Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do we have to constantly remind the left that their guy is in the white house? A part of the ironically named "affordable care act" stipulates that billions of taxpayer dollars are authorized to prop up cooperative insurance companies. All republicans want to do is put food stamp recipients to work but it seems the democrat party and the radical left would rather support them with chump change stamps.
OP: Okay...'the rich' do not receive subsidies. Certain factions, who are often rich, receive subsidies. You make it sound like subsidies are automatic for the rich.
Though, I will agree that at times Republicans distort welfare and use it as a scapegoat issue. All that said, Dems and Republicans are both reckless spenders at the end of the day.
I never said subsidies was the only way to get rich.
OP: Okay...'the rich' do not receive subsidies. Certain factions, who are often rich, receive subsidies. You make it sound like subsidies are automatic for the rich.
Though, I will agree that at times Republicans distort welfare and use it as a scapegoat issue. All that said, Dems and Republicans are both reckless spenders at the end of the day.
I never said subsidies was the only way to get rich.
"You make it sound like" directly lends itself to saying you are not explicitly saying something.
I never said subsidies was the only way to get rich.
"You make it sound like" directly lends itself to saying you are not explicitly saying something.
You really shouldn't have come away with that assumption.
But I didn't say that subsides come in the form of tax breaks. Tax breaks are tax breaks, not subsidies.I have to say that your definition of what is truly a subsidy and what is not is substantially weak.I have to say the USMB rightwing response so far is pretty weak.
I'm not sure you do. Go ahead. Educate me.
To say subsidies come in the form of tax breaks only is complete bullshit. My source proves that.
But I didn't say that subsides come in the form of tax breaks. Tax breaks are tax breaks, not subsidies.I have to say that your definition of what is truly a subsidy and what is not is substantially weak.
I'm not sure you do. Go ahead. Educate me.
To say subsidies come in the form of tax breaks only is complete bullshit. My source proves that.
Subsidies are in-kind payments to do or not do something, regardless of your tax situation.
Your source lies on purpose.
The truth of the matter is that the wealthy receive enormous gov assistance through subsidies. The poor on the other hand get peanuts.
Let's start with the poor and SNAP (food stamps).
The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a month. The average SNAP recipient has a gross income of $744 a MONTH per household. 76% of households have at least one dependent living there. 83% of households receiving SNAP are below the poverty line. The other 17 are at the poverty line or make 130% of the poverty line. And despite what you cons like to believe, food stamps fraud is RARE.
All the sobering facts on food stamps are here.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
Now the wealthy. Oh boy.
1) corporations receive $80 billion a year through state and local subsidies.
2) Federal subsidies for corporations cost TAX PAYERS 100 billion a year.
3) The official tax rate for corporations is 35%. However, because of tax breaks, corporations only pay 13% a year in taxes.
4) wealthy hedge fund managers cost tax payers 83 billion a year.
5) subsidies for fast food companies cost tax payers 243 billion a year.
6) deductions for mortgage cost tax payers 70 billion a year. 77% of this funding goes to income earners of 100,000 a year or more.
Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
The more facts we learn, the more realize just how much bullshit republicanism really is.
Tax breaks are considered subsides by whom?But I didn't say that subsides come in the form of tax breaks. Tax breaks are tax breaks, not subsidies.I'm not sure you do. Go ahead. Educate me.
To say subsidies come in the form of tax breaks only is complete bullshit. My source proves that.
Subsidies are in-kind payments to do or not do something, regardless of your tax situation.
Your source lies on purpose.
No, tax breaks are considered subsidies.
But I didn't say that subsides come in the form of tax breaks. Tax breaks are tax breaks, not subsidies.I'm not sure you do. Go ahead. Educate me.
To say subsidies come in the form of tax breaks only is complete bullshit. My source proves that.
Subsidies are in-kind payments to do or not do something, regardless of your tax situation.
Your source lies on purpose.
No, tax breaks are considered subsidies.
Alot of the poor are dumb, and lazy who generate more of the same - the cycle needs to be broken. Rewarding it only encourages more. That money could be better used than to perpetuate misery.
Liberal's faux concern for the poor is political. None of your elitist have poor friendsYour full of shit
Liberals are way less charitable than conservatives - you are only liberal with other people's money
The truth of the matter is that the wealthy receive enormous gov assistance through subsidies. The poor on the other hand get peanuts.
Let's start with the poor and SNAP (food stamps).
