Corporate welfare costs us 3+ times more than welfare for the poor.

[Cal33]

I checked with Google and the very first article showed the following:

1. eRiposte Economy - Tax : Corporate Welfare
Corporate taxes in the United States are essentially near multi-decade lows. ...
spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7
... the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on ...
benefit poor people. -. 2, 3, Facts on. Individual vs. Corporate Welfare ...
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/corporate_welfare.htm

Many people don't know this. I certainly didn't think corporate welfare
was more than 3 times higher than welfare for the poor. I imagine most
of the Republicans don't know this either. If they did, the Republican
Party might lose some of their membership. How do we spread this information
among them - and widely?

[bobbolink]

1. Well, I could ask an obvious question, but would just be labeled "whiny"

[Cal33]

5. Sure you would, and from many of them. But there are also decent

people among them who just don't know the facts. Example: those
who are not especially interested in politics but simply vote
Republican because their families have always done so, just to
get their civic duty out of the way. Some of these might stop
voting, if they only knew.

Even a small number, like 2% or 3% would be of help. Don't you
think?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daleanime]

40. Huh?

I look forward to your posts, don't disagree with you very often.:fistbump:

[bobbolink]

59. Thanks. I'm not sure what you are replying to.. as you see, I can't say anything without it being

deleted.

We'll see how long this one stays.

:hi:

[daleanime]

63. Probably a silly question....

but have you check with the mods for their reasons?O8)



Didn't think there was one myself, but I'm pretty sure that the mods have to look at things differently then I do.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrcheerful]

2. Yes it is known that corporate welfare is 3 times more but the nit wits out there

tend to think that corporate welfare was paid for by the rich so because the rich pay more in taxes they deserve corporate welfare.

[Cal33]

7. So a few of them might be convinced that they have been lied to.

[Cal33]

19. We've got to inform them with the truth that many of the super-rich

use loop-holes and get away with paying little or no taxes. The vast portion
of the burden falls on you and me. As some one recently pointed out here,
the idea of left vs. right is already out-dated and passe. Today iT's a
question of CORPORATIONS VS. YOU AND ME.

[mrcheerful]

22. Come on your talking about the people who shop at Wally world believing they are saving money when

all they are really doing is paying American prices for goods that are a fraction of the prices that the Chinese make then for or sell the same products for in China, if they are allowed to buy those cheap products they make that is, after all the Chinese government tells it's people what they can and can't have. Btw, these folks that your talking about convincing live in an unknown reality made up in their own minds, it is like trying to teach a christian science when science contradicts their christian beliefs, they aren't going to listen.

[Cal33]

24. I agree that what you say is true about the vast majority of these

people. But I'm talking about the smaller percentage of those who
really are not into politics. They simply are not interested, and
so know little or nothing of what's really going on. We all have
areas of knowledge in which we are not interested, and to which we
pay no attention or care to learn about. It's not possible for us
to be interested in everything.

The above people, if they vote at all, do so only to fulfill their
sense of having done their civic duty. They just vote the way
their families have always voted, without really knowing what they
are voting for, or against. These are the ones I am talking
about. If these people became informed of the truth, the fair-minded
ones, however small a percentage they may represent, would vote
differenly.

I had such a friend who had always voted Republican until I explained
to him. He voted Democratic that year. This was long ago. He has
passed on since. He was a fair-minded person, but never was interested
in politics until the day he died.

[mrcheerful]

27. See I never run into those type of people everyone I know is either a hard core R or a hard

core D. But then again after some on line battles with R's and trying to talk to R ex friends, though I did have a ex friend that would listen and agree with me, he always ended up voting R because his dad scared him into it by telling him crap he learned from the 700 club, then complain when he realized that dad was wrong about the R's. I broke off the friendship in 95 because he was causing to much drama about how life wasn't fair.

edited to say sorry lost my train of thought on the point I was attempting to make.

[Pharaoh]

3. ya think?

:toast:

[Cal33]

8. I hope. And there's no harm in trying. If we didn't try, we'll never know.

[mediaman007]

4. How do we get current or more current data?

These figures are from the 90's, and I know that the Republicans certainly didn't make the taxes tighter during the Bush* years. But, still, I would like to have more current data.

