wealth and power are being consolidated through other means.

Such as....

Tax and regulatory policies that encourage debt and devalue currency.

 

[Brain357]

what exactly do you mean when you say "corporate welfare" ?

See my response to the last time you asked a similar question.

Yes, you clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what those words mean, you just repeat them because some left wing blogger told you to.

I had no idea Ron Paul was a liberal.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaOpMPudidE]Ron Paul- Welfare Helps The Wealthy #FLDebate - YouTube.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

See my response to the last time you asked a similar question.

Yes, you clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what those words mean, you just repeat them because some left wing blogger told you to.

I had no idea Ron Paul was a liberal.

Then you haven't been paying much attention. Ron Paul does a better job standing up for real liberal values than any Democrats.

 

[Andylusion]

The 'income inequality' thing reminds me of the global warming debate. There's a real problem, that we ought to be taking seriously, but it ends up co-opted for a largely unrelated political agenda. And the problem gets ignored in favor of debated the agenda.

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

Walmart does not collect welfare. They paid out $8 Billion in taxes.

Further, I would agree the rich are getting richer, because of leftist policies. Every time you regulate something, you benefit the rich. Every time you push government subsidies and grants, you benefit the rich.

Stop it. We don't support that. Why do you people on the left support it?

Mike Duke (CEO Walmart) made $20.7 Million. Divide $20.7 Million by 2.2 million employees. Can you do math? That's a whooping $9.40 per employee per year. That's 18¢ a week. That's $0.0045 an hour.... less than a penny per hour.

In other words, you can b!tch about how much the CEO makes, but the fact is, if you confiscated all the money the CEO makes, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than a penny per hour.

And worse, when you see those big numbers, $20.7 million dollars, that's not actually dollars. Most of that is stock options. Meaning there is no $20.7 Million to give out to the employees. Only $5.6M of that was actually cash.

So let's take the cash, and dole that out to employees. $5.6 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $2.54 per employee per year, which is 4.8¢ a week, which is less than one tenth of a penny, per hour.

Clue phone.... it's for you. The CEO pay doesn't mean they can afford to give employees a raise. Sorry.

 

[Brain357]

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

Walmart does not collect welfare. They paid out $8 Billion in taxes.

Further, I would agree the rich are getting richer, because of leftist policies. Every time you regulate something, you benefit the rich. Every time you push government subsidies and grants, you benefit the rich.

Stop it. We don't support that. Why do you people on the left support it?

Mike Duke (CEO Walmart) made $20.7 Million. Divide $20.7 Million by 2.2 million employees. Can you do math? That's a whooping $9.40 per employee per year. That's 18¢ a week. That's $0.0045 an hour.... less than a penny per hour.

In other words, you can b!tch about how much the CEO makes, but the fact is, if you confiscated all the money the CEO makes, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than a penny per hour.

And worse, when you see those big numbers, $20.7 million dollars, that's not actually dollars. Most of that is stock options. Meaning there is no $20.7 Million to give out to the employees. Only $5.6M of that was actually cash.

So let's take the cash, and dole that out to employees. $5.6 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $2.54 per employee per year, which is 4.8¢ a week, which is less than one tenth of a penny, per hour.

Clue phone.... it's for you. The CEO pay doesn't mean they can afford to give employees a raise. Sorry.

Total executive compensation was about $62 million last year and I'm sure there's plenty of other people making lots of money. And that doesn't even include what the Waltons are making. Based on where they sit in the richest people I'd say a lot.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are paying so little that employees have to collect welfare?

 

[percysunshine]

The big myth about income inequality that just won't die - The Week

Modern life is fraught with very expensive risks lurking around every corner. A sudden illness or accident could render you disabled and unable to work. A recession or economic restructuring could render you unemployed and render the skills you've spent your life learning useless. Reaching old age with inadequate savings could mean living your golden years in poverty.

