Corporate welfare in action ....

[BluesLegend]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Holy crap you are dumb, where do you think the money to build the power stations, water, sewage, and roads came from? Do you think government held a bake sale?

 

[BluesLegend]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Most people here are preoccupied with who benefits or loses from these schemes, whether they are a "good investment" etc... But the thing is, in a free market, government isn't supposed to be making these kinds of investments. That's how it works under socialism. Government decides where the data center will be, not the market. The tax-abatement game is government colluding with private industry to share power.

States competing with each other for businesses is the free market. Now the Federal government gifting billions to their pals, those corrupt fuckers I have an issue with. How many of Obama the moron's bets on 'green' didn't go bankrupt?

 

[dudmuck]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

Here have an eyeroll

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Most people here are preoccupied with who benefits or loses from these schemes, whether they are a "good investment" etc... But the thing is, in a free market, government isn't supposed to be making these kinds of investments. That's how it works under socialism. Government decides where the data center will be, not the market. The tax-abatement game is government colluding with private industry to share power.

Why did the Article of Confederation fail? Those who fail to study history are doomed to be easily fooled by simple solutions to complex issues.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Holy crap you are dumb, where do you think the money to build the power stations, water, sewage, and roads came from? Do you think government held a bake sale?

I know where the money came from bozo, selling bonds. Capitalism bozo, not Socialism. It comes down to fiscally responsible government to evaluate funding bridges to no where, or bridges which benefit commerce; it's why putting money into roads and public transportation systems are cost benefit projects, and why corporate welfare is a cost deficit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

That's because welfare defined by the left is allowing people to keep more OF THEIR OWN money. Social welfare is giving people cash from the government. Apples and oranges.

 

[bripat9643]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Government doesn't provide power, moron. Water and sewage and fire protection have been provided privately in many locations. For the most part, security is also provided privately. Most corporations provide their own security. About the only thing police do is give out traffic tickets and file a report after you have been robbed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"
NORTH RANDALL, Ohio - Amazon will bring more than 2,000 jobs to the tiny Cuyahoga County village of North Randall, where a massive fulfillment center is slated to rise from the demolition dust of Randall Park Mall.

The e-commerce giant finalized a lease deal Thursday on a planned 855,000-square-foot building, which could open during the second half of next year on a 69-acre site at Warrensville Center and Emery roads. News of the potential deal broke in July, after the project cropped up on a public meeting agenda. But North Randall was vying against other, unidentified sites.

The North Randall Village Council and the Warrensville Heights Board of Education have approved 15 years of 75 percent property-tax abatement for the Amazon facility. School board records show the village will pass along 33 percent of its income-tax collections from workers at the fulfillment center to the district."

Amazon commits to North Randall fulfillment center, with 2,000-plus jobs on former mall site

"Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly-competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families. Amazon also offers hourly employees its Career Choice program which helps train employees for in-demand jobs at Amazon and other companies so they can prepare for the future and take full advantage of the nation's innovation economy. The program pre-pays 95% of tuition for courses in in-demand, high-wage fields, regardless of whether the skills are relevant to a future career at Amazon. Over 10,000 employees have participated in Career Choice and more are signing up every day."

An Amazon Fulfillment Center Officially Comes to Former Randall Park Mall Site, Needs Workers

Nah, we don't want it. That's the village picking winners......namely the citizens of their village and surrounding areas where those employees will be hired from.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? If so why do they need a special deal on taxes?

The amazon around here doesn't pay much and has lots of turnover btw.

There are several articles on this subject that refutes what you claim.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? Of course it is. Or do you think it's better for business to leave that mall in a pile of rubble?

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower and provide good paying jobs with the best of benefits as the article outlines.

Lots of construction, lots of good paying jobs afterwards, the school system makes out, the taxpayers make out, even the state makes out. The domino effect of companies that provide Amazon with packing materials, trucking, and technology a plus.

Everybody wins, and tax abatements are responsible for it.

You like that government is making these decisions, rather than the market?

States and local governments need to compete to attract business.
Without competition, idiot politicians could create a "sweetened beverage tax", like the assholes in Cook County, and never suffer the consequences of their stupidity and greed.

No, they don't need to compete. If companies want to grow they need to expand and build. Huge companies win, tax payers lose with these deals. Do you pretend to be conservative?

So my city collects three million dollars in taxes every year to support our city. A new business moves in and the city (with abatements) now collects 3.4 million in taxes every year. How did the taxpayer lose?

 

[BluesLegend]

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Holy crap you are dumb, where do you think the money to build the power stations, water, sewage, and roads came from? Do you think government held a bake sale?

I know where the money came from bozo, selling bonds. Capitalism bozo, not Socialism. It comes down to fiscally responsible government to evaluate funding bridges to no where, or bridges which benefit commerce; it's why putting money into roads and public transportation systems are cost benefit projects, and why corporate welfare is a cost deficit.

LOL so instead of going half tard you went full tard. And where did the money to buy the bonds come from? lmao

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Giving them services they don't pay for is welfare.

How much in benefits does a community receive when say a Walmart locates in their area? Or, a distribution hub for Walmart, Amazon or other large corporation?

"
NORTH RANDALL, Ohio - Amazon will bring more than 2,000 jobs to the tiny Cuyahoga County village of North Randall, where a massive fulfillment center is slated to rise from the demolition dust of Randall Park Mall.

The e-commerce giant finalized a lease deal Thursday on a planned 855,000-square-foot building, which could open during the second half of next year on a 69-acre site at Warrensville Center and Emery roads. News of the potential deal broke in July, after the project cropped up on a public meeting agenda. But North Randall was vying against other, unidentified sites.

The North Randall Village Council and the Warrensville Heights Board of Education have approved 15 years of 75 percent property-tax abatement for the Amazon facility. School board records show the village will pass along 33 percent of its income-tax collections from workers at the fulfillment center to the district."

Amazon commits to North Randall fulfillment center, with 2,000-plus jobs on former mall site

"Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly-competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families. Amazon also offers hourly employees its Career Choice program which helps train employees for in-demand jobs at Amazon and other companies so they can prepare for the future and take full advantage of the nation's innovation economy. The program pre-pays 95% of tuition for courses in in-demand, high-wage fields, regardless of whether the skills are relevant to a future career at Amazon. Over 10,000 employees have participated in Career Choice and more are signing up every day."

An Amazon Fulfillment Center Officially Comes to Former Randall Park Mall Site, Needs Workers

Nah, we don't want it. That's the village picking winners......namely the citizens of their village and surrounding areas where those employees will be hired from.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? If so why do they need a special deal on taxes?

The amazon around here doesn't pay much and has lots of turnover btw.

There are several articles on this subject that refutes what you claim.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? Of course it is. Or do you think it's better for business to leave that mall in a pile of rubble?

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower and provide good paying jobs with the best of benefits as the article outlines.

Lots of construction, lots of good paying jobs afterwards, the school system makes out, the taxpayers make out, even the state makes out. The domino effect of companies that provide Amazon with packing materials, trucking, and technology a plus.

Everybody wins, and tax abatements are responsible for it.

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower? Really? So does Walmart get such a good deal? And if Amazon gets a better deal I guess they have lower prices? You really want the gov picking winners and losers?

If it is good for Amazon to build they don't need a special tax deal. The tax payer shouldn't pay for Amazon to expand.

If Amazon were competing with Walmart, that would be true. But it doesn't matter where Amazon builds because they are not opening a store--they're opening up a distribution center. The city makes out with property taxes and new jobs.

The taxpayer pays nothing and if anything, the taxpayer will pay less in the future.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Once again (third, fourth time?) we're not talking about states having different laws. That's fine. What we're talking about is states enforcing those laws unequally. Read up on "rule of law" sometime. (Rule of law - Wikipedia)

When it comes to taxation, the state (or country) can tax who they want when they want. Why do you think smokers and even alcohol drinkers pay more taxes than cola drinkers? It's perfectly legal. The feds do it, the state does it, and in cases such as my city, the county does it. Or do you consider that picking winners and losers too? After all, with the taxes, a can of beer can cost more than a can of Coke. That's unfair to the beer producers.

