Karl Marx

Remove all ads!

I guess I will stand corrected. If the corporations are only about one-fourth the additional amount the middle class contributes is less -- but it's still brutal for those who are barely getting by.

 

Yes, and I wouldn't call that welfare, but rather an attempt to promote particular behaviors.

I would love to hear him say it was all an attempt to be ironic, but I can't see that in his posts thus far. It seems to me that he's really trying to define corporate welfare as a legitimate form of welfare.

No, you gave a definition of 'corporate welfare' as a phrase. I can give a definition of 'corporate fat-cats', but that doesn't mean they're actually cats.

No, I don't, and saying I do over and over again only makes you look crazy. Please read any of my numerous statements on this issue in the previous posts.

You've defined 'corporate welfare', but have yet to provide a real definition of welfare that actually includes it. This is the problem.

At this point I think you're just trying to make me mad. We started out talking about rich individuals. When did we stop? Explain to me how you can possibly say this seriously given how this whole conversation started.

 

It's a corrupt form of welfare, not ligitimate.

No, because they are "corporate fat-cats."

Really? According to the "phrase" it was a definition. Maybe you are not sure what a definition is? Look it up in your dictionary.

You're the who says you "believe corporate welfare exists," but it's not "corporate welfare." Crazy? Take a look in the mirror. Is there corporate welfare or not?

As I have said over and over again, it has been defined and documented as a type of welfare by numerous sources other than just me. Think about that...Time's up.

In your dreams. If you REALLY WERE paying attention, you would have read, way back in the first post, this:

See? I crafted welfare for the rich and corporate welfare as something different. In fact, I made a point of saying that both parties engage in this form of welfare equally, while Republicans are about welfare for the "rich" - Your typical "country club" republicans.

No, I'm hoping to educate you bit. For instance, you believed a number of things that were not true:

That corporations paid more taxes than individuals and also that they did not use many of the same public services as individuals. That's why I provide the actual links and data, so that you will better understand some of the problems with this form of welfare. As I keep saying, you are entitled to you own opinion about corporate welfare, and you are free to reject this data and information (I notice you don't comment on any of the links, particularly the Time link, which included much of the info that I have been trying to make you aware of). Nevertheless, I have provided the documentation to prove that this form of welfare exsits, how it works, and some of the problems that it creates.

 

It's... wait, what? Ok, start from the beginning again. What is the definition of 'welfare' that you're using here? Not your definition of 'corporate welfare', just define the term 'welfare' in a way that allows it to have corrupt and illegitimate forms, pelase?

Exactly. And corporate fat-cats aren't cats, despite what the term suggests.

If you're talking about your link from the Times, all you've shown is that the Times can use 'welfare' as a rhetorical device without putting it in quotes. If you're talking about something else, then wtf are you talking about?

... Yeah, um, no. I never said it wasn't 'corporate welfare', just that it wasn't actual welfare. So, yes, I think you're crazy at this point.

And yet you still haven't even given a definition of 'welfare' that admits it. All you've shown is people commonly use the term as a rhetorical device, never that it actually meets any definition of 'welfare'.

Again, Chandos, I think you're going a little crazy here. You've merged two different debates into one. I never, ever claimed that 'corporate welfare' included rich individuals. I claimed that the money Dems use to pay for their welfare programs (when enacted) can reasonably be attributed to rich individuals. Here's the key transition point:

I said that most tax revenue comes from the rich and from corporations. You've said that the corporations pay about 1/4 what individuals pay all-told. That means they equal about the bottom 80-85% of individuals (a rought estimate from the link I provided). Now, there are (roughly) 300M American citizens, so that's about 240-255M that the corporations equate. How many corporations are there in the US? 250 million? I doubt it. I think my position is pretty safe on that issue.

And you've convinced me I was wrong on that issue, over a page ago. Not to mention it was a little off-topic to begin with.

All you have shown is that a thing called 'corporate welfare' exists, and you've defined 'corporate welfare' pretty well, something that I've never debated. You haven't actually shown that it's welfare, which is what I've debated.

To be perfectly clear, what I want to hear from you is:
1.) A definition of welfare such that the behavior you've described as 'corporate welfare' is included.
2.) A legitimate source supporting this definition as something other than something someone made up on a whim. Dictionaries work. Maybe an encyclopedia entry, but a news article that uses it that way really isn't sufficient.

 

If you read the links, you will see that corporate welfare is done under the pretence of benefiting or improving the welfare of the general public, or even those on "social welfare" (which you have been referring to). I explained this to you in an earlier post and you rejected it - that corporate welfare was done under the pretence of creating jobs (benefiting the unemployed) and developing new technologies and products that benefit sick people, old people and the disadvantaged, as well as the community at large. But very often it does not.

