Corporate Welfare

[Brackis]

As the originator of this thread I will hold off on throwing in my two cents (and facts) on this topic, but wanted to bring it up. I will say that I don't like it, but want to keep this objective to start.
If you do not know what corporate welfare is, look it up before posting please.

Agree with it? Disagree? Don't understand? Rant?

Go ahead

 

[Rhin0]

Do they really need it? I don't think they all need it. Would be better to make a fund to help companies who have had a string of bad luck. Maybe they could pay it back in some way eventually.

I guess this could include farm subsidies also. While a little bit different they are kinda one in the same. I know that if you took them away when farmers couldn't make it at all due to the cheap products becoming available from other places. But there are a lot farms that take advantage of it and are no different than your typical welfare whore.

 

[Cerb]

Be rid of it.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The idea of corporations gating welfare is a well-designed argumentative tool by the left to call any direct economic stimulus ?welfare?

If it was really just paying corporations more money than they paid in taxes, simply because they exist, then I?d be against it to.

But it?s not.

 

[sandorski]

Corporate Welfare is sometimes necessary, such as the Airlines after 9/11. The major problem with it is how Corporate Welfare seems ok to some while Welfare for disadvantaged citizens is not. Corporate Welfare is far more Costly in $ terms than the more controversial Welfare.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Corporate Welfare is sometimes necessary, such as the Airlines after 9/11. The major problem with it is how Corporate Welfare seems ok to some while Welfare for disadvantaged citizens is not. Corporate Welfare is far more Costly in $ terms than the more controversial Welfare.

It's generally good because it trickles down to the common man. Without it, corporations would be forced to use more "efficient" means of getting by. That efficiency usually calls for getting rid of redundant workers.

Welfare for the poor does very little for them. In fact, it can be detrimental because it gives them a false sense of security, while doing little for the long term. It'd be better if that welfare went towards education cause that's the key to getting out of the slums.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski
Corporate Welfare is sometimes necessary, such as the Airlines after 9/11. The major problem with it is how Corporate Welfare seems ok to some while Welfare for disadvantaged citizens is not. Corporate Welfare is far more Costly in $ terms than the more controversial Welfare.

It's generally good because it trickles down to the common man. Without it, corporations would be forced to use more "efficient" means of getting by. That efficiency usually calls for getting rid of redundant workers.

Welfare for the poor does very little for them. In fact, it can be detrimental because it gives them a false sense of security, while doing little for the long term. It'd be better if that welfare went towards education cause that's the key to getting out of the slums.

Disagree somewhat on the first point, it's partially true, but not enough to warrant extensive use of it. The second point is way off base. Yes, Education would help a lot, but not at the expense of Welfare. Starving, Homeless, Rag wearing Students don't learn well.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski
Corporate Welfare is sometimes necessary, such as the Airlines after 9/11. The major problem with it is how Corporate Welfare seems ok to some while Welfare for disadvantaged citizens is not. Corporate Welfare is far more Costly in $ terms than the more controversial Welfare.

It's generally good because it trickles down to the common man. Without it, corporations would be forced to use more "efficient" means of getting by. That efficiency usually calls for getting rid of redundant workers.

Welfare for the poor does very little for them. In fact, it can be detrimental because it gives them a false sense of security, while doing little for the long term. It'd be better if that welfare went towards education cause that's the key to getting out of the slums.

I do not think much trickles down to the common man. It might if there were strings attached to prohibit outsourcing overseas. As it is, corporate welfare trickles down to the bottom line.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski
Corporate Welfare is sometimes necessary, such as the Airlines after 9/11. The major problem with it is how Corporate Welfare seems ok to some while Welfare for disadvantaged citizens is not. Corporate Welfare is far more Costly in $ terms than the more controversial Welfare.

It's generally good because it trickles down to the common man. Without it, corporations would be forced to use more "efficient" means of getting by. That efficiency usually calls for getting rid of redundant workers.

Welfare for the poor does very little for them. In fact, it can be detrimental because it gives them a false sense of security, while doing little for the long term. It'd be better if that welfare went towards education cause that's the key to getting out of the slums.

Disagree somewhat on the first point, it's partially true, but not enough to warrant extensive use of it. The second point is way off base. Yes, Education would help a lot, but not at the expense of Welfare. Starving, Homeless, Rag wearing Students don't learn well.

Well, anything that benelovent is going to get abused, so I don't understand what the primacy of this discussion is? We can always make more detailed laws so as to weed out any abuse, but more will always sprout somewhere else.

Again, welfare, corporate or individual, is good but should only be temporary. While I will acknowledge that corporations have an army of lawyers and accounants to take advantage of the situatiion, it doesn't make it right for individuals to abuse it. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, the corporate version has a trickle-down effect that benefits more. The individual version should be short-term and force the recipient to learn skills that can get him/her off it ASAP.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski
Corporate Welfare is sometimes necessary, such as the Airlines after 9/11. The major problem with it is how Corporate Welfare seems ok to some while Welfare for disadvantaged citizens is not. Corporate Welfare is far more Costly in $ terms than the more controversial Welfare.

It's generally good because it trickles down to the common man. Without it, corporations would be forced to use more "efficient" means of getting by. That efficiency usually calls for getting rid of redundant workers.

Welfare for the poor does very little for them. In fact, it can be detrimental because it gives them a false sense of security, while doing little for the long term. It'd be better if that welfare went towards education cause that's the key to getting out of the slums.

Disagree somewhat on the first point, it's partially true, but not enough to warrant extensive use of it. The second point is way off base. Yes, Education would help a lot, but not at the expense of Welfare. Starving, Homeless, Rag wearing Students don't learn well.

Well, anything that benelovent is going to get abused, so I don't understand what the primacy of this discussion is? We can always make more detailed laws so as to weed out any abuse, but more will always sprout somewhere else.

Again, welfare, corporate or individual, is good but should only be temporary. While I will acknowledge that corporations have an army of lawyers and accounants to take advantage of the situatiion, it doesn't make it right for individuals to abuse it. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, the corporate version has a trickle-down effect that benefits more. The individual version should be short-term and force the recipient to learn skills that can get him/her off it ASAP.

I think all agree that Abuse of either should not be tolerated. How exactly "Abuse" is defined is a sticky point, though length of time certainly has something to do with it(not exclusively though)

 

[Brackis]

Please keep this on the topic of Corporate Welfare, just because two things have the word welfare in them doesn't mean they follow the same policies or have the same intent.

 

[Dissipate]

Corporate welfare is just socialism. End of story.