[Cal33]

11. Just google "Does welfare for the rich cost us more than welfare for the poor?"

There are over 100,000 articles. On the first page there is one by
Bill Press, dated Aug. 27, 2010. I read it very quickly just now,
and didn't come across any specific figures. But, if there is any
difference, I think it would be worse today than it was 10 years ago.

[liberal N proud]

9. But the poor don't donate to campaign funds.

[bobbolink]

15. Right there is a reason to get rid of us.

[The Uncola]

21. The truth doesn't ...

... sit well with the Corporatists. Careful.

[DJ13]

10. I wish that site was updated

Most of the stats are from 2002 or earlier.

[Cal33]

12. Just read post #11.

[DJ13]

14. I agree it would probably be worse

I was just looking for solid, more up to date ammo to throw in the faces of cons that post on other boards I frequent.

:patriot:

[xchrom]

13. Recommend

[msongs]

17. that's nothing compared to military welfare .... nt

[L0oniX]

18. ...not to mention the wars.

[The Uncola]

20. k&r

[blindpig]

23. Well, of course....

it's not as though they own the government for our benefit. Any politician with marginal competence knows this, it is the sea they swim in.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. I'm Surprised It's That Small A Multiple

I would think there's more involved in "corporate welfare" than is included in your cite. Things like propping up defense contractors for weaponry we no longer need because they're "too big to fail" are not likely in the mix in your listed source.

So, that is probably a cautiously low estimate of "corporate welfare" spending. The gap between this form and the form helping low income folks is probably even greater.
GAC

[Cal33]

29. I think you are right, Professor. This cite is an old one, from the

mid-1990s. Today things have grown much worse. And, I don't think the military
expenditures were taken into consideration at all.

[truedelphi]

33. Thank you for this discussion.

Too bad our buddies in corporate media don't touch it.

[Cal33]

43. Thank you!

[laughingliberal]

26. K & R nt

[xchrom]

28. Kick

[Scurrilous]

30. K & R

:thumbsup:

[lonestarnot]

31. Just "small bidness" assistance.

[truedelphi]

32. Uh, not sure they want the word on this to get out there.

SHH!!!

[ck4829]

34. K&R

[Panaconda]

35. K&R n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. But, their stooges, the politicians, tell us it's good for us.

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same." - Marie Beyle

[Brewman_Jax]

37. If the corporations paid a fraction of the taxes they owed

there probably wouldn't be a deficit that has to be made up by the individual taxpayers.

[Klukie]

38. Wish i could rec a million times

Thanks for this

[Cal33]

39. You're welcome, and Thank You.

[liberation]

41. They're off by a few orders of magnitude...

... most of the budget for the Pentagon is basically a big welfare scheme for the MIC. So it is even worse than that...

[Cal33]

45. You are right. The info is rather out-dated - from the mid-1990s. We

all know that things are far worse today than they were then.

[liberation]

48. Indeed...

... add the recent corporate bailouts to the mix, and now we're talking real money.

But I am sure the right will continue focusing on blaming it all on some mythical "welfare queen" who stiffed the government for a few dollars so that she can drive around the Bronx in a Cadillac... while totally ignoring the private planes carrying all those banksters or military contractors that got literally billions of our money for "free."

When you see the differential in the magnitude of the numbers is just mind blowing, it illustrates how good these vermin are at controlling the message and play their usual "divide and conquer" games. Oh, well....

[tclambert]

42. Corporate welfare is anti-competitive, anti-free market.

If Republicans are for it, then they are not for free markets or competitive markets.

Remember that number: $167 billion for corporate welfare. Use it in conversation.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. You Mean That They Say One Thing And Do Another?!?!?

I am so shocked! Please say it ain't so!

The most recent crop of republicans have acted one way and said somethign else since the late 70's.

They mean almost nothing of what they say, and say nothing about what they really mean.
GAC

[liberation]

49. There has never been a 'free market'

Let's not kid ourselves.

Also you need to add the $700 billion from TARP, and the almost $1 trillion the Fed had to issue to cover all those toxic assets.

[Lasher]

46. The Republicans won't be influenced by this.

They are completely sold on the idea of voting against their own interests.

[Greyhound]

47. I'd be surprised if it was only three times as much.

Going to read the article to see how/what they calculated.
:kick: & R

[Cal33]

67. The information I obtained is dated, stemming from the mid-1990s.

I did not find in newer articles the stunning figures and statistics, but we all
know that things have become far worse over the past 15 years. Hope you'll be
able to find some posts testifying to same.

[Greyhound]

69. Digging up that information is not easy for professionals with the resources to

access a lot of data unavailable to us net-surfing freeloaders. Then there is the whole problem of defining and identifying corporate welfare. Things like the DoD wildly over-paying for the simplest equipment, the myriad sweetheart deals brokered by "our" legislators, practices that would be blatantly illegal except for some obscure legislation that protects the recipients from prosecution,

Then getting around the inevitable 'national security' bugaboo that serves to hide almost everything today. It would require a series of FOIA requests and probably months of research just to begin seeing the whole picture.

Just from my meager personal experiences I've seen things that shocked me but have been standard practice for generations.

I think there's an excellent book in here somewhere.

[Cal33]

71. Many thanks, anyway.

[drmeow]

50. I was "informed"

by a typical nasty right wing undergraduate who defaced my door in grad school because I had a cartoon criticizing corporate welfare on my door (not a direct quote ... I believe the exact text included both grammatical and/or spelling errors and profanity ... but that pretty much goes without saying):

"They're tax breaks, they generate revenue"

Which just goes to show that those who do pay attention have bought the "rich create jobs" trickle down BS they've been fed for years.

[bbgrunt]

51. and yet, when Robert Reich in the first term of

Clinton made a statement to the press about "corporate welfare" he was taken to the woodshed and never again mentioned those words. It is no wonder that people are unaware.

[Cal33]

70. I don't remember the event. I suppose Clinton could have been

the only one to have taken Robert Reich "to the woodshed." If so, I wonder where Clinton's beliefs
lay, as far as helping the rich to become richer is concerned.

[GreenTea]

52. K&R!

:kick:

Corporations making tens of billions in profit and still receive billions in government welfare they call "subsidies" and give the slimy filthy republicans millions of dollars in hidden campaign money - and they same corporations and republicans fight tooth & nail against unemployment insurance, Social Security and decent health care for all.

This is and has been republican ideology and always will be republican ideology - Giving OUR tax dollars to corporations greed over the peoples needs by using OUR fucking tax dollars to subsidies them.

[GreenTea]

53. Corporations like Exxon making Billions in PROFIT & still receive government subsidies (WELFARE)

Corporations making tens of billions in profit and still receive billions in government welfare they call "subsidies" and give the slimy filthy republicans millions of dollars in hidden campaign money - and they same corporations and republicans fight tooth & nail against unemployment insurance, Social Security and decent health care for all.

How can anyone vote republican - This is and has been republican ideology and always will be republican ideology - Giving OUR tax dollars to corporations greed over the peoples needs by using OUR fucking tax dollars to subsidies them.

[Cal33]

64. These guys are sickos. They can't help themselves, but they can

do a lot of damage. And we also have the right to protect ourselves.
Please read Post #60. It might help to explain a little.

[treestar]

55. Yet Republicans have no problem with it

Or its effect on the deficit. Strange, that.

[Cal33]

60. It's not strange at all when you consider that a high percentage of

the higher-up corporate executives are psychopaths.

Psychopaths are people with antisocial personalities. Their characteristics are:
people with defective consciences, charming personalities used to disarm others
in order to deceive and use them for their own benefit. They can also lie with
impunity, are greedy, selfish, inordinately aggressive and love to have others
under their control. They have no empathy for those in need, pain or misery.
Some of them are also sadists. Nothing bothers them, as long as they can
benefit or profit in one way or another. In a sense they can't be blamed for
being the way they are. Can a sick person be blamed for being sick? These
people are mentally ill.

There are some professions to which psychopaths feel especially attracted --
corporate executives and politicians -- because these are the exact places in
which their drives can best be met: their need for power over others and
insatiable greed. They, of course, can be found in all professions. About 4%
of the general population is psychopathic, but I'm willing to bet that more
than 4% are found in these two professions. Not that all of them are psychopaths.
Many of them are decent people.

