• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Corperate Welfare Un-American?

Is Corperate Welfare Un-American?


  • Total voters
    23
Libs whine about corporate welfare apparently to deflect the well deserved criticism that leftwingers have created and expanded the welfare class. Expanding jobs and so forth is hardly as pernicious as creating dependent dem voters who are a drain on society
The difference is clear:
If you teach a man to fish, rather than promising to give him one whenever he's told he needs it, he won't vote Democrat.
 
It depends.

I'd be tempted to say ALL welfare is un-American, but that would be far too vague and generalized a statement.

What, specifically, were you referring to when you asked the poll question?
 
BTW what is coperate welfare?

You know damn well what it is.

Low/no-interest treasury loans, Federal grants, tax breaks, subsidies...EAR MARK$, PORK BARREL.

I've tried to teach you, there is good corporate welfare, temporarily propping up a major American company in order to protect a large workforce, and there is bad corporate welfare: special favorable treatment for corporations that, when examined objectively, is clearly excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, or inefficient.

Any treatment for individual corporations or group of companies that is anti-competitive in nature and doesn't substantially benefit the workforce/consumers/community.

It's a pejorative term as CEOs and their lobbyists will always argue the benefits and reject the notion of 'welfare'.
 
Forgot to mention something in an earlier post...

Corporations are persons in U.S. law, so to some degree they are treated as people when it comes to entitlement funds, especially if their existence is tied to the over all health of the U.S. economy. If personhood laws were struck down, businesses without the ability to survive would naturally die out and be replaced by other competitors with more successful models.

Corporate welfare leads to stagnant economy and corruption of democracy.
 
what would the libs have said about Bush if he had let those banks croak?

That wasn't really an option.

There's a great story about James Cameron on the Titanic set. They were $100M over budget, shooting was behind schedule. Head of Fox at the time, Bill Mechanic, crunched the numbers and determined that Cameron's epic would have to break every box office record in order to make money. So he went down to Baja California to get Cameron in line, lay down the law. The rumor is, when Mechanic half-heartedly threatened to pull the plug, Cameron guffawed and said something like, 'I've got my johnson so far up your rear, you will get off my set, go home and give me whatever I need to finish this film.' Given the studio's exposure at that point, Mechanic knew that pulling the plug was not a realistic option. Titanic was too big to fail.

There is one big difference in this anecdotal analogy - Cameron reassigned his profit-sharing back to Twentieth Century-Fox. The Bank and AIG execs took their bonuses.

Hypothetically, had the GOP been in charge through AIG, TARP, Autos, would those companies have gotten less favorable or more favorable terms..? I'd say neither.
 
You know damn well what it is.

Low/no-interest treasury loans, Federal grants, tax breaks, subsidies...EAR MARK$, PORK BARREL.

I've tried to teach you, there is good corporate welfare, temporarily propping up a major American company in order to protect a large workforce, and there is bad corporate welfare: special favorable treatment for corporations that, when examined objectively, is clearly excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, or inefficient.

Any treatment for individual corporations or group of companies that is anti-competitive in nature and doesn't substantially benefit the workforce/consumers/community.

It's a pejorative term as CEOs and their lobbyists will always argue the benefits and reject the notion of 'welfare'.

you have tried to teach me? You'd have better luck teaching Federer how to beat Rafa on Clay.
 
Why would assistance to businesses be unamerican? Americans have been doing it since Washington's Administration in various forms.

What is "American?"

The real problem is the bile the far right has over providing help to poor people, but the jolly good attitude they have toward handouts to the rich, powerful. That's been a consistent theme in American History. The government would condemn grain for drought stricken farmers, while giving all kinds of freebies to the railroads, all throughout the 19th century. Ordinary people had to "buck up" to maintain rugged individualism, but businesses often did not.

There is nothing wrong with developmental assistance or helping businesses. Then again, there's nothing wrong with helping people with social welfare or other programmes either. Is it anti-American? Depends on what you mean.
 
Last edited:
yes it is; government has no business picking winners in the economy.

yet, it's done all the time. Archer Daniels Midland?

Here's something for the far-righties (or non-moderates) to chew on...

In 2007, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) spending on cash assistance was $4.5 billion.

Total commitments to TARP, the cash assistance program for failing banks, since September 2008 come to $700 billion.

So TANF spending equals less than 1 percent of TARP.

SOURCE
 
you have tried to teach me? You'd have better luck teaching Federer how to beat Rafa on Clay.

That's a false analogy.

You're implying that Federer is some delusional person who has never stepped on a court in his life and, although he pontificates often about Tennis, he really knows nothing about the game.
 
That's a false analogy.

You're implying that Federer is some delusional person who has never stepped on a court in his life and, although he pontificates often about Tennis, he really knows nothing about the game.

look dude-You have your opinions, I have mine and just because you don't agree with mine doesn't mean you know more than I do. And claiming anyone who doesn't agree with your welfare-socialist view of things is "delusional" is rather lame.
 
look dude-You have your opinions, I have mine and just because you don't agree with mine doesn't mean you know more than I do. And claiming anyone who doesn't agree with your welfare-socialist view of things is "delusional" is rather lame.

IMO, claiming anything I've said in this thread is representative of a 'welfare-socialist' is imbecilic.

*I've defined the term 'corporate welfare' in detail for you -- you ignored it.
*I've gave some data regarding TARP and TANF -- no comment from you.

You avoid actually discussing anything and resort to your usual moronic ad homs 'libs, socialists, welfare' b.s.
 
I believe it is Un-American in the sense that it goes against capitalist values. Other than that, it is simply an attempt at protecting American jobs.
 
IMO, claiming anything I've said in this thread is representative of a 'welfare-socialist' is imbecilic.

*I've defined the term 'corporate welfare' in detail for you -- you ignored it.
*I've gave some data regarding TARP and TANF -- no comment from you.

You avoid actually discussing anything and resort to your usual moronic ad homs 'libs, socialists, welfare' b.s.

being well educated I ignore stuff that I find to be simple or silly and given how many PMs you have sent me it seems that you feel a need to converse with me
 
I believe it is Un-American in the sense that it goes against capitalist values. Other than that, it is simply an attempt at protecting American jobs.

Keep in mind, 'capitalist values' = anything capitalists, politicians, lobbyists, and bankers will say to get what they want. A perfect example is 'protecting jobs'. Actually, they'll drop 'protecting' and just say 'jobs'.

"These new subsidies to our business are all about jobs." Funny, they guy saying that usually has a really good one with bonuses and benefits, but cutting those to fund hiring is never an option. Isn't that strange?:confused:
 
Keep in mind, 'capitalist values' = anything capitalists, politicians, lobbyists, and bankers will say to get what they want. A perfect example is 'protecting jobs'. Actually, they'll drop 'protecting' and just say 'jobs'.

"These new subsidies to our business are all about jobs." Funny, they guy saying that usually has a really good one with bonuses and benefits, but cutting those to fund hiring is never an option. Isn't that strange?:confused:

No, with the reality abuses, I agree. I was simply saying that in a truly capitalist system, the government would not provide welfare for corporations or workers. All would simply be on their own, law of the jungle sort of thing. Of course we do not have such a system as the lows of the economic cycles seem to be more than those professing to love capitalism want to go through. It seems that once a company grows so large, it morphs from a company into an institution that we are all to fear the loss of.
 
No, with the reality abuses, I agree. I was simply saying that in a truly capitalist system, the government would not provide welfare for corporations or workers.

The 'in theory' version, right. Like, in theory, communism is a classless society.

Well that and $4.50 will get you a cup of capitalist coffees made from beans picked by socialists.

All would simply be on their own, law of the jungle sort of thing. Of course we do not have such a system as the lows of the economic cycles seem to be more than those professing to love capitalism want to go through. It seems that once a company grows so large, it morphs from a company into an institution that we are all to fear the loss of.

There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism except private ownership of production and distribution.
 
Back
Top Bottom