Corporate welfare in action ....

[dblack]

"We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"

Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?

Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Our corporations work together with our military, and government, in much the same way the Church once did.

 

[bripat9643]

"We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"

Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?

Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

 

[dblack]

"We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"

Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?

Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

This sounds like you want to debate the term 'subsidy', but let's not. Are you disputing that the military paves the way for our corporations? Surely you can see how our foreign policy has a profound influence on - and, is therefore profoundly influenced by - multinational corporate interests?

 

[bripat9643]

Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

This sounds like you want to debate the term 'subsidy', but let's not. Are you disputing that the military paves the way for our corporations? Surely you can see how our foreign policy has a profound influence on - and, is therefore profoundly influenced by - multinational corporate interests?

Of course you don't want to debate the term subsidy. That's because you and your bogus study want to stretch the term to include ordinary business expenses as "subsidies." You also want to include the military budget as a subsidy? Why not include it in the revenue of every other business? How does the oil industry benefit from the occupation of Afghanistan? How do American oil companies benefit from the Iraq invasion? If anything, they were harmed by it.

 

[dblack]

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

This sounds like you want to debate the term 'subsidy', but let's not. Are you disputing that the military paves the way for our corporations? Surely you can see how our foreign policy has a profound influence on - and, is therefore profoundly influenced by - multinational corporate interests?

Of course you don't want to debate the term subsidy. That's because you and your bogus study want to stretch the term to include ordinary business expenses as "subsidies." You also want to include the military budget as a subsidy?

That's what I figured. I just don't care how you define "subsidy". I do care about the ways our government colludes with corporations. Call it whatever you like.

Why not include it in the revenue of every other business?

I'm not singling any out. Any company that does a lot of business overseas stands to benefit from our military domination.

How does the oil industry benefit from the occupation of Afghanistan? How do American oil companies benefit from the Iraq invasion? If anything, they were harmed by it.

Sometimes they will be harmed by it. They aren't the only beneficiaries in the mix.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

This sounds like you want to debate the term 'subsidy', but let's not. Are you disputing that the military paves the way for our corporations? Surely you can see how our foreign policy has a profound influence on - and, is therefore profoundly influenced by - multinational corporate interests?

Of course you don't want to debate the term subsidy. That's because you and your bogus study want to stretch the term to include ordinary business expenses as "subsidies." You also want to include the military budget as a subsidy? Why not include it in the revenue of every other business? How does the oil industry benefit from the occupation of Afghanistan? How do American oil companies benefit from the Iraq invasion? If anything, they were harmed by it.

Some people believe that all money earned belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. Therefore when government lets you keep more of your own money, it's a subsidy to you.

 

[bripat9643]

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

This sounds like you want to debate the term 'subsidy', but let's not. Are you disputing that the military paves the way for our corporations? Surely you can see how our foreign policy has a profound influence on - and, is therefore profoundly influenced by - multinational corporate interests?

Of course you don't want to debate the term subsidy. That's because you and your bogus study want to stretch the term to include ordinary business expenses as "subsidies." You also want to include the military budget as a subsidy?

That's what I figured. I just don't care how you define "subsidy". I do care about the ways our government colludes with corporations. Call it whatever you like.

Why not include it in the revenue of every other business?

I'm not singling any out. Any company that does a lot of business overseas stands to benefit from our military domination.

How does the oil industry benefit from the occupation of Afghanistan? How do American oil companies benefit from the Iraq invasion? If anything, they were harmed by it.

Sometimes they will be harmed by it. They aren't the only beneficiaries in the mix.

If you don't care how it's defined, then why are you using it? You want us to ignore the definition, so you can bash the fossil fuel industry, but when you are called on it, then all of a sudden the definition doesn't matter.

You are singling out the fossil fuel industry. Don't be coy about that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"

Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?

Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

So who benefits from oil, just oil companies?

 

[jasonnfree]

"We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"

Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?

Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

Sure it is. Why do you suppose we've spent trillions on military operations in the middle east? None of those countries, not iraq, not afghanistan, not iran etc. have ever been a threat to the usa. Ron paul hit the nail on the head when he said "they hate us because we're over there" during the debates in 2007. Let the oil companies hire their own muscle to protect their operations over there. We've been subsidizing them long enough.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure it is. Why do you suppose we've spent trillions on military operations in the middle east? None of those countries, not iraq, not afghanistan, not iran etc. have ever been a threat to the usa.

So tell us, where did we finally find Bin Laden?
What country was sending in their men to kill our solders when we were in Iraq?
What country is becoming a nuclear threat in the middle east?

 

[dblack]

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

This sounds like you want to debate the term 'subsidy', but let's not. Are you disputing that the military paves the way for our corporations? Surely you can see how our foreign policy has a profound influence on - and, is therefore profoundly influenced by - multinational corporate interests?

Of course you don't want to debate the term subsidy. That's because you and your bogus study want to stretch the term to include ordinary business expenses as "subsidies." You also want to include the military budget as a subsidy?

That's what I figured. I just don't care how you define "subsidy". I do care about the ways our government colludes with corporations. Call it whatever you like.

If you don't care how it's defined, then why are you using it?

I'm not. What are you talking about?

You want us to ignore the definition, so you can bash the fossil fuel industry, but when you are called on it, then all of a sudden the definition doesn't matter.

You are singling out the fossil fuel industry. Don't be coy about that.

Where am I doing that? Are you sure you don't have me mixed up with someone else?

 

[dblack]

Some people believe that all money earned belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. Therefore when government lets you keep more of your own money, it's a subsidy to you.

Do you think that's my point of view? Really? Have you read anything I've posted?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Some people believe that all money earned belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. Therefore when government lets you keep more of your own money, it's a subsidy to you.

Do you think that's my point of view? Really? Have you read anything I've posted?

If you think a tax break is a subsidy, what else could I think? When government takes less from you, they are not giving you anything, they are just taking less of your property away. A true subsidy is when government pays you for something.

 

[dblack]

Some people believe that all money earned belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. Therefore when government lets you keep more of your own money, it's a subsidy to you.

Do you think that's my point of view? Really? Have you read anything I've posted?

If you think a tax break is a subsidy, what else could I think? When government takes less from you, they are not giving you anything, they are just taking less of your property away. A true subsidy is when government pays you for something.

Yep. So what?

 

[danielpalos]

Welfare is a necessity for when capitalism fails.

Welfare is a necessity when people fail--not capitalism.

Welfare is necessary when employers don't pay a living wage.

Why is welfare needed because of what employers pay? Welfare is a benefit to individuals--not employers.

How did it become the employers responsibility to provide a living wage to employees who's work is not worth a living wage? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the employee?

I have some very disappointing news for you. People do not start businesses to pay a living wage. They do not start (or maintain) a business to provide great benefits. People start companies to create a product or service for profit. That's where their responsibility ends. If government decides to subsidize people for being failures in life, that's not the fault of the employers--that's the fault of our government and people who become slaves to the government.

Social welfare benefits individuals and corporations. Walmart is a great example. They pay their employees a low wage then help their employees to apply for social welfare, AND at the same time collect corporate welfare.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

I don't know where this leftist thought came from that Walmart (or any other business) has anything to do with welfare. The two are not even in the same boat. One has nothing to do with the other. That's like saying because somebody who worked at Walmart rode his bike in front of the bus and got killed, It's Walmart's fault. That's total stupidity.

Businesses could care less what their employees do on their own time with the exception of drug usage. If they want to screw taxpayers and go on welfare, fine with Walmart. If they don't, fine with Walmart. Walmart doesn't care. It has nothing to do with their business.

The bottom line is about capitalism, not socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

"We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"

Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?

Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.

The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies.

It is simply much more rational as a market friendly choice, to sink costs on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International

Good article which includes the military as a subsidy to the gas and oil subsidies corporations get. That doesn't include the price of long term veteran medical care or lost lives in our military involvement in the middle east.