Many societies have created robust social insurance systems to protect their populations from these kinds of risks. The U.S. has done so as well, but to a much lesser extent. Because social insurance in the U.S. is so inadequate, it is incumbent upon people to self-insure against these risks. That means they need to have enough wealth to draw upon as a cushion if they end up facing hard times. But here's where the social contract fails: When the bottom half of the country owns basically none of the country's wealth, they can't self-insure themselves against these risks. Instead, they must lead a relatively perilous life in which one misstep or mistake could wreck them and their families.

Leftist rag-tag propaganda.

There will always be income inequality. The proposal of the left is to have a select group of politicians with massive obese high incomes combined with a serf population of wretched poor. The alternative is an income inequality where there are people who populate the entire spectrum of low/lower middle/middle/upper middle/upper ranges of income. The model of the left is one of control and unfairness. The alternative model is not perfect, but is fairer to the community as a whole and allows income mobility.

Leftist control freaks will never acknowledge this fact.

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

Walmart does not collect welfare. They paid out $8 Billion in taxes.

Further, I would agree the rich are getting richer, because of leftist policies. Every time you regulate something, you benefit the rich. Every time you push government subsidies and grants, you benefit the rich.

Stop it. We don't support that. Why do you people on the left support it?

Mike Duke (CEO Walmart) made $20.7 Million. Divide $20.7 Million by 2.2 million employees. Can you do math? That's a whooping $9.40 per employee per year. That's 18¢ a week. That's $0.0045 an hour.... less than a penny per hour.

In other words, you can b!tch about how much the CEO makes, but the fact is, if you confiscated all the money the CEO makes, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than a penny per hour.

And worse, when you see those big numbers, $20.7 million dollars, that's not actually dollars. Most of that is stock options. Meaning there is no $20.7 Million to give out to the employees. Only $5.6M of that was actually cash.

So let's take the cash, and dole that out to employees. $5.6 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $2.54 per employee per year, which is 4.8¢ a week, which is less than one tenth of a penny, per hour.

Clue phone.... it's for you. The CEO pay doesn't mean they can afford to give employees a raise. Sorry.

Total executive compensation was about $62 million last year and I'm sure there's plenty of other people making lots of money. And that doesn't even include what the Waltons are making. Based on where they sit in the richest people I'd say a lot.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are paying so little that employees have to collect welfare?

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

 

[Andylusion]

So poor people talk about wanting smaller government?

1. Subsidies.
2. Bailouts
3. Tax advantages
4. Grants
5. Government contracts

I certainly think Walmart is a great example of corporate welfare. We all know how rich the Waltons are. And there are lots of execs at that company making tons of money. But some of their employees are on welfare? So the Waltons get rich while the government takes care of their employees. That's a great formula if you like big government.

Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers - Jun. 4, 2013

1. very few corporations get subsidies, do you know what a subsidy is?
2. bailouts are a form of welfare, democrats always favor bailouts. corporations should be allowed to fail, the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM
3. the tax code was written by congress, congress has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 75 years
4. Grants are given for a specific study, like the ones to the fools that claim that man is destroying the planet by driving SUVs. Again, dems vote for them.
5. govt contracts are not welfare, is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a destroyer or a tank? Is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a bridge?

last time I checked, no one was forced to work for walmart. Do you know that walmart gives shares of stock to employees and makes them owners of the company?

I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about balancing the budget and decreasing the size of government. How are we going to do that when corporations are paying so little that the employees have to collect welfare?

From the link:
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

They don't. The reason people are collecting welfare, is because we have made it easy to collect welfare.

I made $12K in 2012. I survived and collected zero welfare.

The fact that people are working for walmart and collecting welfare, doesn't mean it's walmarts fault. It means it's too easy to get welfare.

The way to shrink the size and scope of government is to simply flat out, cut the size and scope of government.

When welfare reform hit in the 1990s, wages didn't go up.... they simply cut welfare. People started to work more. It's that easy.

If you think that somehow you are going to push companies to pay enough that people don't take welfare anymore, you are crazy. As long as people are able to take welfare, they are going to take it, no matter how much they have or make.

