Welfare; Personal or corporate?

[Supposn]

We argue to what extent we should invest federal revenue for social welfare, and determining the distribution of our investments to promote USA’s health, education and welfare, but it is our government’s policy to spend public funds for such purposes. We recognize the poverty of a segment of our population as being to some extent detrimental to our entire nation. (When my toe throbs and aches, my entire body can not sleep.

The method of many social welfare programs are government’s identification and the subsidizing of individual communities and persons in need. Some welfare programs are completely administrated by the federal government to benefit individual communities or persons directly. I believe Supplemental Security Income, (SSI) is the largest of such programs. Most welfare programs provide federal oversight and regulation, leaving detailed reg8ulation and administration with state and local governments.

The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and all of its programs are politically controversial. I am not absolutely opposed to spending federal money for regional welfare. I recognize the justification of some laws providing federal funds be distributed to individual communities or persons.

All proposed or existing laws should be judged upon their individual merits. I’m displeased but recognize a law draft’s logical justification for disbursing federal funds for individual industries or corporations benefit. The justification for disbursing public funds on behalf of individual industries or corporations would require a much stronger argument.

Individuals do and corporations do not have an inalienable right of existence. I am opposed to those who inadvertently or knowingly would have it otherwise. If such unprecedented amounts for economic stimulus could be justified, it should not have been risked for financial entities “to big to be permitted to fail”. I’m generally opposed to corporate welfare programs.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[veritas]

Personal. Purely from a local fiscal perspective it makes sense because more people getting less means more sales taxes and stronger local economies. With corporate welfare they bank the money in the Caymans and give Cheney a fake office and we never see any of it again. Or they do something like rape Bradlees, fire all the employees and take a tax deduction.