Obviously it's bogus leftwing propaganda. The military is not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN

In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Some people believe that all money earned belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. Therefore when government lets you keep more of your own money, it's a subsidy to you.

Do you think that's my point of view? Really? Have you read anything I've posted?

If you think a tax break is a subsidy, what else could I think? When government takes less from you, they are not giving you anything, they are just taking less of your property away. A true subsidy is when government pays you for something.

Yep. So what?

So what is that government taking less from you is not subsidizing anything. That's the point.

 

[dblack]

Some people believe that all money earned belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. Therefore when government lets you keep more of your own money, it's a subsidy to you.

Do you think that's my point of view? Really? Have you read anything I've posted?

If you think a tax break is a subsidy, what else could I think? When government takes less from you, they are not giving you anything, they are just taking less of your property away. A true subsidy is when government pays you for something.

Yep. So what?

So what is that government taking less from you is not subsidizing anything. That's the point.

Good grief. You're fixated on an argument I'm not making. I get that taxes are theft. Taking less of our money isn't "giving" us anything. I agree with all of that. But that's not the issue here.

You seem to think I'm complaining about corporations profiting from taxpayers or something. But the problem is much more dangerous than that. We've allowed government the power to use the tax code as a means of exerting control over corporations (and many other interest groups). In this case they "persuaded" Apple to build a data center in Iowa. Maybe it will work out. But one has to assume it's not such a great location, otherwise the tax incentives wouldn't have been necessary.

Governments have a horrible track record of making economic decisions. In fact, it's become almost a truism that anything monumentally stupid requires a government. The more we let government manipulate our economic decisions via the tax code, the more we're letting them control the economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Some people believe that all money earned belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. Therefore when government lets you keep more of your own money, it's a subsidy to you.

Do you think that's my point of view? Really? Have you read anything I've posted?

If you think a tax break is a subsidy, what else could I think? When government takes less from you, they are not giving you anything, they are just taking less of your property away. A true subsidy is when government pays you for something.

Yep. So what?

So what is that government taking less from you is not subsidizing anything. That's the point.

Good grief. You're fixated on an argument I'm not making. I get that taxes are theft. Taking less of our money isn't "giving" us anything. I agree with all of that. But that's not the issue here.

You seem to think I'm complaining about corporations profiting from taxpayers or something. But the problem is much more dangerous than that. We've allowed government the power to use the tax code as a means of exerting control over corporations (and many other interest groups). In this case they "persuaded" Apple to build a data center in Iowa. Maybe it will work out. But one has to assume it's not such a great location, otherwise the tax incentives wouldn't have been necessary.

Governments have a horrible track record of making economic decisions. In fact, it's become almost a truism that anything monumentally stupid requires a government. The more we let government manipulate our economic decisions via the tax code, the more we're letting them control the economy.

Of course it's not the ideal place for Apple to put their data center. I'm sure they would rather be by silicone valley or something, but the taxes are too high there. That's why places that are not the best in the country for a business have to do something to make them attractive to a business. They are not controlling anything. Sometimes even if a city offers a tax break to companies, they still can't get them to move there for other reasons.

It's not control, it's competition. After all, don't you think that everyplace in America needs jobs? Don't you think that everyplace in the US needs an economy? What happens to a city, town or county if there are no jobs or businesses? Then we would be criticizing those people for being on welfare when they are totally capable of working instead.

I hate when my boss sends me out to the country to make a delivery. I hate two lane roads, I hate getting stuck behind farm equipment because I can't pass them, I hate it when they detour me off of a state route and I have no idea where they are detouring me to because I can't stop and look at a map. I hate it when I accidentally pass a street and then have to figure out how to turn a tractor-trailer around in the middle of nowhere.

I curse up and down, but in the back of my mind, I realize that without businesses in these small good for nothing towns, nobody would have a place to work out there. Even though very inconvenient and the additional transportation costs, the company still makes out better because of cheaper land and much lower taxes than in a city.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a general welfare clause not a common welfare clause.