The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a month. The average SNAP recipient has a gross income of $744 a MONTH per household. 76% of households have at least one dependent living there. 83% of households receiving SNAP are below the poverty line. The other 17 are at the poverty line or make 130% of the poverty line. And despite what you cons like to believe, food stamps fraud is RARE.
All the sobering facts on food stamps are here.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
Now the wealthy. Oh boy.
1) corporations receive $80 billion a year through state and local subsidies.
2) Federal subsidies for corporations cost TAX PAYERS 100 billion a year.
3) The official tax rate for corporations is 35%. However, because of tax breaks, corporations only pay 13% a year in taxes.
4) wealthy hedge fund managers cost tax payers 83 billion a year.
5) subsidies for fast food companies cost tax payers 243 billion a year.
6) deductions for mortgage cost tax payers 70 billion a year. 77% of this funding goes to income earners of 100,000 a year or more.
Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
The more facts we learn, the more realize just how much bullshit republicanism really is.
Let me take a crack at this one. First, I must say, you do bring up some good points. As a former liberal, these are the exact type of arguments I would have made.
Here are a few thoughts:
Subsidies: First, this isn't always a left/right issue. Liberals are much more supportive of the ethanol subsidy, for example, while conservatives often support more in agriculture subsidies(though not always; see 1994 Contract with America)
Note this: Corporations pay around $300 billion in federal taxes. The subsidies, in general, reduce their total tax burden as opposed to the business being a net loss for government funds. So these businesses are still producing revenue for the government.
And I think there's a key ideological difference here....I believe that this money belongs to the business and the government's "fair share" is 0........but since taxes are the price of any society, they need to be levied, but should be kept as minimal as possible. If that includes subsidies, I'm OK with that. But I'd MUCH prefer eliminating the subsidies and replacing it with a flat corporate tax of say, 5%. You believe it's a "loss" when this money doesn't go to the government......but I don't think that the government is entitled to a business's money in the first place, except for the bare necessities of government.
With regards to the effective corporate tax rate, it is true that some companies, like GE, use some of Obama's corporate subsidies and pay nothing in corporate taxes and sometimes get money back(GE is a super rarity though due to its insane tax-credit-chasing). However, it's still higher overall than countries like Ireland and Hong Kong, and many entrepreneurs are on record saying this makes them less likely to HQ here in America.
Fast food-I assume you're talking about welfare here. I'd just want to point out that people working here would likely make the same or even less working at a "small business" of some sort as opposed to a chain. In fact, small businesses generally give lower wages than chains like Wal Mart. They're just low-skilled workers.
The truth of the matter is that the wealthy receive enormous gov assistance through subsidies. The poor on the other hand get peanuts.
Let's start with the poor and SNAP (food stamps).
The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a month. The average SNAP recipient has a gross income of $744 a MONTH per household. 76% of households have at least one dependent living there. 83% of households receiving SNAP are below the poverty line. The other 17 are at the poverty line or make 130% of the poverty line. And despite what you cons like to believe, food stamps fraud is RARE.
All the sobering facts on food stamps are here.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
Now the wealthy. Oh boy.
1) corporations receive $80 billion a year through state and local subsidies.
2) Federal subsidies for corporations cost TAX PAYERS 100 billion a year.
3) The official tax rate for corporations is 35%. However, because of tax breaks, corporations only pay 13% a year in taxes.
Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Umm, just a simple math question here but how is it people on welfare not paying anything into the tax system somehow get less in subsidies than the people actually paying into the system?
So you're saying people actually paying into the system getting a few dollars back is somehow hurting people that pay nothing and rely on the system for their lively hood?
Subsidies to corporations (which aren't subsidies they are tax breaks for expanding or research) to the tune of 100 billion a year. After they paid the tax revenue of 1.5 trillion is somehow worse than someone paying in nothing and getting $133.00 per month. By the way, there are several million taking the $133.00 a month and not so many paying the taxes to support that.
Here's your homework for the evening.
Work out the math of how many can possibly survive on just a few people paying to support them. Even if you take 100% of these corporations money you still lose not only an employer and their employees but all the revenue you so desperately desire for the poor.
Look it over and let me know what you come up with.
I have to say this is a very feeble argument. Food stamps cost 75 billion a year which is nothing compared to what the wealthy get. Do you honestly believe that corporations need all of this assistance?
Oh and anyone making $766 a month shouldn't pay taxes. If you want them to, raise the minimum wage. Everybody wins.
