Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the times when excessive wealth was taxed at 90%. It can happen,

liberal and stupid of course!! Why would you want to tax success from the likes of Jobs Gates Brin Musk Bezos etc to pay for even more crippling welfare? Rather than steal from the successful at liberal gun point better to teach the poor to get ahead without theft. Do you understand?

 

[Supposn]

... What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's, [i.e. sander's] policy platform, and why.

Phoenyx ... I do not suppose you can negotiate anyone to act contrary to what they believe to be in their best interests. I'm among those that contending USA should generally refrain from entering international trade agreements with economic purposes. We are proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. It’s a UNILATERAL, (i.e. not negotiated internationally), substantially market driven policy for conducting its nation’s international trade.

ALL of USA’s trade agreements have provisions for modifications and for participants (upon giving proper notice of their intentions), terminating their participation within the agreement. USA has no trade treaties. The qualifications of treaties are mentioned within USA’s Constitution and have particularly high legal status within federal law.

Respectfully, Supposn

Are you saying you like what Trump and Sanders are trying to do? I can't say I like what Trump is trying to do, but I certainly liked what Sanders was trying to do.[/QUOTE]

No, that's not what I wrote and you quoted.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Windship]

I'm advocating that those doing the work own the businesses. If they weren't qualified for the work, the companies would tank whether or not they were employee owned.

You're advocating taking ownership away from the people who created the business to start with, and giving ownership to unqualified people. That's an inherently stupid concept, and would result in an inefficiently run business, creating fewer jobs, and less profit.[/QUOTE]

Your forgetting about the workers. The ones that do the work. The owners get the capital and the workers make the company. The owner doesnt make the company. The owner makes a lot of decisions that focus only on short term profit ignoring the environment and the people that really made the company. And if you knew ANYTHING about unions, its that top quality goods come from union shops partially because unions DONT put unqualified persons where they should not be. Thats why you might see 1 guy workin and 2 guys watching. One is the machine operator ones a laborer and the other is a welder. They dont trade trades. The only inherently stupid concept is an oligarchic inverted totalitarian government. Thats what unfettered capitalism does.

 

[Windship]

"The Rich" keeping the money they earn isn't a problem, nobody should care how much money someone has. Every level of business is hiring and expanding, and as long as they do that, how much money they have isn't a problem. They ARE hiring, it's just that regressive policies are preventing them from hiring as much.[/QUOTE]

Pumpkin?...What builds a strong economy? Ill bet you a billion million, million dollars that you dont have a clue?

 

[Windship]

....a billion ZILLION dollars...

 

[Windship]

I hate to tell ya this pumpkin but a smaller government is EASIER to bribe, kick back and pay off. You couldnt realize that...

 

[Windship]

so pumpkin bumpkin...you dont think wealth distribution matters? You dont understand it then.

 

[Windship]

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.[/QUOTE]
If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.[/QUOTE]

Oh my god. How sad. I would just love to explain it to you but the remarkably, astounding ignorance you display gives me pause....your gone...whats the point.

 

[Windship]

Lad, do some reading, we'll discuss later.

Child labor in Factories During the Industrial Revolution

Children don't currently work, how is this relevant? Children also likely didn't negotiate, businesses knew they wouldn't, and they weren't considered consumers.

You failed to address my other point, which still stands, especially since child labor has been banned for many years. You clearly don't know how the economy works.

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

I think Pumpkin's veering away from supporting child labour too much, but it's a fact of life for a lot of the Capitalist third world countries, and it's something that could return to industralized nations if we're not careful. Here's a song that I think exemplifies the problem, and even references the banks and the monetary system, which I think is at the root of the problem...

The tpp, tpip, ttip and tisa will cure all of those pesky little problems.

 

[Windship]

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

Again , where ? South Africa, China, Mexico ? The entry level in these countries is probably $4 per day.
So now you see why migration is becoming a big issue in this century?

I was already aware it was a "Big issue", that doesn't make border hopping okay.

I was referring to here specifically. Other countries have even worse economies, due to Liberal ignorance.

Oh yeah? What countries?

