Welfare Supporters

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.

What? you're going to give a person who had their job shipped overseas 350 a month? *SPazzes out and goes on a rampage at the mall*

What? You're going to give 9 billion dollars to a billionaire? *Celebrates and bows down before the Billionaire*

It doesn't make sense. You're against the poor recieving help but have no problem with Bush&CO giving literally BILLIONS TO BILLIONAIRES!

Messed up is what I call it. I mean geesh I get pissed when you see some fat ass going down the street in a 50,000 dollar truck listening to his 5,000 dollar sound system while wearing 4,000 worth of clothes and jewelry but damn, a billionaire gets billions? BS!

SOme of these republicans are half a step away from just going "Here, take my money Mister Billionaire!" About ready to sell house and car and wardrobe just to give it to Billionaires. But leave 50 cents in the Salvation Army pot? "Evil! Giving to poor people is communism!!!!"

[edit on 24-12-2007 by HHH Is King]

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 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.

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 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 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!

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

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...

What are you talking about? I said I support a line item veto. Do you? Do you even know what I am talking about? It would be a cure to the problem you are talking about. Do you support it or not?

I vote in most elections. I believe that is the proper procedure to voice your displeasure with government, not a military coup. Where did you come up with that?

I think I know what your problem is. Could it be your age? I have a feeling that I am conversing with someone who is not even old enough to vote. Someone whose knowledge of history only goes back to the day you where born? History did not start with you, and did not start with George W. Bush. BTW Woodstock was an event, but it surely wasn't anything historical. There were major concerts before Woodstock, and have been more after.

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...

Liberals get pegged as the "welfare supporters" because they tend to believe that some safety nets are necessary for the most vulnerable members of society. I'm a liberal and I don't mind that label at all. Like you, most liberals don't want to see the system abused by those who can work and provide for themselves. However, most forms of entitlement don't really pay enough to live on, so there's a built in incentive to earn more. My observation is that disabled veterans often get a more comfortable level of income--they usually get additional support from the Veterans Administration-- but then they've earned it. We owe something back to those who have risked their lives and their health for the rest of us.


I don't mind my tax money going to the truly needy. Even if all the social programs were ended I probably wouldn't get very much back anyway. There are always things the government would want to use it for. Like agricultural subsidies, research grants for drug companies, depreciation allowances for corporations that own oil wells, tax incentives to relocate industries, indirect export subsidies, etc. etc. As you put it, corporate welfare.

This is Christmas day, and last night I watched Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" for about the hundredth time in my life. It made a real impression on me when I was a child, and it still moves me today. It's sad that there are so many Ebenezer Scrooges still in the world. I hope they're all visited by three ghosts.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by Sestias]

Welfare, be it for the individual or the corporation is unconstitutional. Those "liberals" who support such nonsense should try taking a Constitutional law 101 class.

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 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.

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.
'
Article 1 Section 8 specifically outlines what our tax dollars may be used for. People like to claim the "general welfare clause" authorizes expenditures for social programs. Notice it says general, and not individual.

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.

Tell that to the Indians. Tell that to the Republicans who supported Hitler even after we declared war on him. Tell that to all the Republicans who even today would have no trouble rounding up every gay, black, or arab person and executing them en mass.

Why we need someone who is really conservative and not a Republican in office... Not that the GOP would allow a conservative to run on the GOP ticket because that would be un American...

Long ago I gave up on any political party. Neither of them is what they claim to be.

I am strictly a Constitutionalist, which is why I support Ron Paul. I dont agree with all of his views, but he is the closest match to my belief system.

You mean he's actually conservative, which sadly means he'll never get on the GOP ticket. We'll wind up with Rudy cross dressing multi marrige incest I let 9/11 happen love me or I love my wife all 5 of them Romney.

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]

Why Walking Fox how dare you point out his entire life is built upon using the unclean, as he sees them? I mean, his clothes, house, car, computer, all built by the same unclean heathens...

Anyways, I hate the fat black chick with 12 kids using food stamps to buy junk food while her kids stuff their pockets full of candy then when you call her on it she screams "Wathicst!" then knocks stuff on the floor. Lost a job a few years ago over that. But that doesn't mean we need to ban all welfare. Just cut "corporate" welfare in half and we'd save an easy 30 billion dollars. Say, 30 billion, wouldn't that pay off SCHIP for 10 years and leave money over for SS and other programs? But no, don't tell the GOP to cut back on giving billions to billionaires, that's un American.

And for the woman above, tie her tubes, take kids away, and drug test her and the rest. You got the rednecks on their meth, the blacks on pot, city folks on coc aine, cut them all loose for drug use and we'd save millions. Damn druggies and drug dealers on welfare... If you're making that much money from dealing drugs why are you on welfare? Cut back on the gold and diamonds and new car with 4,000 stereo system. Cut back on the pickup truck with the Dale #3 decals and confederate flags.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by HHH Is King]

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]

Perhaps you should try reading the writings of the founding fathers once in a while. You would see they were firmly opposed to the individual welfare system.

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 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.

Do you live in the United States? If so, they gave you the freedom that you abuse and take for granted.

Name the country that was founded in eastern europe today.

How is it abuse? The only way to abuse Freedom of Speech is to not use it or censor it.

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.

You abuse it by spewing idiocy and blatant lies.