Umm, just a simple math question here but how is it people on welfare not paying anything into the tax system somehow get less in subsidies than the people actually paying into the system?
So you're saying people actually paying into the system getting a few dollars back is somehow hurting people that pay nothing and rely on the system for their lively hood?
Subsidies to corporations (which aren't subsidies they are tax breaks for expanding or research) to the tune of 100 billion a year. After they paid the tax revenue of 1.5 trillion is somehow worse than someone paying in nothing and getting $133.00 per month. By the way, there are several million taking the $133.00 a month and not so many paying the taxes to support that.
Here's your homework for the evening.
Work out the math of how many can possibly survive on just a few people paying to support them. Even if you take 100% of these corporations money you still lose not only an employer and their employees but all the revenue you so desperately desire for the poor.
Look it over and let me know what you come up with.
I have to say this is a very feeble argument. Food stamps cost 75 billion a year which is nothing compared to what the wealthy get. Do you honestly believe that corporations need all of this assistance?
Oh and anyone making $766 a month shouldn't pay taxes. If you want them to, raise the minimum wage. Everybody wins.
So fucken sick of you morons equating welfare benefits to non producing individuals with corporations that supply jobs to millions.
No matter how many times you try to do so....still not the same,so just stop with that bullshit,it's really getting tiresome.
The truth of the matter is that the wealthy receive enormous gov assistance through subsidies. The poor on the other hand get peanuts.
Let's start with the poor and SNAP (food stamps).
The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a month. The average SNAP recipient has a gross income of $744 a MONTH per household. 76% of households have at least one dependent living there. 83% of households receiving SNAP are below the poverty line. The other 17 are at the poverty line or make 130% of the poverty line. And despite what you cons like to believe, food stamps fraud is RARE.
All the sobering facts on food stamps are here.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
Now the wealthy. Oh boy.
1) corporations receive $80 billion a year through state and local subsidies.
2) Federal subsidies for corporations cost TAX PAYERS 100 billion a year.
3) The official tax rate for corporations is 35%. However, because of tax breaks, corporations only pay 13% a year in taxes.
4) wealthy hedge fund managers cost tax payers 83 billion a year.
5) subsidies for fast food companies cost tax payers 243 billion a year.
6) deductions for mortgage cost tax payers 70 billion a year. 77% of this funding goes to income earners of 100,000 a year or more.
Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
The more facts we learn, the more realize just how much bullshit republicanism really is.
Let me take a crack at this one. First, I must say, you do bring up some good points. As a former liberal, these are the exact type of arguments I would have made.
Here are a few thoughts:
Subsidies: First, this isn't always a left/right issue. Liberals are much more supportive of the ethanol subsidy, for example, while conservatives often support more in agriculture subsidies(though not always; see 1994 Contract with America)
Note this: Corporations pay around $300 billion in federal taxes. The subsidies, in general, reduce their total tax burden as opposed to the business being a net loss for government funds. So these businesses are still producing revenue for the government.
And I think there's a key ideological difference here....I believe that this money belongs to the business and the government's "fair share" is 0........but since taxes are the price of any society, they need to be levied, but should be kept as minimal as possible. If that includes subsidies, I'm OK with that. But I'd MUCH prefer eliminating the subsidies and replacing it with a flat corporate tax of say, 5%. You believe it's a "loss" when this money doesn't go to the government......but I don't think that the government is entitled to a business's money in the first place, except for the bare necessities of government.
With regards to the effective corporate tax rate, it is true that some companies, like GE, use some of Obama's corporate subsidies and pay nothing in corporate taxes and sometimes get money back(GE is a super rarity though due to its insane tax-credit-chasing). However, it's still higher overall than countries like Ireland and Hong Kong, and many entrepreneurs are on record saying this makes them less likely to HQ here in America.
Fast food-I assume you're talking about welfare here. I'd just want to point out that people working here would likely make the same or even less working at a "small business" of some sort as opposed to a chain. In fact, small businesses generally give lower wages than chains like Wal Mart. They're just low-skilled workers.
I appreciate your concession, but I very much disagree about the tax polices. Given the amount of government spending necessary to keep this country functional, people NEED to be taxed. I will agree there is government waste but I'm sure we disagree on what is waste and what is not.
Let me take a crack at this one. First, I must say, you do bring up some good points. As a former liberal, these are the exact type of arguments I would have made.