Nope. Government in the US is Constitutionally limited. It doesn't get to do whatever it wants.

Sure it does. The federal government cannot tell us how much to spend on road repair, new roads, garbage collection, police, fire protection. They cannot tell us who and how we can tax. We assess property taxes based on property value--not by how much a person makes, how many children they have, or how many cars they own.

Wrong again. It's not your money. It's money taken from taxpayers. And because of that, taxpayers are protected from governments that would abuse the power.

They are protected by voting. If taxpayers disapprove of the way money is collected or spent, they vote out the people handling the money. The feds can't tell us what we can or cannot do. If we want to charge $30.00 for a toll road, the feds can't do anything about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the answer is;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

Can you prove it would be $23.50?

Or did you pull that number out of your ass?

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs)

Deducting typical business expenses isn't a subsidy.

Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100%

You already admitted you can't give business a refundable credit for employee expense.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

Most businesses would have a negative tax rate under your plan.

-Make inversion illegal.

With your negative business tax rate, no company would ever invert.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

And run trillions in annual deficits.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

Business assets are already in the economy.

I've already answered and quashed your replies before. Look it up.

Yes, your bad math was on display last time too.

There is nothing wrong with my arithmetic. Your deception is the problem.

Do you work for Koch or the Russians?

There is nothing wrong with my arithmetic.

Huge problems with your math.
No link to a price index to prove your $23.50 is accurate. Because you pulled it out of your ass.

Instead of allowing businesses to deduct employee expenses of over $10 trillion, you want to give them a $10 trillion tax credit. Yes, that will definitely help companies hire workers. Because they can hire and the government pays.

Great idea!! That'll only make the deficit a couple of trillion the first year. DERP!

 

[Wry Catcher]

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

That's because welfare defined by the left is allowing people to keep more OF THEIR OWN money. Social welfare is giving people cash from the government. Apples and oranges.

Another Simple Simon responds with simple explanations to complex issues.

 

[danielpalos]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

We need commodity money for that.

 

[danielpalos]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Most people here are preoccupied with who benefits or loses from these schemes, whether they are a "good investment" etc... But the thing is, in a free market, government isn't supposed to be making these kinds of investments. That's how it works under socialism. Government decides where the data center will be, not the market. The tax-abatement game is government colluding with private industry to share power.

Better (hydro-generating) aqueducts, better (solar power generating) roads, and more well regulated militia.

 

[Aldo Raine]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Government doesn't provide power, moron. Water and sewage and fire protection have been provided privately in many locations. For the most part, security is also provided privately. Most corporations provide their own security. About the only thing police do is give out traffic tickets and file a report after you have been robbed.

There is government money in all those projects. Every single one of them.

 

[bripat9643]

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Government doesn't provide power, moron. Water and sewage and fire protection have been provided privately in many locations. For the most part, security is also provided privately. Most corporations provide their own security. About the only thing police do is give out traffic tickets and file a report after you have been robbed.

There is government money in all those projects. Every single one of them.

Horseshit. Where's the government money in a private fire protection service?

 

[BluesLegend]

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Government doesn't provide power, moron. Water and sewage and fire protection have been provided privately in many locations. For the most part, security is also provided privately. Most corporations provide their own security. About the only thing police do is give out traffic tickets and file a report after you have been robbed.

There is government money in all those projects. Every single one of them.

Government has money? What did they hold a bake sale? No they confiscated money generated by businesses.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Holy crap you are dumb, where do you think the money to build the power stations, water, sewage, and roads came from? Do you think government held a bake sale?

I know where the money came from bozo, selling bonds. Capitalism bozo, not Socialism. It comes down to fiscally responsible government to evaluate funding bridges to no where, or bridges which benefit commerce; it's why putting money into roads and public transportation systems are cost benefit projects, and why corporate welfare is a cost deficit.

LOL so instead of going half tard you went full tard. And where did the money to buy the bonds come from? lmao

Investors bozo, bonds are sold by Municipalities, Special Districts, States, the Feds. If Bush&Co. sold war bonds for the fiasco in Iraq, we might have been able to fulfill some of the domestic needs which have been allowed to rust.