Rigged: The Injustice of Corporate Welfare

[jbird4049]

Had to stop you right there mate. That's a Ron Paul term. Nobody likes it. It's often tip toed around but we are in a deep state of socialism, ie, per usual the people at the top are getting richer.

Sorry Nuke Dog, it is what it is. Just because someone unliked is using a term doesn't make that term bad. It's corporate welfare. It's also welfare for the wealthy, the connected, or the corrupt where all the costs are public, and all the rewards are individualized.

Of course, wellfare for the needed is enabling moochers, while the fatcats are all so virtuous as well as rightfully needy.

Well that term is nice and all but ND is right in the main. This is socialism in micro. This is how the proletariat sausage gets made.

Note the powerful (wealthy) of any large society tends to steal from the weak (poor to middle) especially in a corrupt system.

[C-Mag]

Note the powerful (wealthy) of any large society tends to steal from the weak (poor to middle) especially in a corrupt system.

Our problem is Freeloaders of any wealth bracket. Whether it be Google, Facebook or the Welfare Queen on the corner. The Welfare Queen steals from Society just like Zuckerburg. The values are different, but the crime is the same. We need to go after all Freeloaders, be they Lockheed Martin or the unnamed and unwashed pregnant hillbilly.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Note the powerful (wealthy) of any large society tends to steal from the weak (poor to middle) especially in a corrupt system.

Our problem is Freeloaders of any wealth bracket. Whether it be Google, Facebook or the Welfare Queen on the corner. The Welfare Queen steals from Society just like Zuckerburg. The values are different, but the crime is the same. We need to go after all Freeloaders, be they Lockheed Martin or the unnamed and unwashed pregnant hillbilly.

I'm not at all certain about the moral parity between Lockheed and some pill-billy.

Besides, bailing out large concerns undermines the creative destruction that should be the engine for things like true growth and innovation in a free market. Keeping the indigent on some dole probably doesn't do quite the same thing... and there are surely reasons not to like the constant dole forever, but I think it is a mistake to convolve these two issues.

[C-Mag]

Note the powerful (wealthy) of any large society tends to steal from the weak (poor to middle) especially in a corrupt system.

Our problem is Freeloaders of any wealth bracket. Whether it be Google, Facebook or the Welfare Queen on the corner. The Welfare Queen steals from Society just like Zuckerburg. The values are different, but the crime is the same. We need to go after all Freeloaders, be they Lockheed Martin or the unnamed and unwashed pregnant hillbilly.

I'm not at all certain about the moral parity between Lockheed and some pill-billy.

Besides, bailing out large concerns undermines the creative destruction that should be the engine for things like true growth and innovation in a free market. Keeping the indigent on some dole probably doesn't do quite the same thing... and there are surely reasons not to like the constant dole forever, but I think it is a mistake to convolve these two issues.

It is absolutely the same to me.y Neither pays taxes and both take from the pool. No moral difference. I might even argue that Google returns a tangible benefit, whereas the welfare Queen gives very little back to Society in general.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Our problem is Freeloaders of any wealth bracket. Whether it be Google, Facebook or the Welfare Queen on the corner. The Welfare Queen steals from Society just like Zuckerburg. The values are different, but the crime is the same. We need to go after all Freeloaders, be they Lockheed Martin or the unnamed and unwashed pregnant hillbilly.

I'm not at all certain about the moral parity between Lockheed and some pill-billy.

Besides, bailing out large concerns undermines the creative destruction that should be the engine for things like true growth and innovation in a free market. Keeping the indigent on some dole probably doesn't do quite the same thing... and there are surely reasons not to like the constant dole forever, but I think it is a mistake to convolve these two issues.

It is absolutely the same to me.y Neither pays taxes and both take from the pool. No moral difference. I might even argue that Google returns a tangible benefit, whereas the welfare Queen gives very little back to Society in general.

I never said you couldn't argue that the moral rubric favors giving tax money to a corporation.

But to say that there are zero salient differences between the legal person-hood bestowed by corporate charter and an actual person regarding the relationship to the state, or even considerations of agency, seems absurd.

[Hastur]

Subsidising IKEA Funniest thing I ever heard. IKEA don't need subsidies. It might be a benefit for a community to have an IKEA since people will have more money to spend on other thing. Chances are they will just buy moore stuff at IKEA though. If IKEA wouldn't open up without subsidies they don't belong there. It's as simple as that.

[jbird4049]

Our problem is Freeloaders of any wealth bracket. Whether it be Google, Facebook or the Welfare Queen on the corner. The Welfare Queen steals from Society just like Zuckerburg. The values are different, but the crime is the same. We need to go after all Freeloaders, be they Lockheed Martin or the unnamed and unwashed pregnant hillbilly.

I'm not at all certain about the moral parity between Lockheed and some pill-billy.

Besides, bailing out large concerns undermines the creative destruction that should be the engine for things like true growth and innovation in a free market. Keeping the indigent on some dole probably doesn't do quite the same thing... and there are surely reasons not to like the constant dole forever, but I think it is a mistake to convolve these two issues.

It is absolutely the same to me.y Neither pays taxes and both take from the pool. No moral difference. I might even argue that Google returns a tangible benefit, whereas the welfare Queen gives very little back to Society in general.

Really?

Are going to chastise those (often forced to be) on welfare because of

the disappearing jobs, the poorly paid ones remaining ones, the underfunded public crappy schools, often unaffordable colleges (although the senior administration always gets raises and more staff),

And were there are jobs, insane housing,

too expensive insurance giving often second rate healthcare,

bad roads, and worse public transportation,

massive political and governmental corruption,

The growing concentration of wealth (and power) into an ever fewer number of Americans? Which is greater than at any time in American history including just before the Great Depression.

And finally the gradual and growing dysfunction of public administration, law enforcement, military, news media, charities, corporations, and finance?

All of which is mainly the creation of corporations and the wealthy and not of pill poppers or the homeless.

People are responsible for their actions, but please fucking spare me this false equivalency of giving equality of vice between those who have everything they could need, but whose insatiable greed against those who either have lost all, or never had anything because of the former.

[Ex-California]

Subsidising IKEA Funniest thing I ever heard. IKEA don't need subsidies. It might be a benefit for a community to have an IKEA since people will have more money to spend on other thing. Chances are they will just buy moore stuff at IKEA though. If IKEA wouldn't open up without subsidies they don't belong there. It's as simple as that.

They don't need them yet they get them because they have been chosen by the state as winners.

[Ex-California]

I'm not at all certain about the moral parity between Lockheed and some pill-billy.

Besides, bailing out large concerns undermines the creative destruction that should be the engine for things like true growth and innovation in a free market. Keeping the indigent on some dole probably doesn't do quite the same thing... and there are surely reasons not to like the constant dole forever, but I think it is a mistake to convolve these two issues.

It is absolutely the same to me.y Neither pays taxes and both take from the pool. No moral difference. I might even argue that Google returns a tangible benefit, whereas the welfare Queen gives very little back to Society in general.

Really?

Are going to chastise those (often forced to be) on welfare because of

the disappearing jobs, the poorly paid ones remaining ones, the underfunded public crappy schools, often unaffordable colleges (although the senior administration always gets raises and more staff),

And were there are jobs, insane housing,

too expensive insurance giving often second rate healthcare,

bad roads, and worse public transportation,

massive political and governmental corruption,

The growing concentration of wealth (and power) into an ever fewer number of Americans? Which is greater than at any time in American history including just before the Great Depression.

And finally the gradual and growing dysfunction of public administration, law enforcement, military, news media, charities, corporations, and finance?

All of which is mainly the creation of corporations and the wealthy and not of pill poppers or the homeless.

People are responsible for their actions, but please fucking spare me this false equivalency of giving equality of vice between those who have everything they could need, but whose insatiable greed against those who either have lost all, or never had anything because of the former.

jbird, I get your arguments and I used to make them myself until just a couple months ago. On the surface, this is what it feels like welfare is for, but it simply does not work like that. The welfare system is made specifically to keep people on it by limiting any agency that they have to make more money for themselves. This keeps them tied to the state and their entitlements creating a vicious circle of generational welfare.

I am all for a safety net, just not the kind of system we have now

Its not a lie what LBJ said.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

And yet somehow people live in abject poverty in in parts of the world without the perverse incentives caused by our welfare system.