Why isnt cutting government an issue

rob · #11 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

Corporate welfare benefits are concentrated among knowledgeable Washington insiders and special interests, the costs are spread among millions of taxpayers who have little idea what they are funding. Politicians are far more likely to hear from farmers and business people seeking to preserve their handouts than from taxpayers who are sick of paying for them.

With the annual price tag estimated at $125 billion revealed in 1998, its estimated over the last 10 years, Corporate welfare has cost tax payers over 1.3 trillion dollars!!!!! And this esitmate is on top of the projected trillions of dollars in tax cuts during 8 years of the Bush Administration.

rasta, so your going to say it all GWB's fault and the Democratic Congress had nothing to do with it right? The Democratic investors also have something to say about wanting their investments to show a profit also.

kgpoolerev · #12 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strong_as_Steel

Why arent any of the candidates saying they will reduce the size of the government. Statrt by kicking all those lazy scum bags off welfare

McCain has talked about reducing spending and actually cutting spending, not reducing spending and calling a cut but actually spending less money than the year before. With McCain being a proud liberal I would not trust him to do what he is talking about.

Obama has proposed close to a trillion in new spending just on direct payments to raise poverty in the world. Then there is the money he has promised to the UN to increase poverty in the world. Then there is all the domestic spending he has proposed. Obama would give us four more years of Bush's policy of 'helping' the poor. Obama promises more of Bush's deficeit spending. Obama is promising to continue the Bush legacy.

bluedog · #13 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

Corporate welfare benefits are concentrated among knowledgeable Washington insiders and special interests, the costs are spread among millions of taxpayers who have little idea what they are funding. Politicians are far more likely to hear from farmers and business people seeking to preserve their handouts than from taxpayers who are sick of paying for them.

With the annual price tag estimated at $125 billion revealed in 1998, its estimated over the last 10 years, Corporate welfare has cost tax payers over 1.3 trillion dollars!!!!! And this esitmate is on top of the projected trillions of dollars in tax cuts during 8 years of the Bush Administration.

Thats nothing compared to the 10 'TRILLION' dollars wasted on the war on poverty, the longest running war in US HISTORY. At least with corporate welfare there is the "possibility" of recouping some of the expenditure in the form of taxes and employment opportunities. And you speak as if a "tax cut" is some kind of loss. How can you lose something that belongs to someone else in the first place? This game has been going on for centuries with organized crime, in the old protection racket...there is no difference in the fact that a "beak" is being dipped into the product of someones labor. I believe there was actually a war started by someone for just such practices in the past...oh yea, a little conflict called the American Revolution. BD

RASTAMAN · #14 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob

rasta, so your going to say it all GWB's fault and the Democratic Congress had nothing to do with it right? The Democratic investors also have something to say about wanting their investments to show a profit also.

I am stating that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy 5% in conjunction to the annual corporate welfare expenditures on the backs of the poor and the middle class workers in this country needs to be clairified ROBBY!!!

RASTAMAN · #15 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Thats nothing compared to the 10 'TRILLION' dollars wasted on the war on poverty, the longest running war in US HISTORY. At least with corporate welfare there is the "possibility" of recouping some of the expenditure in the form of taxes and employment opportunities. And you speak as if a "tax cut" is some kind of loss. How can you lose something that belongs to someone else in the first place? This game has been going on for centuries with organized crime, in the old protection racket...there is no difference in the fact that a "beak" is being dipped into the product of someones labor. I believe there was actually a war started by someone for just such practices in the past...oh yea, a little conflict called the American Revolution. BD

There is no proof that Corporations reinvest to create jobs based on the amount/percentage of their corporate welfare subsides the poor and middle class pay with our taxes. If you have proof please show it. Also, since the war on poverty stared in the 60's and has cost 10 Trillion dollars (as you claim), then Corporate Welfare subsidies since the 60's has as cost in the 10's of trillions of dollars as well.

Lastly, you may believe that the money Corporations generate solely belongs to them! However, if you base this on how "WE" all pay taxes for using the "Commons"....that is, ordinary people just use the commons to drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies.

Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors - those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest - make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody’s tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good - they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth - and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

mulp · #16 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strong_as_Steel

Why arent any of the candidates saying they will reduce the size of the government. Statrt by kicking all those lazy scum bags off welfare

Well, no one wants to be associated with the policies of Reagan and Dubya which talked about reducing the size of government to mask their actual vote buying strategies that increased the size of government by mortgaging the future generations.

Of course, the really big problem is that Reagan mortgaged future generations who are now entering the workforce just as the boomers whose votes Reagan bought are beginning to collect on Reagan's bribes.

The only president in the past quarter century to actually limit the size of government in real terms was Bill Clinton - by the end of his term, government wasn't being made larger by taxing future generations.

Dubya has been the opposite, expanding the size of government and massively taxing future generations with his current voter bribes plus burdening them with the future expanded government he pretty much locked in, unless more than half the elected Federal official vow to commit political suicide.

And McCain seems to have come under the spell of Republican economics and is no proposing more of the same, expanding government and also bribing voters by taxing voters after he is dead, or at least out of office.

kgpoolerev · #17 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Well, no one wants to be associated with the policies of Reagan and Dubya which talked about reducing the size of government to mask their actual vote buying strategies that increased the size of government by mortgaging the future generations.

Of course, the really big problem is that Reagan mortgaged future generations who are now entering the workforce just as the boomers whose votes Reagan bought are beginning to collect on Reagan's bribes.

The only president in the past quarter century to actually limit the size of government in real terms was Bill Clinton - by the end of his term, government wasn't being made larger by taxing future generations.

Dubya has been the opposite, expanding the size of government and massively taxing future generations with his current voter bribes plus burdening them with the future expanded government he pretty much locked in, unless more than half the elected Federal official vow to commit political suicide.

And McCain seems to have come under the spell of Republican economics and is no proposing more of the same, expanding government and also bribing voters by taxing voters after he is dead, or at least out of office.

Mulp, how do you reconcile voting for Obama when he has promised close to a trillion in deficeit spending just on poverty across the globe, with more money sent to the UN for the same task, while maintaining soldiers in Iraq as he will not promise to have them out by 2013, while starting huge new programs that will cost hundreds of billions a year?