Here are a few thoughts:
Subsidies: First, this isn't always a left/right issue. Liberals are much more supportive of the ethanol subsidy, for example, while conservatives often support more in agriculture subsidies(though not always; see 1994 Contract with America)
Note this: Corporations pay around $300 billion in federal taxes. The subsidies, in general, reduce their total tax burden as opposed to the business being a net loss for government funds. So these businesses are still producing revenue for the government.
And I think there's a key ideological difference here....I believe that this money belongs to the business and the government's "fair share" is 0........but since taxes are the price of any society, they need to be levied, but should be kept as minimal as possible. If that includes subsidies, I'm OK with that. But I'd MUCH prefer eliminating the subsidies and replacing it with a flat corporate tax of say, 5%. You believe it's a "loss" when this money doesn't go to the government......but I don't think that the government is entitled to a business's money in the first place, except for the bare necessities of government.
With regards to the effective corporate tax rate, it is true that some companies, like GE, use some of Obama's corporate subsidies and pay nothing in corporate taxes and sometimes get money back(GE is a super rarity though due to its insane tax-credit-chasing). However, it's still higher overall than countries like Ireland and Hong Kong, and many entrepreneurs are on record saying this makes them less likely to HQ here in America.
Fast food-I assume you're talking about welfare here. I'd just want to point out that people working here would likely make the same or even less working at a "small business" of some sort as opposed to a chain. In fact, small businesses generally give lower wages than chains like Wal Mart. They're just low-skilled workers.
I appreciate your concession, but I very much disagree about the tax polices. Given the amount of government spending necessary to keep this country functional, people NEED to be taxed. I will agree there is government waste but I'm sure we disagree on what is waste and what is not.
Your problem is you've drank the kool aid on what government functions are necessary. Your dear leader just unveiled a 4 trillion dollar budget, do you know we didn't spend 1 trillion in one year till 1987? 211 years to spend the first trillion in a year, now we got your mulatto messiah asking for 4 trillion only 27 years later, with an additional 1 trillion in new taxes. We have fewer people working and more people taking, who is going to pay the bills? Wake the fuck up, your fantasy world won't work.
I appreciate your concession, but I very much disagree about the tax polices. Given the amount of government spending necessary to keep this country functional, people NEED to be taxed. I will agree there is government waste but I'm sure we disagree on what is waste and what is not.
Your problem is you've drank the kool aid on what government functions are necessary. Your dear leader just unveiled a 4 trillion dollar budget, do you know we didn't spend 1 trillion in one year till 1987? 211 years to spend the first trillion in a year, now we got your mulatto messiah asking for 4 trillion only 27 years later, with an additional 1 trillion in new taxes. We have fewer people working and more people taking, who is going to pay the bills? Wake the fuck up, your fantasy world won't work.
Hey guess what Obama's biggest expense is? Defense. That is the kind of spending you repubs love.
I have to say this is a very feeble argument. Food stamps cost 75 billion a year which is nothing compared to what the wealthy get. Do you honestly believe that corporations need all of this assistance?
Oh and anyone making $766 a month shouldn't pay taxes. If you want them to, raise the minimum wage. Everybody wins.
So fucken sick of you morons equating welfare benefits to non producing individuals with corporations that supply jobs to millions.
No matter how many times you try to do so....still not the same,so just stop with that bullshit,it's really getting tiresome.
Lol someone has problem with facts that don't confirm their bias.
I'm all for higher wages. Raising the minimum wage is the only way to alleviate poverty.
Your problem is you've drank the kool aid on what government functions are necessary. Your dear leader just unveiled a 4 trillion dollar budget, do you know we didn't spend 1 trillion in one year till 1987? 211 years to spend the first trillion in a year, now we got your mulatto messiah asking for 4 trillion only 27 years later, with an additional 1 trillion in new taxes. We have fewer people working and more people taking, who is going to pay the bills? Wake the fuck up, your fantasy world won't work.
Hey guess what Obama's biggest expense is? Defense. That is the kind of spending you repubs love.
You know why, it's the primary constitutional federal function, unlike the majority of the alphabet agencies that have no place in a constitutional government. Now you want to answer my questions?
Hey guess what Obama's biggest expense is? Defense. That is the kind of spending you repubs love.
You know why, it's the primary constitutional federal function, unlike the majority of the alphabet agencies that have no place in a constitutional government. Now you want to answer my questions?
Which is why it is stupid to criticize him for his spending policies.
Why should I answer your questions? They are completely unrelated to this thread lol. How about you address the info in the OP first?
