• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Blame Mama Instead

Stuckinred

Stuckinred

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
887
Reaction score
210
Location
Ohio, Sir!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm still waiting, in futility probably, for a serious national debate about CORPORATE welfare. Politicians, government hacks and the media want us to believe that it's the welfare mama in line at the grocery store with food stamps that's hauling all this huge cash. The reality is different, but rest assured NO ONE wants to talk about the welfare that's really killing us.

The poor receive the most welfare
 
people tend to 'vanish' when they bring up this topic, men in black suits, etc, etc.
 
roflpublican said:
people tend to 'vanish' when they bring up this topic, men in black suits, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Hardly. But I get the fact that it's easier to deny it for political reasons. Media outlets are not about to touch it because they are benefactors too. And NO politician is about to bite the hand that feeds them.
 
Stuckinred said:
Hardly. But I get the fact that it's easier to deny it for political reasons. Media outlets are not about to touch it because they are benefactors too. And NO politician is about to bite the hand that feeds them.
Click to expand...

Policy analysis conducted by the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, argued that United States fiscal policy allocated approximately US$92 billion in the 2006 federal budget toward programs that the authors considered to be corporate welfare. Subsequent analysis by the institute estimated that number to be US$100 billion in the 2012 federal budget. It should be noted, however, that Cato's criteria, which are not clearly defined, do not include tax loopholes or trade barriers.
Click to expand...

Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would seem like a no-brainer to me. You raise an interesting point. If Congress wants to show us they are serious about cutting wasteful/unnecessary spending, it seems logical that it start here.

Good post.
 
MaggieD said:
Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would seem like a no-brainer to me. You raise an interesting point. If Congress wants to show us they are serious about cutting wasteful/unnecessary spending, it seems logical that it start here.

Good post.
Click to expand...

hhahahahahhahhahahha. congress, serious about getting something done. you made a funny, come back in 2014 lol maybe something will get done then :alert.
 
MaggieD said:
Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would seem like a no-brainer to me. You raise an interesting point. If Congress wants to show us they are serious about cutting wasteful/unnecessary spending, it seems logical that it start here.

Good post.
Click to expand...

I'm not hopeful at all. These politicians want to get and keep these jobs they get elected to way too bad for a reason, and the reason isn't patriotism. It's all about securing the life-long gravy train via the exchange of corporate donations/welfare.
 
Stuckinred said:
I'm not hopeful at all. These politicians want to get and keep these jobs they get elected to way too bad for a reason, and the reason isn't patriotism. It's all about securing the life-long gravy train via the exchange of corporate donations/welfare.
Click to expand...

And yet. We cannot agree, even here on DP, that term limits puts an end to this nonsense.
 
MaggieD said:
And yet. We cannot agree, even here on DP, that term limits puts an end to this nonsense.
Click to expand...

there's always the argument 'we might want to keep one super good politician if one ever appears'. but inevitably what really happens is big money talks, and people end up serving for decades their special interest funders. we should have 2 terms max for pres, governors, senators, and representatives. until that happens, special interests and big $$ will control this country forever.
 
Ask Dick Cheney, I'm sure he'd be happy to volunteer that information.............
 
roflpublican said:
there's always the argument 'we might want to keep one super good politician if one ever appears'. but inevitably what really happens is big money talks, and people end up serving for decades their special interest funders. we should have 2 terms max for pres, governors, senators, and representatives. until that happens, special interests and big $$ will control this country forever.
Click to expand...
That still doesn't go far enough. It doesn't address the root issue. The solution is simple. Start a public fund, for ALL campaigning distributed evenly to ALL candidates. The voice that matters in politics is a vote. Money is not speech, when it comes to elections. Period.
 
It was never mentioned once in the election that welfare for super super rich is Obama's speciality. The most glaring example? ObamaCare and Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart heirs are worth $20,000,000,000.00 EACH. NO ONE more exports jobs to China.

Obama decided they were TOO POOR to comply with ObamaCare - and/or that Wal-Mart employees already have too much pay and benefits - so Obama personally exempted Wal-Mart from ObamaCare. Overall, ObamaCare is welfare for the rich, because it shifts the cost of indigent care from property taxes (which the rich do NOT have special tax exemptions for) to being paid out of working people's paychecks.

Obama is the best shill for the super rich this country has ever had. He rages against the super rich to the mob, while giving them everything and anything to the super rich that they want.
 
that corporate welfare was bought and paid for
so are the tax loop holes
the citizens united decision, where spending money was found the equivalent of free speech, sealed the deal
be proud [/s]; we have the best government money can buy
 
joko104 said:
It was never mentioned once in the election that welfare for super super rich is Obama's speciality. The most glaring example? ObamaCare and Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart heirs are worth $20,000,000,000.00 EACH. NO ONE more exports jobs to China.
Click to expand...

The people who shop at WalMart are responsible for those lost jobs. WalMart simply gives "the people" what they want: cheap ****.

Obama decided they were TOO POOR to comply with ObamaCare - and/or that Wal-Mart employees already have too much pay and benefits - so Obama personally exempted Wal-Mart from ObamaCare. Overall, ObamaCare is welfare for the rich, because it shifts the cost of indigent care from property taxes (which the rich do NOT have special tax exemptions for) to being paid out of working people's paychecks.
Click to expand...

This is outrageous.

The total of 1,231 includes all of the waiver requests HHS granted — companies that only applied for a three-year waiver, companies that got a one-year waiver as well as an extension, and companies that got a one-year waiver but did not ask for an extension.
Click to expand...
HHS finalizes over 1,200 waivers under healthcare reform law - The Hill's Healthwatch

I couldn't find a credible source for the list. Nor, specifically, that WalMart was exempt. But I'm sure it's true. (Target as well.) This simply means that "welfare" will pick up the tab for these people. Another perfect example of horrendous corporate welfare. (Thanks for the heads-up.)

Obama is the best shill for the super rich this country has ever had. He rages against the super rich to the mob, while giving them everything and anything to the super rich that they want.
Click to expand...

Now? I believe you. (I didn't when I first read your post.)

Edit: Where the HELL was Romney? Why wasn't he alllll OVER this??
 
KevinKohler said:
That still doesn't go far enough. It doesn't address the root issue. The solution is simple. Start a public fund, for ALL campaigning distributed evenly to ALL candidates. The voice that matters in politics is a vote. Money is not speech, when it comes to elections. Period.
Click to expand...

Some states have done that, as have some major cities.
 
Stuckinred said:
Some states have done that, as have some major cities.
Click to expand...

I'll wager, on pure ignorance, without a single google search, that those states have a LOT more sane election cycles, and likely, a better quality of person running for office, on average.
 
One theater project and one small DoD farm subsidy hardly make the case. What are these alleged loopholes? Let's look at them specifically when they can be found and it will be a more constructive exercise than just assuming that anything that benefits a corporation is "pork barrel" corporate "welfare". I am all for going after corporations as part of the mix; but if the other side is not willing to budge on welfare, then I have no interest in what they have to say.
 
KevinKohler said:
I'll wager, on pure ignorance, without a single google search, that those states have a LOT more sane election cycles, and likely, a better quality of person running for office, on average.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, read Mark Green's "Selling Out." Albeit a bit dated, it's a good narrative on how politicians have sold out and it speaks to those areas (as of its printing) who reformed and not only have more quality candidates, they have MORE candidates, period, not just candidates selected by the corporate elite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom