Do you work for a corporation? If not what do you do?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Welfare has a return. The mothers getting welfare are raisng future Americans, your fellow citizens.
The benefits of military build up and space program are much more questionable.

The benefit from the military is in no way questionable, except maybe if you're a Luddite. A lot of commercial tech we are using today originated from miltary R&D spending. Besides that, the military is a lot like an electric generator or a chainsaw. Most don't have use for one except in special circumstances, and then you really, really need one.

As far as the Space program. Dude! Tang. Duh.

So you think it's the goverment's role to finance and do R&D for private companies?

Of course not.

However, should the government fund private companies that are qualified to R & D the products the government requires? Of course. It's a proven economic tactic and makes sense. Often a private company already has the expertise, equipment, and lower overhead than our government would have trying to accomplish the same thing.

iow, I don't think your statement takes the entire equation into consideration and is rather loaded in its structure as well.

Seems to me like we are using the military too much, not in special surcumstances, which is why we are spending too much on it. Most of military R&D and spending is nothing more than corporate welfare.

Maintaining a corporate structure that can respond in a time of war is a necessary evil. If you have a better method to help maintain our military requirements and security structure, and reduce taxpayer costs well, please feel free to elaborate.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
#5 End income subsidies - I mean if corporations who can't make it on their own should be cut off - shouldn't people too?

Every nation in the 1st world has income subsidies.
Care to explain what these people will do if the economy itself cannot support these people?
Not to mention the people who have stopped looking for a job (not included in the 6% or whatever)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
#5 End income subsidies - I mean if corporations who can't make it on their own should be cut off - shouldn't people too?

Every nation in the 1st world has income subsidies.
Care to explain what these people will do if the economy itself cannot support these people?
Not to mention the people who have stopped looking for a job (not included in the 6% or whatever)

Hey, I'm just following DM's logic here. I mean, why are corporations different from people? Why is it ok to subsidize one but not the other?

CsG

 

[BBond]

The USA subsidizes corporations on a far grander scale than they subsidize citizens.

Corporate Subsidies

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
#5 End income subsidies - I mean if corporations who can't make it on their own should be cut off - shouldn't people too?

Every nation in the 1st world has income subsidies.
Care to explain what these people will do if the economy itself cannot support these people?
Not to mention the people who have stopped looking for a job (not included in the 6% or whatever)

Hey, I'm just following DM's logic here. I mean, why are corporations different from people? Why is it ok to subsidize one but not the other?

CsG

Yes corporations are different than people.
If a corporation is dying, another equivalent will take its place.
Also if it cannot make a profit (primary goal) why should it exist?
Nobody dies if a corporation dies.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
#5 End income subsidies - I mean if corporations who can't make it on their own should be cut off - shouldn't people too?

Every nation in the 1st world has income subsidies.
Care to explain what these people will do if the economy itself cannot support these people?
Not to mention the people who have stopped looking for a job (not included in the 6% or whatever)

Hey, I'm just following DM's logic here. I mean, why are corporations different from people? Why is it ok to subsidize one but not the other?

CsG

Corporations aren't people. They don't have families. When people are out of work/disabled they need a safety net until they can get their collective sheet together. I shouldn't have to remind you of all of this.

BTW, old people have paid into SS all their lives, they should get their money back out. And so should I. And so should everyone who's paid into the system. If Congress/The President would stop ripping off SS funds, it would be solvent for a good, long time...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
#5 End income subsidies - I mean if corporations who can't make it on their own should be cut off - shouldn't people too?

Every nation in the 1st world has income subsidies.
Care to explain what these people will do if the economy itself cannot support these people?
Not to mention the people who have stopped looking for a job (not included in the 6% or whatever)

Hey, I'm just following DM's logic here. I mean, why are corporations different from people? Why is it ok to subsidize one but not the other?

CsG

Yes corporations are different than people.
If a corporation is dying, another equivalent will take its place.
Also if it cannot make a profit (primary goal) why should it exist?
Nobody dies if a corporation dies.

True but who do corporations employ? People - you say? Ding ding ding - we have a winner! Now which would you rather have - a long held corporation receive help to keep employees or should we just pay them directly from the treasury? Anyway, what you need to understand is that both come to the same ends - the people. Without gov't subsidies entire industries would fold - creating mass unemployment. Mass unemployment means we all pay these people to not be productive.
I don't like subsidies any more than the rest of you - yes even you on the left who have suddenly found a fiscally conservative bone in your body - but that doesn't mean I even entertain the notion that we could just "end them". I'm a big believer in ending farm subsidies - but the road to doing that is full of potholes and fallen trees. Do we need to take that road? IMO yes, but at the same time we need to change other areas that are based on the failed notion of subsidizing. It's a way of thinking that needs changed - not just the end result of that thinking.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
#5 End income subsidies - I mean if corporations who can't make it on their own should be cut off - shouldn't people too?

Every nation in the 1st world has income subsidies.
Care to explain what these people will do if the economy itself cannot support these people?
Not to mention the people who have stopped looking for a job (not included in the 6% or whatever)

Hey, I'm just following DM's logic here. I mean, why are corporations different from people? Why is it ok to subsidize one but not the other?

CsG

Corporations aren't people. They don't have families. When people are out of work/disabled they need a safety net until they can get their collective sheet together. I shouldn't have to remind you of all of this.

BTW, old people have paid into SS all their lives, they should get their money back out. And so should I. And so should everyone who's paid into the system. If Congress/The President would stop ripping off SS funds, it would be solvent for a good, long time...

Actually corporations are people. They do have "families" - their employees. I agree to a point. A hand up instead of a hand-out. However extending them to people is no different than extending them to corporations. Both need to be curtailed and "re-zeroed" back to a "hand up".

Old people are subsidized by more than just the SS scam they bought into and allowed the gov't to con them with.

CsG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually corporations are people. They do have "families" - their employees. I agree to a point. A hand up instead of a hand-out. However extending them to people is no different than extending them to corporations. Both need to be curtailed and "re-zeroed" back to a "hand up".

Old people are subsidized by more than just the SS scam they bought into and allowed the gov't to con them with.

CsG

It doesn't matter Cad, everyone who paid into SS deserves to be paid back. That was the deal. Going back on it now would be beyond lame. If you want to reform the way it works for new workers just entering the workforce, fine...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually corporations are people. They do have "families" - their employees. I agree to a point. A hand up instead of a hand-out. However extending them to people is no different than extending them to corporations. Both need to be curtailed and "re-zeroed" back to a "hand up".

Old people are subsidized by more than just the SS scam they bought into and allowed the gov't to con them with.

CsG

It doesn't matter Cad, everyone who paid into SS deserves to be paid back. That was the deal. Going back on it now would be beyond lame. If you want to reform the way it works for new workers just entering the workforce, fine...

And I have proposed doing just that. However some people still believe in the scam called SS. Oh, and SS still isn't the only subsidy for old people.

CsG

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Centinel
I dont actually. I live in probably the redest state of em all.

However, I feel my taxes should go to helping people in my state, not California.

(by helping people i'm also including education, infrastructure, etc)

The citizen should be taxed by the state and the state should be taxed by the fed. Logical, but who broke it?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Centinel
Stunt:

One glaring problem I see already. Does that study count tax dollars spend in the red states that go to federal programs?

ie, tax dollars into military installations, government offices, etc etc?

I'm from Alabama, and the city I live in gets a great deal of tax dollars....but it's for federal programs. Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Flight Center to be exact. That is a HUGE amount of US tax dollars pouring into Alabama, but everyone in the country (not just alabama) benefits from them.

Keep in mind the majority of military bases are found in the red states as well.

I followed that link all the way back to the original report of the TaxFoundation. It still did not list how they tabulated those figures, or whether or not such situations as I listed above were taken into account.

It's government welfare for Alabama. The fact that it's a federal program doesn't change it.
The rest of the country is pouring money into those programs to provide jobs in Alabama.
If blue states are paying for these programs, these jobs should be in blue states, not funneling our money to Alabama, and the rest of the states that miss no chance to bash blue states while taking our money.

So then you agree to my original premise then do you not?

....and according to you it's ok to bash red states but not blue states?

Aside from that, keep in mind there are military bases all over the country.....and some are located where they are due to geographic reasons (resources, proximity to other similar programs, etc) This also means places like california would be swamped, since even though they pay a great deal of taxes, that still doesnt warrant the amount of military expenditure in those states...so jobs would be lost.

Not everything is black and white kids....

^^poor excuses to mooch government subsidies off the blue states.
face it...alabama is a welfare state. You want to prove otherwise go ahead.

I'm saying it's ok to have money going to less fortunate areas. You are the one that thinks this is wrong.
this is your point to prove..not mine...im fine with the status quo, you are the reformist.

In this regard a community always faces the double and related threat of egalitarianism and cultural relativism. Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental-indeed foundational-fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism. As a matter of socio-pyschological fact, both egalitarian and relativistic sentiments find steady support among ever new generations of adolescents. Owing to their still incomplete mental development, juveniles, especially of the male variety, are always susceptible to both ideas. Adolescence is marked by regular (and for this stage normal) outbreaks of rebellion by the young against the discipline imposed on them by family life and parental authority. Cultural relativism and multiculturalism provide the ideological instrument of emancipating oneself from these constraints. And egalitarianism-based on the infantile view that property is "given" (and this distributed arbitrarily) rather than individually appropriated and produced (and hence, distributed justly, i.e., in accordance with personal productivity) - provides the intellectual means by which the rebellious youths can lay claim to the economic resources necessary for a life free of and outside the disciplinary framework of families....

....As soon as mature members of society habitually express acceptance or even advocate egalitarian sentiments, whether in the form of democracy (majority rule) or of communism, it becomes essential that other members, and in particular the natural social elites, be prepared to act decisively and, in the case of continued nonconformity, exclude and ultimately expel these members from society.

-Hans-Hermann Hoppe : Democracy, The God That Failed

Looks like someone needs to be expelled. Let's ship him off to Europe where they have a TV tax.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Centinel
Stunt:

One glaring problem I see already. Does that study count tax dollars spend in the red states that go to federal programs?

ie, tax dollars into military installations, government offices, etc etc?

I'm from Alabama, and the city I live in gets a great deal of tax dollars....but it's for federal programs. Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Flight Center to be exact. That is a HUGE amount of US tax dollars pouring into Alabama, but everyone in the country (not just alabama) benefits from them.

Keep in mind the majority of military bases are found in the red states as well.

I followed that link all the way back to the original report of the TaxFoundation. It still did not list how they tabulated those figures, or whether or not such situations as I listed above were taken into account.

It's government welfare for Alabama. The fact that it's a federal program doesn't change it.
The rest of the country is pouring money into those programs to provide jobs in Alabama.
If blue states are paying for these programs, these jobs should be in blue states, not funneling our money to Alabama, and the rest of the states that miss no chance to bash blue states while taking our money.

So then you agree to my original premise then do you not?

....and according to you it's ok to bash red states but not blue states?

Aside from that, keep in mind there are military bases all over the country.....and some are located where they are due to geographic reasons (resources, proximity to other similar programs, etc) This also means places like california would be swamped, since even though they pay a great deal of taxes, that still doesnt warrant the amount of military expenditure in those states...so jobs would be lost.

Not everything is black and white kids....

^^poor excuses to mooch government subsidies off the blue states.
face it...alabama is a welfare state. You want to prove otherwise go ahead.

I'm saying it's ok to have money going to less fortunate areas. You are the one that thinks this is wrong.
this is your point to prove..not mine...im fine with the status quo, you are the reformist.

for a "welfare" state to exist the state would have to offer nothing in return for what was put in. Grants to state welfare programs, government programs only for Alabama citizens, etc definately count. However, the products of my city in particular benefit ALL people of this nation, not just people from Alabama. Defense and the Space program is a public good not just an Alabama good.

Welfare has a return. The mothers getting welfare are raisng future Americans, your fellow citizens.
The benefits of military build up and space program are much more questionable.

The very Internet that you use daily is a spin off of one of those military bases in a red state. Omaha, NE!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh yeah, I can't believe I forgot this:

#3: End farm-subsidies. It's beyond ridiculous the amount of $$ our gov't hands out to farmers.

That would work nice. You do realize that farming is subsidized so that food is affordable, don't you? Even at that, the broker and retailer generate most of the price - another way that blue states contribute to the welfare of the whole.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh yeah, I can't believe I forgot this:

#3: End farm-subsidies. It's beyond ridiculous the amount of $$ our gov't hands out to farmers.

That would work nice. You do realize that farming is subsidized so that food is affordable, don't you? Even at that, the broker and retailer generate most of the price - another way that blue states contribute to the welfare of the whole.

Uh, actually it is the opposite. The government pays farmers not to grow to jack up food prices.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Centinel
Stunt:

One glaring problem I see already. Does that study count tax dollars spend in the red states that go to federal programs?

ie, tax dollars into military installations, government offices, etc etc?

I'm from Alabama, and the city I live in gets a great deal of tax dollars....but it's for federal programs. Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Flight Center to be exact. That is a HUGE amount of US tax dollars pouring into Alabama, but everyone in the country (not just alabama) benefits from them.

Keep in mind the majority of military bases are found in the red states as well.

I followed that link all the way back to the original report of the TaxFoundation. It still did not list how they tabulated those figures, or whether or not such situations as I listed above were taken into account.

It's government welfare for Alabama. The fact that it's a federal program doesn't change it.
The rest of the country is pouring money into those programs to provide jobs in Alabama.
If blue states are paying for these programs, these jobs should be in blue states, not funneling our money to Alabama, and the rest of the states that miss no chance to bash blue states while taking our money.

So then you agree to my original premise then do you not?

....and according to you it's ok to bash red states but not blue states?

Aside from that, keep in mind there are military bases all over the country.....and some are located where they are due to geographic reasons (resources, proximity to other similar programs, etc) This also means places like california would be swamped, since even though they pay a great deal of taxes, that still doesnt warrant the amount of military expenditure in those states...so jobs would be lost.

Not everything is black and white kids....

^^poor excuses to mooch government subsidies off the blue states.
face it...alabama is a welfare state. You want to prove otherwise go ahead.

I'm saying it's ok to have money going to less fortunate areas. You are the one that thinks this is wrong.
this is your point to prove..not mine...im fine with the status quo, you are the reformist.

for a "welfare" state to exist the state would have to offer nothing in return for what was put in. Grants to state welfare programs, government programs only for Alabama citizens, etc definately count. However, the products of my city in particular benefit ALL people of this nation, not just people from Alabama. Defense and the Space program is a public good not just an Alabama good.

Welfare has a return. The mothers getting welfare are raisng future Americans, your fellow citizens.
The benefits of military build up and space program are much more questionable.

The very Internet that you use daily is a spin off of one of those military bases in a red state. Omaha, NE!

You are comitting the fallacy of ignoring what could have created in the free market if the government hadn't taxed the money away to fund the bureaucracy which invented the Internet. I suggest you read Frederick Bastiat's classic That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen.

 

[DeeKnow]

yup. a big one too. over $10 billion in sales. 48,000 employees.... and so?

 

[Geardo]

I work for a huge international mega corp, IT dept!