 

[Windship]

Creating a sound, healthy economy, like we had from 1935-1970 is only obtainable in one way and one way only. It isnt achieved by fat cat ceo bonus' or wall street. All those ppl do is take. The stock market builds no goods. Nothing. First to get us out of the hole you have to tax the shit out of the rich. Any thing over 250kusd is taxed 94 fucking percent. Tuff shit. Wanna trade places? Regulate wall street and put in place consumer protections. Cause you pricks will screw anyone for as much as you can get. You all have to be watched...just like fucking babies. Then increase public programs and create government no profit UNION jobs that pay enough so the families can spend and acquire credit. Thats correct. No profit. That must just kill you....fkn....good! Then increase unemployment and other programs. Awww give the people that you just fired to move to china some money...eat me and all of them too. Boom! A healthy economy for everyone. If you laugh at this?...Its what FDR did and look what fucking happened. Fuck your unfettered capitalism and the oligarchy it has created. Fuck wall street and fuck the 62 ruling elite families. OCCUPY.

 

[Windship]

the times when excessive wealth was taxed at 90%. It can happen,

liberal and stupid of course!! Why would you want to tax success from the likes of Jobs Gates Brin Musk Bezos etc to pay for even more crippling welfare? Rather than steal from the successful at liberal gun point better to teach the poor to get ahead without theft. Do you understand?

Why?! Lol, thats simple. Because gates and all of the elite created it. Have you seen the latest wealth distribution numbers?? Do you even understand why that matters?

 

[Windship]

Phienix...you explain to me how welfare, not even 1% of fed budget, is crippling. Id really like to hear it.

 

[Windship]

hey phoenix. What do you think of 1.7 trillion usd not accounted for? The unaccounted for military dollars?? Why arent you screaming about that? Huh? How bout the billions of usd for corporate welfare which is way, way more? You will let the billionaires fuck over the poor as they get rich off of them. Thats the only way the rich get rich is by fucking over the poor.

 

[Windship]

CLASS WAR
10 Taxpayer Handouts to the Super Rich That Will Make Your Blood Boil
Tom Cahill | October 28, 2015
The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

FacebookTwitter


The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

A small number of incredibly wealthy Americans are ridiculing Bernie Sanders’ base for wanting “free stuff” when the costliest programs are, by far, corporate welfare and entitlements for the top 1 percent. Fox News has been working hard to tear down Sanders’ proposals to provide Medicare for all, institute tuition-free public college, boost infrastructure spending, and expand Social Security.

“That’s not fiscally possible unless the federal government starts seizing private assets,” said Bill O’Reilly.

But O’Reilly is wrong. The money for Sanders’ platform can easily come from eliminating the costliest entitlement programs for the top 1 percent and multinational corporations. Here’s a breakdown of the most superfluous giveaways to the rich and how much they cost the rest of us:

1. TAX BREAKS FOR OBSCENE CEO BONUSES ($7 BILLION/YEAR)
Currently, the biggest corporations are exploiting a 20-year-old loophole that allows them to write off inflated compensation packages for CEOs, billing stock options, and performance-based bonuses to taxpayers. In 2010, the Economic Policy Institute found out that the biggest corporations cost Americans $7 billion by writing off inflated executive pay. Between 2007 and 2010, this loophole accounted for more than $30 billion in corporate welfare. According to The Guardian, fast food industry CEOs cost taxpayers $64 million through this loophole.

That $7 billion could singlehandedly fund the annual budget for the National Science Foundation — which, as I recently reported for US Uncut, funds 11,000 scientific research projects each year and has funded 26 Nobel laureates in the last 5 years.

2. TAX CUTS FOR LUXURY CORPORATE JETS ($300 MILLION/YEAR)
Currently, corporations can claim a huge tax deduction every year by writing off purchases of corporate jets, lavish cars, and chauffeurs as “security” for their top executives. A Bloomberg analysis from 2011 showed that these tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans cost the rest of us $300 million each year. While that may not sound like much, that’s approximately 50 percent of the annual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren that protects Americans from the financial sector’s most predatory schemes.

3. BIG OIL SUBSIDIES ($37.5 BILLION/YEAR)
According to Oil Change International (OCI), the U.S. government spends anywhere between $10 billion and $52 billion per year on corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry — one of the wealthiest industries in the world. OCI estimated that total combined subsidies to big oil approached $37.5 billion in 2014, which includes $21 billion on production and exploration subsidies.

These subsidies alone cost more than what we currently spend on providing rental assistance for low-income families. In 2013, the department of Housing and Urban Development allocated a total of $34.3 billion toward tenant-based rental assistance ($19 billion), project-based rental assistance ($8.7 billion), and general public housing programs ($6.6 billion). These programs helped 4.5 million families — half of whom are elderly — keep a roof over their head.

