• 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!

Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government Spend

Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Depletion; similar to amortization and depreciation, same principle.
Capital assets are not taxed at the federal level. They are taxed by many states and local governments. The federal tax breaks recognize that fact. Its an incentive to improve homes and businesses. It occurs at all levels, from local homeowners to multimillion dollar factories.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

1Perry said:
They are.



Indeed. It doesn't cost more to remove a barrel of oil when the prices go up. (at least not equally so). If your conspiracy theories held any water they oil companies would just charge $6.00 a gallon for gas.

Cut off the subsidies to Wall Street and prices will fall along with profits.
Click to expand...

Perry dont play games with me...with the conspiracy theory crap...no where did I mention conspiracies...

Now explain it to me....aside from the arabs and the dirtbag traders gouging...how does big oil break all profit records at the pump when usage is down if they arent GOUGING us and raising the price at the pump far above what a barrel and traders do....look perry ive been around too long to get bull****ted....every year in the spring most of my life big oil stuck it to us...and of course they blamed everyone else while breaking profit records...and for their gouging I get the privledge as a taxpayer to give them free tax money....No conspiracy...just the greed driven screwing of anyone and anyone for a buck
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

OpportunityCost said:
Depletion; similar to amortization and depreciation, same principle.
Capital assets are not taxed at the federal level. They are taxed by many states and local governments. The federal tax breaks recognize that fact. Its an incentive to improve homes and businesses. It occurs at all levels, from local homeowners to multimillion dollar factories.
Click to expand...

"Record Profits" aren't enough of an incentive for them to improve their business?
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

OpportunityCost said:
Depletion; similar to amortization and depreciation, same principle.
Capital assets are not taxed at the federal level. They are taxed by many states and local governments. The federal tax breaks recognize that fact. Its an incentive to improve homes and businesses. It occurs at all levels, from local homeowners to multimillion dollar factories.
Click to expand...

Again, mortgage credits and home improvement deductions are not based on depletion, amortization or depreciation. They are nothing more than govt subsidies meant to increase home ownership

I know of no state that taxes capital goods. What you said, without substantiation, sounds like fiction.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Property taxes are what again? If you build property on an empty piece of land, I pretty much guarantee you the property taxes will go up. Would you call a building a capital asset?
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

OpportunityCost said:
Property taxes are what again? If you build property on an empty piece of land, I pretty much guarantee you the property taxes will go up. Would you call a building a capital asset?
Click to expand...

Property taxes are a way to pay for local services. They are taxed, not on the basis of their declining value, or on their market value. They are based on a value which is determined on the basis of how much money the govt needs to fund its' operations.

I'll now remind you of what you said:

Capital assets are not taxed at the federal level. They are taxed by many states and local governments.
Click to expand...

If what you meant to say what "One type of capital asset is taxed" then that is what you should have said. "Capital assets" in general are NOT taxed. Real estate is, but that is just one type of capital asset. You have been unclear to the point of being misleading.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

1Perry said:
I've posted the links for you that shows the Tea Party is against corporate welfare. You aren't one to allow your bigotry to get in the way of facts are you?.
Click to expand...

Yes, well we can expect that from the Teapublicans where 19% of its members pay no income taxes.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you mean as welfare is giving our tax dollars to others, be it unwed mothers or coporations. Oddly, we give a hell of a lot more to corporations than unwed mothers, yet unwed mothers are far more demonized. Always struck me as a real skewed view of the world to do that.
Click to expand...

I like how you conveniently forget about all the people who stop looking for work so they can soak up unemployment benefits, or junk food perched with food stamps.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Risky Thicket said:
Yes, well we can expect that from the Teapublicans where 19% of its members pay no income taxes.
Click to expand...

Never been great at math...but since you bring up the 19% of Tea Party folks that dont pay income tax with derision, you must absolutely ****ing HATE the 47% that dont...which puts the scumbag democrats that dont pay income taxes about 28% higher than the Tea party types.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

VanceMack said:
Never been great at math...but since you bring up the 19% of Tea Party folks that dont pay income tax with derision, you must absolutely ****ing HATE the 47% that dont...which puts the scumbag democrats that dont pay income taxes about 28% higher than the Tea party types.
Click to expand...

Sounds like rightwing fuzzy math
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Jerry said:
I like how you conveniently forget about all the people who stop looking for work so they can soak up unemployment benefits, or junk food perched with food stamps.
Click to expand...

That's a serious assumption on your part. You will need significant evidence (not just some wingnut saying it is so) to support such a claim. But, even that, if it were true, would not come close to matching what we give corporations, corproations who still take their companies overseas in order to pay slave wages.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

I notice that we still have yet to see a rightwinger identify any specific form of corporate welfare that they would support cutting.

This proves that the rightwingers are full of lies. The rightwingers love welfare for their corporate masters
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Risky Thicket said:
Yes, well we can expect that from the Teapublicans where 19% of its members pay no income taxes.
Click to expand...