Class welfare: Unemployed millionaires on the public dole | New York Post
Millionaires collecting government money. Why not? It's there, and they have a legal right to it..... right?

Lottery millionaire charged with welfare fraud | The Columbus Dispatch

Millionaire lottery winner, collecting welfare. Why not? It's there, and I have a legal right to it..... right?

And the truth is, if you offer to pay me money right now, I'll take your cash. Does that mean I need it? Not really, but I'll sure take it, if you change the guild lines so that I qualify.

You want to cut government assistance? Cut government assistants. That's how you do that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Having a strong middle class is all about having the right balance between the supply and demand sectors.

Something is seriously wrong with how we're doing things.

 

[Brain357]

Walmart does not collect welfare. They paid out $8 Billion in taxes.

Further, I would agree the rich are getting richer, because of leftist policies. Every time you regulate something, you benefit the rich. Every time you push government subsidies and grants, you benefit the rich.

Stop it. We don't support that. Why do you people on the left support it?

Mike Duke (CEO Walmart) made $20.7 Million. Divide $20.7 Million by 2.2 million employees. Can you do math? That's a whooping $9.40 per employee per year. That's 18¢ a week. That's $0.0045 an hour.... less than a penny per hour.

In other words, you can b!tch about how much the CEO makes, but the fact is, if you confiscated all the money the CEO makes, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than a penny per hour.

And worse, when you see those big numbers, $20.7 million dollars, that's not actually dollars. Most of that is stock options. Meaning there is no $20.7 Million to give out to the employees. Only $5.6M of that was actually cash.

So let's take the cash, and dole that out to employees. $5.6 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $2.54 per employee per year, which is 4.8¢ a week, which is less than one tenth of a penny, per hour.

Clue phone.... it's for you. The CEO pay doesn't mean they can afford to give employees a raise. Sorry.

Total executive compensation was about $62 million last year and I'm sure there's plenty of other people making lots of money. And that doesn't even include what the Waltons are making. Based on where they sit in the richest people I'd say a lot.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are paying so little that employees have to collect welfare?

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Total executive compensation was about $62 million last year and I'm sure there's plenty of other people making lots of money. And that doesn't even include what the Waltons are making. Based on where they sit in the richest people I'd say a lot.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are paying so little that employees have to collect welfare?

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

real conservatives don't support welfare in general....only for those in dire need...

Washington is corrupted on both sides of the aisle...

 

[Andylusion]

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

Walmart does not collect welfare. They paid out $8 Billion in taxes.

Further, I would agree the rich are getting richer, because of leftist policies. Every time you regulate something, you benefit the rich. Every time you push government subsidies and grants, you benefit the rich.

Stop it. We don't support that. Why do you people on the left support it?

Mike Duke (CEO Walmart) made $20.7 Million. Divide $20.7 Million by 2.2 million employees. Can you do math? That's a whooping $9.40 per employee per year. That's 18¢ a week. That's $0.0045 an hour.... less than a penny per hour.

In other words, you can b!tch about how much the CEO makes, but the fact is, if you confiscated all the money the CEO makes, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than a penny per hour.

And worse, when you see those big numbers, $20.7 million dollars, that's not actually dollars. Most of that is stock options. Meaning there is no $20.7 Million to give out to the employees. Only $5.6M of that was actually cash.

So let's take the cash, and dole that out to employees. $5.6 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $2.54 per employee per year, which is 4.8¢ a week, which is less than one tenth of a penny, per hour.

Clue phone.... it's for you. The CEO pay doesn't mean they can afford to give employees a raise. Sorry.

Total executive compensation was about $62 million last year and I'm sure there's plenty of other people making lots of money. And that doesn't even include what the Waltons are making. Based on where they sit in the richest people I'd say a lot.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are paying so little that employees have to collect welfare?

Let's even take your numbers. Ok, $62 Million, divided by 2.2 million employees, is $28.18. That's per employee per year. That's 54¢ a week. That's 1¢ an hour.

How many are not off welfare because of that penny an hour you gave them?

More importantly, now that the executives are not being paid properly, they leave, the company crashes, and now those people are unemployed earning ZERO.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are gone so that employees have to collect welfare because they are earning nothing? And now, the government doesn't have $8 Billion in tax revenue from Walmart too?

 

[Andylusion]

Total executive compensation was about $62 million last year and I'm sure there's plenty of other people making lots of money. And that doesn't even include what the Waltons are making. Based on where they sit in the richest people I'd say a lot.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are paying so little that employees have to collect welfare?

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

But you are not in support of smaller government. If you force up wages, companies will close, and people will lose their jobs. Greece is a perfect example of this.

Now all those people are 100% on welfare, because there are no jobs.

 

[Andylusion]

Having a strong middle class is all about having the right balance between the supply and demand sectors.

Something is seriously wrong with how we're doing things.

In a free-market, those elements will balance out on their own. Only in a highly regulated system, is that a problem.... like Health Care and Banking.

 

[Brain357]

1. very few corporations get subsidies, do you know what a subsidy is?
2. bailouts are a form of welfare, democrats always favor bailouts. corporations should be allowed to fail, the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM
3. the tax code was written by congress, congress has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 75 years
4. Grants are given for a specific study, like the ones to the fools that claim that man is destroying the planet by driving SUVs. Again, dems vote for them.
5. govt contracts are not welfare, is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a destroyer or a tank? Is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a bridge?

last time I checked, no one was forced to work for walmart. Do you know that walmart gives shares of stock to employees and makes them owners of the company?

I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about balancing the budget and decreasing the size of government. How are we going to do that when corporations are paying so little that the employees have to collect welfare?

From the link:
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

They don't. The reason people are collecting welfare, is because we have made it easy to collect welfare.

I made $12K in 2012. I survived and collected zero welfare.

The fact that people are working for walmart and collecting welfare, doesn't mean it's walmarts fault. It means it's too easy to get welfare.

The way to shrink the size and scope of government is to simply flat out, cut the size and scope of government.

When welfare reform hit in the 1990s, wages didn't go up.... they simply cut welfare. People started to work more. It's that easy.

If you think that somehow you are going to push companies to pay enough that people don't take welfare anymore, you are crazy. As long as people are able to take welfare, they are going to take it, no matter how much they have or make.

Class welfare: Unemployed millionaires on the public dole | New York Post
Millionaires collecting government money. Why not? It's there, and they have a legal right to it..... right?

Lottery millionaire charged with welfare fraud | The Columbus Dispatch

Millionaire lottery winner, collecting welfare. Why not? It's there, and I have a legal right to it..... right?

And the truth is, if you offer to pay me money right now, I'll take your cash. Does that mean I need it? Not really, but I'll sure take it, if you change the guild lines so that I qualify.

You want to cut government assistance? Cut government assistants. That's how you do that.

Did you pay taxes in 2012? You must live with your parents?

Last I checked you have to be pretty poor to collect food stamps.

So you cut back on welfare, what do you think happens next election? That might have worked when we had 5% unemployment, but that's not the case now.

 

[Brain357]

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

But you are not in support of smaller government. If you force up wages, companies will close, and people will lose their jobs. Greece is a perfect example of this.

Now all those people are 100% on welfare, because there are no jobs.

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

 

[Andylusion]

I have no problem with income or wealth disparity resulting from voluntary free market exchange. But I think there's plenty of evidence that wealth and power are being consolidated through other means.

Such as....

Tax and regulatory policies that encourage debt and devalue currency.

Well that I would agree with. Devaluing the currency, actually doesn't benefit anyone. No one benefits from that, except perhaps politicians who avoid directly cutting benefits, causing themselves to be voted out of office.

But tax policies that encourage debt, yes absolutely. You are completely right about that. I can't believe how ridiculous our pro-debt policies are.