4. PHARMACEUTICAL SUBSIDIES ($270 BILLION/YEAR)
As US Uncut has previously reported, the pharmaceutical industry costs taxpayers roughly $270 billion a year when accounting for the cost we pay for life-saving drugs whose patents have been bought up by Big Pharma. This is over $1,914 per household in corporate welfare. This is partly due to the Medicare Part D bill that George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. But the biggest drug companies also make a pretty penny (a combined $711 billion in profits between 2003 and 2012) by buying patents for drugs that were largely developed with taxpayer-funded research, then jacking up the price by absurd amounts after cornering the market.


Combined profits of top pharma companies. Data courtesy of healthcareforamericanow.org.

This $270 billion annual subsidy could be virtually eliminated by passing Bernie Sanders’ bill to establish a government fund that buys up drug patents as soon as they become available for purchase. Then, the government would sell drugs at-cost to save money for those who need them. The money saved could pay for the annual $270 billion in insurance costs from Obamacare that would help more Americans get access to healthcare.

5. CAPITAL GAINS TAX BREAKS ($51 BILLION/YEAR)
When anyone makes money from selling off investments, the IRS classifies that as capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate (20 percent as of 2012) than real, actual work (35 percent). Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don’t affect the incomes of most retirees. The Century Foundation found that the total amount of lost revenue by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages cost $256 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, or $51 billion a year over the last 5 years. According to the Tax Policy Center, if investment income was taxed at the same rate as wages, 75 percent of that new revenue would come from the richest 0.3 percent of Americans; 92 percent of that revenue would come from those making $200,000 or more per year. The chart below shows what percentage of income each tax bracket makes from capital gains — not surprisingly, the wealthiest Americans get most of the benefit from capital gains.


Chart courtesy of The Century Foundation.

If we taxed wealth like work, the extra $51 billion per year in savings could fund two-thirds of the annual budget for food stamps.

6. CORPORATE TAX SUBSIDIES FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ($80.4 BILLION/YEAR)
In 2012, the New York Times did an analysis of every existing tax break in each of the 50 states and learned that 1,874 programs cost taxpayers $80.4 billion every year for corporate welfare in their state. Compare that cost with the cost of providing tuition-free public college to every student, which The Atlantic estimated would be a mere $62.6 billion. As the chart below shows, this is actually way cheaper than what we currently spend on federal student aid.


Current cost of existing federal college aid. (courtesy of The Atlantic)

7. HANDOUTS TO BIG AG ($18 BILLION/YEAR)
Crop insurance — a program originally intended to help farmers recover from the dust bowls of the 1930s — has become a slush fund for wealthy corporate farmers who have become experts at manipulating the system for their own means. As Bloomberg reported, the median income of commercial farm households (in which farming makes up more than 50 percent of a household’s income) was $84,649 in 2011 — 70 percent more than the average American household. Farmers have learned to exploit the program by growing crops on land they know will be unproductive, then making money from insurance claims rather than crops. In 2011, 26 farmers each got an annual subsidy of $1 million, including one tomato farmer in Florida who got a $1.9 million subsidy.

This $18 billion in corporate welfare is more than NASA’s annual budget, which has hovered around the $17 billion mark since 2009.

8. WELFARE FOR WALL STREET ($83 BILLION/YEAR)
The biggest banks have grown even bigger than they were just before the 2008 financial meltdown. And due to their size, these banks are perceived as “too big to fail,” as their demise would spell doom for the US financial sector as a whole. So as these big banks grow bigger, the Federal Reserve allows them to borrow at lower interest rates than other big banks — essentially subsidizing the continued growth of the big banks. In 2013, Bloomberg estimated the ten biggest TBTF banks suck up $83 billion per year in corporate welfare.

If we were to force the big banks to borrow at the same interest rates as every other bank at a rate of $83 billion per year, that would be enough to double the current federal budgets for highway spending ($48.6 billion), Head Start ($10.1 billion), the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.89 billion), nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children ($6.2 billion), the National Parks Service ($3 billion), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ($2.39 billion), with $5 billion left over.

9. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK SUBSIDIES ($112 BILLION)
This week, the House of Representatives voted to revive the Export-Import (Ex-Im) bank, which has been maligned as a slush fund for large, multinational corporations. In its most recent year, the Ex-Im bank had a $112 billion portfolio, of which $90 billion went to multinationals. If that wasn’t bad enough, a huge portion of that money went to just 10 wealthy corporations.



According to the New York Times, the federal government spends roughly $105 billion on public K-12 schools. If we allow the Ex-Im bank to fade away, the money formerly set aside for corporate subsidies could instead double that investment in public education.

10. FEDERAL CONTRACTS FOR THE TOP 200 BIGGEST COMPANIES ($880 BILLION/YEAR)
The biggest 200 corporations have an excessively unfair advantage over their competitors due to their influence in Washington. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the top 200 companies spent a combined $5.8 billion on lobbying Congress between 2007 and 2012. And in those same years, those companies received $4.4 trillion in federal contracts. That $4.4 trillion is $100 billion more than what the U.S. government spent on providing a basic income to the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients. This chart shows how much the top ten corporations spent on lobbying and how much they got in return:



The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.








Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact Tom via email at [email protected].

 

[Windship]

President Barack Obama wants to drop corporation tax rates from 35 percent to 14 percent, in an effort to claw back some of the money being ‘sheltered’ overseas.

Obama's predecessor George W Bush tried that with the American Jobs Creation Act in 2004 and companies did bring back billions into the US, but the vast majority of it went straight back to shareholders.

The New York Times reports many of the largest multinationals proceeded to close US operations and move more profits offshore to cash in the next time a repatriation deal was offered.

View image on Twitter

Follow


#Obama’s budget seeks more tax on corporationshttp://on.rt.com/ifd1su

Shares of the 27 companies are down 11 percent on average, which is more than twice the average 4.8 percent drop by the S&P 500 during the period in question.

When company profits are examined through the lens of corporate welfare, it becomes apparent that many multinationals and banks would not be so profitable were it not for the handouts they receive from the government, and indirectly from the taxpayer.

Follow


.@BernieSanders has this right: It’s time to put an end to corporate welfare. http://bit.ly/1nwyY2O

8:39 AM - 9 Mar 2016

• 
  
• 
  

The big banks have grown since they were bailed out for being “too big to fail” and they continue to enjoy reduced interest rates, giving them an unfair, and arguably, undeserved advantage. Bloomberg estimated the banks got $83 billion in corporate welfare in 2013.

The biggest corporations receive even further advantages due to their influence over Washington, as evidenced by the Clintons’ controversial speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

View image on Twitter

Follow
Christine Maguire @_ChrisMaguire
US Companies, Offshore Profits, and Ireland...http://bizplus.ie/us-companies-book-huge-profits-offshore/ …#news #business #offshore

7:48 AM - 7 Oct 2015

• 
  
• 
  

The top 200 most politically-influential companies received $4.4 trillion in federal contracts between 2007-2012, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

For example, News Corp, the parent company of the Fox News Channel and several other media brands, paid $3.9 million in contributions and $32.2 million on lobbying in return for $68 million worth of federal business.

General Motors spent $1.9 million on contributions, $63.5 million on lobbying and made $2.6 billion in federal business and $67.4 billion in federal support.

View image on Twitter

✔@RT_America
BREAKING: Bernie Sanders wins Michigan http://on.rt.com/76fv

8:35 PM - 8 Mar 2016

• 
  

After a surprise win for Bernie Sanders in Michigan Tuesday night, his promise to reform the tax system might one day see companies keeping hold of their lobbying funds to pay their taxes.

A report by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy found 39 percent of 288 profit-making companies in the Fortune 500 paid zero or less in income taxes for at least one year between 2008 and 2012.

 

[Windship]

Bill QuigleyLaw Professor, Loyola University New Orleans



Here are the top 10 examples of corporate welfare and welfare for the rich. There are actually thousands of tax breaks and subsidies for the rich and corporations provided by federal, state and local governments, but these 10 will give a taste.

1. State and local subsidies to corporations: An excellent New York Times study by Louise Story calculated that state and local government provide at least $80 billion in subsidies to corporations. Over 48 big corporations received over $100 million each. GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and casino companies in Colorado and New Jersey received well over $200 million each.

2. Direct federal subsidies to corporations: The Cato Institute estimates that federal subsidies to corporations cost taxpayers almost $100 billion every year.

3. Federal tax breaks for corporations: The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually,according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

4. Federal tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund managers: Special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate. This is the break where the multimillionaire manager pays less of a percentage in taxes than her secretary. The National Priorities Project estimates this costs taxpayers $83 billion annually, and 68 percent of those who receive this special tax break earn more than $462,500 per year (the top 1 percent of earners).