Well, when 40-50% of all American workers pay no taxes, one group having a 19% tax-free segment would seem SMALL in comparison to the national average, no?
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Jerry said:
I like how you conveniently forget about all the people who stop looking for work so they can soak up unemployment benefits, or junk food perched with food stamps.
Click to expand...

I'd read the ntire link if I were you:

Average taxpayers pick up an expensive tab for corporate welfare expenditures. Government spending for corporate welfare programs far exceeds government spending for social programs.

1.Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)


2.Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)

Facts on Corporate Welfare | OMB Watch

I can give yoyu links that say it is even higher, but it depends on how you measure it as to what number you get. However, I would also add, if you want to count the unemployed during this recession, on the other side you have to add TARP and other bailouts. The wealthy even got more during this painful period. And while there is more outrage about that than usual corporate welfare, the demonizing still doesn't match what poor people and single mothers get routinely. I think that deserves some reflection on why?
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Harry Guerrilla said:
Uhh no, putting on a false appearance requires a person to be deceptive, a hypocrite is doing this knowingly.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, but it doesn't require knowing deception when a willful ignorance will suffice
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

sangha said:
Now, I'm beginning to question your honesty, because the link you just posted says nothing about hypocrite requiring a person to lie about their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Pretending to believe in something, requires the willful act of a person to be deceptive.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

sangha said:
Wrong again, but it doesn't require knowing deception when a willful ignorance will suffice
Click to expand...

"a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

My definition, pretending requires someone to be willfully deceptive, it is a verb (aka action word).
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Harry Guerrilla said:
Pretending to believe in something, requires the willful act of a person to be deceptive.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. All it requires is a little cognitive dissonance. Your positions reek of that.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Harry Guerrilla said:
"a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

My definition, pretending requires someone to be willfully deceptive, it is a verb (aka action word).
Click to expand...

Again, all it takes is willful ignorance and some denialism
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

sangha said:
No it doesn't. All it requires is a little cognitive dissonance. Your positions reek of that.
Click to expand...

I guess we just make up definitions for words now.

Accusations of hypocrisy, is one of those little rhetorical attack methods, typically used as a means of character assassination.
It's used instead of actually debating a person over subject matter.
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Harry Guerrilla said:
I guess we just make up definitions for words now.

Accusations of hypocrisy, is one of those little rhetorical attack methods, typically used as a means of character assassination.
It's used instead of actually debating a person over subject matter.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read the definitions or understand them. But if you want to discuss the subject matter, you can start here

Why do you oppose ending govt welfare for one industry (on the basis that it's unfair to target one group of beneficiaries) but support ending specific welfare pgms for individuals (even though that ends up targetting one group of beneficiaries)?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hoolkids-get-free-meals-2.html#post1059732749

on edit: BTW it is dihonest of you to hide behind the definition of "hypocrit" when that is not the word I used. I said your position was "hypocritical"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical

1. of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess: The parent who has a “do what I say and not what I do” attitude can appear hypocritical to a child.

2. possessing the characteristics of hypocrisy: Isn't a politician hypocritical for talking about human dignity while voting against reasonable social programs?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

And pretense does not require intentional dishonesty. See the last definition

Pretense | Define Pretense at Dictionary.com
pre·tense
   [pri-tens, pree-tens] Show IPA

noun
1. pretending or feigning; make-believe: My sleepiness was all pretense.

2. a false show of something: a pretense of friendship.

3. a piece of make-believe.

4. the act of pretending or alleging falsely.

5. a false allegation or justification: He excused himself from the lunch on a pretense of urgent business.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

sangha said:
I guess you didn't read the definitions or understand them. But if you want to discuss the subject matter, you can start here

Why do you oppose ending govt welfare for one industry (on the basis that it's unfair to target one group of beneficiaries) but support ending specific welfare pgms for individuals (even though that ends up targetting one group of beneficiaries)?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hoolkids-get-free-meals-2.html#post1059732749

on edit: BTW it is dihonest of you to hide behind the definition of "hypocrit" when that is not the word I used. I said your position was "hypocritical"

Hypocritical | Define Hypocritical at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

I already explained my position on that, why have redundant programs?
These kids are likely to qualify for food stamps, why have another food program for them?
 
Re: Voters See These ‘Corporate Welfare’ Programs As A Good Place To Cut Government S

Harry Guerrilla said:
I already explained my position on that, why have redundant programs?
These kids are likely to qualify for food stamps, why have another food program for them?
Click to expand...

For one thing, there is nothing "redundant" about it. Studies show that even kids whose families receive food stamps do go hungry if not provided with a free lunch

For another, why don't you use the "they don't need the welfare" argument when it comes to the oil depletion allowance, which is given to corps that are making record profits? It is hypocritical

It is hypocritical to selectively use and drop "principles" when making arguments depending on who is being discussed. If you're going to say that the kids don't need free lunches because they get food stamps, then why is it OK to give welfare to profit making corps since their profits show that they don't need the money?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom