It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RRconservative
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you talking about tax cuts to businesses? That is not corporate welfare.
If you give a corporation a tax cut, you are not giving them anything. You are letting them keep more of their hard earned money. Money to hire more people, or make improvements to their business. Economics 101.
Giving businesses tax cuts to improve their business and hire more people, is completely different than giving money to poor people in the form of welfare.
Originally posted by HHH Is King
No, I'm talking about giving over 50,000 to one company to pay for golf tees. I'm talking about giving 100,000+ for a "christmas party" I'm talking about Bush and Co giving more corporate welfare in six years then normal welfare since it was created is messed up. Even worse people like you come on and go "What? I can sell my family to a black market slaver and give it to billionaires? Yea!!!!" Freaking doesn't make sense. Hate a poor person getting 350 but love a billionaire getting billions.
Also, trickle down economics doesn't work, America proves it. Richest and poorest people in the world.
Originally posted by RRconservative
Originally posted by HHH Is King
No, I'm talking about giving over 50,000 to one company to pay for golf tees. I'm talking about giving 100,000+ for a "christmas party" I'm talking about Bush and Co giving more corporate welfare in six years then normal welfare since it was created is messed up. Even worse people like you come on and go "What? I can sell my family to a black market slaver and give it to billionaires? Yea!!!!" Freaking doesn't make sense. Hate a poor person getting 350 but love a billionaire getting billions.
Also, trickle down economics doesn't work, America proves it. Richest and poorest people in the world.
So I take it that you would be in favor of a line item veto? A line item veto would keep legitimate bills from being porked up by special pet projects of Congressmen and Senators.
FYI The President does not come up with spending bills. Most "Corporate Welfare" gets entered into a unrelated bill to bribe the Congressman into voting for it.
The Democrat controlled congress promised to fix this waste, but have only made it worse. Example...Ok we will give you a Troop spending bill, but we also want $1 million for the "Woodstock Museum." Thanks Hillary!
Originally posted by HHH Is King
So, Billions spent on pork projects under GOP you have no problem with, under Dems 1 million to Woodstock Museum which was a historical music event, you're ready to lead a coup. Wait, hundred million+ for a bridge to no where you're ready to sell your house to raise the funds but 1million for a museum to one of the biggest music events in history and... ready to lead a military coup against the government...
Originally posted by HHH Is King
Why is it that the liberals get pegged as the welfare supporters but it is ignored when the GOP gives BILLIONS in so called "corporate" welfare...
Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by slackerwire
The Constitution doesn't prohibit welfare. It can be argued that it's more properly the job of state or local governments (the 10th Amendment), but nowhere does it say that there should be NO safety nets for the vulnerable or needy. That's Ayn Rand's opinion, not the Constitution.
Originally posted by slackerwire
Simply because the Constitution doesnt prohibit something does NOT mean that its ok.
The Constitution doesnt forbid genocide either, but you and I both know that action would also be unconstitutional.
Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by slackerwire
Indeed, it does say general welfare. And strangely I would happen to think that allowing welfare to provide the lower income brackets a little more buying power thus further strengthening the economy, while also increasing their own morale, and allowing them to be that much healthier while they wash your car, grow your food, watch your kids, build your home, make your clothes, fix your tires, pump your gas, read your meter, maintain your plumbing, pave your roads, deliver your mail, collect your trash, and the other million and one things that go on around you by the hands of lower-income people that make your life what it is, and the millions like you, would in fact be of benefit to the general population.
But hey, you go back to ranting about that black chick you saw one day using food stamps who wasn't dressed in a burlap sack, or whatever individualistic welfare fantasy you may have.
[edit on 29-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]
Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by slackerwire
They were also in favor of the use of human beings as livestock, the extermination of "savages" and the absolute dominance of males in society.
So they founded a country. People do that every day in Eastern Europe.
Originally posted by HHH Is King
How is it abuse? The only way to abuse Freedom of Speech is to not use it or censor it.