Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would be interested in some thoughts and information on how much of our taxes go to welfare and other social payments for families below the poverty line, vs. how much of our tax money goes to corporate "welfare" for millionaires. Perhaps corporate welfare is a much greater societal problem than the stereotypical "welfare queen." Maybe we should spend more time and energy on closing these tax loopholes for the rich.
Any thoughts?
By tax loopholes, I assume you mean deductions. And almost all Americans use these loopholes. Not just the stereotypical "rich".
We should end all corporate welfare and all individual welfare. It really is that simple.
Different sides of the same coin. Both are huge problems that have gotten us to $16 trillion debt, an debacle that should be an embarassment. If my family budget looked like our national budget I would be literally embarassed.
Pres. Obama is at least consistent--he wants to keep increasing both.
Alaska, the welfare state?
Alaska, one of the states that takes more from federal government than it contributes?
Alaska, one of the states without an income tax, because other states subsidize them?
Alaska with the $4 billion bridge and road to nowhere?
Do you have any facts to back up your post? Or is this just Palin hate?
There is no capitalism when winners and losers are chosen by the amount of subsidies/tax breaks they receive (a disproportionate amount going to the very largest companies, essentially putting mom and pops to midsize companies at a further competitive disadvantage.
At least corporate welfare leads to something people can use. A Chevy Volt may be overpriced even at the subsidized price, but it is still a mode of transportation. The stereotypical welfare queen gets paid for nothing but breathing, breeding and voting.
This argument makes good common sense. For example even though someone may be paying fewer taxes than someone else , they are still a net tax payer and the welfare queen is a net loser right?
Too bad its often wrong. In a capitalist system, the one who is marginally better often gets most of the business. If one motel leaves a mint on my pillow and the other doesn't all things being equal where will people stay? A 1% margin may result in 100% of the business. So that means a subsided business may be putting someone else out of business which means means these people are net slugs. Essential jobs anyone can do don't make anyone essential.
The Volt subsidy may fall under R&D but can't say that about the sugar price controls, ADM, Cargill subsidies. etc.
Then it gets worse. Property laws, made and enforced by government create value entirely. So just because the government says I own a piece of land, often enough to lobby the government to reduce my taxes, its free gift; its nothing but a government tax license. Buy land. Use political muscle for lower taxes and zoning; make nothing, but make money. No welfare but corporations do it all the time.
I have questioned this topic myself. The Repugs seem to get panties in a wad when they think someone is using food stamps or such for something other than food (one post said strippers) So the monthly food stamps comes to what $130? and this makes the right boil. They spend more on their Starbucks in a month. But they are incensed if their "tax" dollars are wasted. yet no concerns when a worthless war was started and wasted Trillions.... though they do like to blame Obama for the deficits that stem from this.
It seems if a millionaire/billionaire takes their money, this is ok because it is capitalism. So if the poor steal its bad and the rich do it's ok? Makes no sense to me. Sure we need to rid waste and theft, but at all levels. I'm more concerned about the billions vs the $130 .... well until the Rick Scotts of the world turn things like Medicare into their personal piggy banks.
I have questioned this topic myself. The Repugs seem to get panties in a wad when they think someone is using food stamps or such for something other than food (one post said strippers) So the monthly food stamps comes to what $130? and this makes the right boil. They spend more on their Starbucks in a month. But they are incensed if their "tax" dollars are wasted. yet no concerns when a worthless war was started and wasted Trillions.... though they do like to blame Obama for the deficits that stem from this.
It seems if a millionaire/billionaire takes their money, this is ok because it is capitalism. So if the poor steal its bad and the rich do it's ok? Makes no sense to me. Sure we need to rid waste and theft, but at all levels. I'm more concerned about the billions vs the $130 .... well until the Rick Scotts of the world turn things like Medicare into their personal piggy banks.
You have no clue about what you're talking about. Republicans greatly prefer Dunkin Donuts. It's the Democrats that prefer Starbucks.
The tea party was always amorphous with everything from libertarian to religious right, and others.
Let's just say the pro-limited gov't faction, whether libertarians, Reaganites, or others. Most of what I consider the moderate and establishment R's, such as Perry, Gingrich, Romney, etc. are pretty comfortable with corporate welfare. Most of the GOP grass-roots base is not. The one Republican I know of who really spoke out a lot and really gets it when it comes to corporate welfare/crony capitalism is Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin: How Congress Occupied Wall Street - WSJ.com
I would inject that perhaps, at first, it was the case that people seeking smaller government coalesced to form it. At some point, neoconservatives, moderate republicans, the Glenn Beck's and Sarah Palin types joined the bandwagon in an attempt to bolster enthusiasm for their lame candidates and failed strategies for the elections. Many of the so-called Tea Party congressmen are more than happy with the current infusion of big business and big government ( the exception, Rand Paul). This seem to have expelled libertarians and the like.
It wasn't long before they appear to be just another resurgence of the old right.
I guess you never heard of the Paul's. They are the few in that party that actually try to be consistent and inject their concerns for corporatism as well as an authoritarian government.
On another note, the fact that you have lumped 'libertarians' with 'Reaganites' in the same sentence with 'pro-limited govt", speaks volumes...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