5. Subsidies to the fast food industry: Research by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley documents that taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers.

6. Mortgage deduction: The home mortgage deduction, which costs taxpayers $70 billion per year, is a huge subsidy to the real estate, banking and construction industries. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 77 percent of the benefit goes to homeowners with incomes over $100,000 per year.

7. The billions above do not even count the government bailout of Wall Street, while all parties have done their utmost to tell the public that they did not need it, that they paid it back, or that it was a great investment. The Atlantic Monthly estimates that $7.6 trillion was made available by the Federal Reserve to banks, financial firms and investors. The Cato Institute estimates (using government figures) the final costs at $32 to $68 billion, not including the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which alone cost more than $180 billion.

8. Each major piece of legislation contains new welfare for the rich and corporations. The Boston Globe analyzed the emergency tax legislation passed by Congress in early 2013 and found it contained 43 business and energy tax breaks, together worth $67 billion.

9. Huge corporations that engage in criminal or other wrongful activities protect their leaders from being prosecuted by paying huge fees or fines to the government. You and I would be prosecuted. These corporations protect their bosses by paying off the government. For example, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase, which made a preliminary $13-billion mortgage settlement with the U.S. government, is allowed to write off a majority of the deal as tax deductible, saving the corporation $4 billion.

10. There are thousands of smaller special breaks for corporations and businesses out there. There is a special subsidy for corporate jets, which cost taxpayers $3 billion a year. The tax deduction for second homes costs $8 billion a year. Fifty billionaires received taxpayer-funded farm subsidies in the past 20 years.

If you want to look at the welfare for the rich and corporations, start with the federal Internal Revenue Code. That is the King James Bible of welfare for the rich and corporations. Special breaks in the tax code are the reason that there are thousands of lobbyists in the halls of Congress, hundreds of lobbyists around each state legislature and tens of thousands of tax lawyers all over the country.


More:
Boeing National Priorities Project Cato Institute Wall Street Bailout Gm

 

[Windship]

Robert Reich: Corporate Welfare Is Destroying Our Economy (VIDEO)
Only about 12 percent of federal spending goes to individuals and families -- an increasing portion goes to corporate handouts.
By Robert Reich / RobertReich.org
May 31, 2015
Print
47 COMMENTS

Corporations aren’t people, despite what the Supreme Court says, and they don’t need or deserve handouts.

When corporations get special handouts from the government – subsidies and tax breaks – it costs you. It means you have to pay more in taxes to make up for these hidden expenses. And government has less money for good schools and roads, Medicare and national defense, and everything else you need.

You might call these special corporate handouts “corporate welfare,” but at least welfare goes to real people in need. In the big picture, corporate handouts are costing tens of billions of dollars a year. Some estimates put it over $100 billion – which means it’s costing you money that would otherwise go to better schools or roads, or lower taxes.

Conservatives have made a game of obscuring where federal spending actually goes. In reality, only about 12 percent of federal spending goes to individuals and families, most in dire need. An increasing portion goes to corporate welfare.

Other examples: The oil, gas, and coal industries get billions in their own special tax breaks. Big Agribusiness gets farm subsides. Big Pharma gets their own subsidy in the form of a ban on government using its bargaining power under Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. And hedge-fund and private-equity managers get a special tax loophole that treats their income as capital gains, at a lower tax rate than ordinary income.

The real issue isn’t the government’s size. It’s whom government is for. Much of government is no longer working for the vast majority it’s intended to serve. If government were responding to the public’s interest instead of the moneyed interests, it would be providing more support for communities, families, and individuals who need it the most.

There’s no reason any corporations should be on the dole, or that your hard-earned dollars should be going to them for no reason but their political clout.

So we have to demand an end to corporate welfare. No more handouts to particular corporations and industries simply because they’re big enough and powerful enough to get them. No more specialized tax breaks. No more exemptions or special treatment. No more crony capitalism.

Watch this explanation below:



Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. His latest book is "Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few." His website is www.robertreich.org.

 

[Windship]

...but your worried about the poor getting welfare...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...but your worried about the poor getting welfare...

Yes, a hand out is crippling to those who receive it and thus creates the need for more and more welfare over more and more generations. It hollows out and undermines the American character; all to cruelly create dependent Democratic voters.

Lyndon Baines Johnson1963[ primary architect of the modern libcommie welfare state]...
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them nig(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".