In any business company, who are the ones most likely to get promoted? Those
who make the most money for the company. And those who are the most ruthless
in their business dealings, and are smart enough to get away with it, are
the ones most likely to make the most money and climb their way up the corporate
ladder.

I think we have too many psychopaths holding high positions -- both in the
business world and in government. That, I believe, is why our world is in the
chaotic situation we now are having.

We've got to have fewer psychopaths in positions of power and responsibility.
If we don't, we'll be sunk. It seems we already are half way there.

[RepublicanElephant]

56. thanks for this info! nt

[Cal33]

65. You're welcome. And thank you.

[Naturyl]

57. They know, and they don't care.

Welfare is only bad when it goes to poor people.

[Cal33]

62. They can't help being the way they are. One of the ways in dealing with them is to have

corporations under strict supervision. Please read post #60.

[Sparkly]

58. It can't be personified for the same emotional impact, though.

Not the emotional impact of compassion for needy children -- the emotional impact of anger at "lazy people."

They can't see corporations OR wealthy individuals as undeserving. Hell, if they're rich, they're deserving, right? They must have worked HARD!!

Never mind that poor people can work two jobs, doing truly hard work (cleaning rich people's floors for instance), and can't make ends meet -- they're "lazy."

Never mind that people with physical disabilities would love to trade places with the Republicans who whine about working and paying in -- they're "lazy."

Never mind that children are a huge percentage of the poor, along with their single mothers -- no abortions, no paying for childcare, no help because the kids chose the wrong parents, who are "lazy."

It hits a nerve, and that's what works. What we spent on KBR in Iraq means nothing to them. :crazy:

[Cal33]

66. Psychopaths don't respond to kindness, they only take advantage

of it as a weakness. Honor, patriotism are words they will twist around into
something they can turn into profit of some kind. They only respond to their
own greed. They bribe and are conducive to being bribed. That's one.
The second thng they respect is fear of retaliation or punishment of some kind.

Obama's big mistake is trying so hard to offer them bipartisanship. If he
had accepted it, they'd only continue to work for his distruction -- from the
inside. That's exacly what happened to the old-timer Republicans, whom the
Neoncons joined some 40 years agp. After some decades, they succeeded in usurping
the powe of the old Republican leadership, expelled them, but were smart
enough to continue using the Republican name. All this was done quietly, Many
uninformed old-timer Repubs. still think they are "voing Republican." These never
knew that a coup had taken place.

Obama doesn't know how lucky he was when the Neocons rejected his offer of
bipatisanship time and again.

Their treachery, like their greed, knows no bounds. That is the normal
behavior of a psychopath.

[handmade34]

61. rec

and to put in simplistic terms... our taxes that go towards the "welfare" of less weathy people, not only gives them opportunity but 100% goes out into the money cycle (supporting business) that we all depend on. ...very healthy for our economy

[Cal33]

73. What you say is true, but the corporatists don't want the economy

of our nation to be strong -- at least, not yet. They seem to prefer to grab as much of the loot
as possible for themselves, impoverishing the rest of the nation in the process, so that when
the average American has suffered from poverty long enough, he'd be glad to accept jobs at
whatever low compensation the corporatists think they could eke out a living on. They'd become
more docile and thus be more easily manipulated. In short, the corporatist would become
the masters, and the average American their servants. Our nation will no longer be a domocracy,
but will have become a plutocracy.

The corporatists and neocons are like Al Capones. All we need is to have Al Capones for our leaders!!

The only way is to vote such politicians out of office, and have strict laws with no loops-holes
carrying out strict supervision over the dealings of the corporatists.

We've got to go out and vote in three weeks, and make sure that there will be none of the vote-rigging
by the Neocons that's been carried on more and more openly since the time of Reagan.

[defendandprotect]

68. Our costs for the welfare safety net have always been miniscule... and probably less now!

[Cal33]

72. Well, in 1996 welfare for the poor amounted to $51.7 billion, and

corporate welfare amounted to $167 billion. Is $51.7 billion "miniscule" to you?

[mmonk]

74. Corporate welfare comes in many shades.

Tax cuts and depressed wages by design through policy is another. And the lower the wage, the higher it will be to keep the poor viable short of letting them die out.