Why are you comparing cats to welfare?

Did you look at the material in the link?

...And I should care what you think?

Again, calm down and read the links. You may actually learn something about corporate welfare. At this point, you sound very ignorant of even the basic concept of corporate welfare. Maybe you should just take some time and read a little, and think it over a bit. I'm not saying you have to agree, only that you need a few basics about how corporate welfare operates in our political system, under the guise of improving the welfare of the public.

It sounds to me as if YOU are the one who is merging two debates, since I was only referring to corporate welfare and I was not referring to "welfare for the rich." Notice, I commented that both Dems and Repbulicans promote corporate welfare. I think you are confusing corporate welfare and welfare for the rich, which are two different aspects affecting our political system. Again, just take sometime to think this through. And forget the "rich." Rich individuals have no place is our dialogue over corporate welfare. If you can let go of that, maybe it will clear your mind a bit, so that you focus on the concept of "corporate welfare" as a corrput, specific form, of "welfare" for corporations. If you read the links, you may see the point more clearly.

The US Office of Budget Management claimed that. It is a link that I posted for you. As I said, feel free to reject the information provided and rely on what you assume, want to assume, or even imagine. That's fine, but I'll stick with the real, hard data.

Cato is a think tank and not a news article. It is a fairly conservative one as well. Also, I used the same source you did, Wiki. As for the dictionary, it is good for a basic defintion. I've already provided the defintion for you (by the links). And at this point, you may want to consider looking over the links. It does not appear that you have been able to move beyond a basic dictionary definition in your thinking. Use the dictionary only as a starting point for your research on corporate welfare if you are interested in the subject.

 

Aha, I see all the confusion here. I thought you were just trying to link corporate welfare with trickle-down-economic theory, not use that to define it as some sort of indirect welfare. Ok, suddenly some stuff makes much more sense. That's not welfare in the sense that I was using it, though, and you should be well aware of that. Yes, there are multiple legitimate definitions for the word, but I was only using one. I told you which one. The general well-being of the public is a legitimate use of 'welfare', but it's more of an economic definition than a political one. Since we're talking politics here, the political definition seems to make more sense.

Because both words are used in larger terms that don't actually talk about them. 'Corporate fat-cats' uses 'cats' but has nothing to do with them. Likewise, I was trying to show that 'corporate welfare' had nothing to do with actual welfare.

Yes, and I saw 'welfare' used as a rhetorical device, but no defintions for it were given.

And again, that's a different kind of welfare. If that's what you meant, then you switched terms on me in the middle of the conversation. That's a no-no.

Actually, at that point, we weren't talking about either corporate welfare or welfare for the rich. Take a second look at what I quoted. The only way either corporations or the rich came in is as who was giving money (or having it taken), not recieving it. This is what I'm talking about, you've gotten yourself confused. I said 'Robin Hood, take from the rich, give to the poor', you said, 'everyone pays, not just the rich', we got into who pays what in taxes.

Nor did I challenge that data. I just attributed it to you since you were the one to bring it up. Speaking of the real, hard data, did you look at my calculations?

Chandos, when it comes to definitions, the dictionary is the standard. For techinical issues, you may want a technical dictionary, and I'd also admit text books giving definitions provided that a majority of them agree. Furthermore, through all your links, I never saw a single definition of 'welfare'. I saw definitions of what 'corporate welfare' was in every single one, and a few defined it as a form of welfare, though even there the term 'welfare' seemed to be used to define the public good in general, which is again a completely different usage of the word.

 

I'll post it again for you, NOG:

They use the word "carefully defined," not a rhetorical device. I regret having to post it so many times, but I would like you to see that it is a definition, not a rhetorical device.

I was the one that brought up the term corporate welfare and I was using it in the way the links I posted intended it to be used. Sorry, that I misunderstood this point, since I thought that I was the one defining it in this dialogue and you were the one challenging it.

It is a different kind. I've been making the point that corporate welfare is a TYPE of welfare.

No, I did not. I've been clear over this point.

That was my point about the misdirection of funds. It is the corporations who are doing their share of the "taking." So, considering their benefits, how much are they really paying off the bottom line? It's easy to pay into a system that you are taking just as much out of.

Your calculations were based on assumptions and not real data.

Only for the most basic definitions, as many on this board have tried to explain to you, NOG.

You can look up the meaning of the word "love" in a dictionary, or you can read the thousands of books, poems and essays that have been written about its meaning since the beginning of western civilization. And that's not counting all the songs, music and art work that's been crafted on just the concept of "love." It's time to move past the dictionary and into a fuller meaning to have a more meaningful and complex dialogue.

 

Yes, and they defined corporate welfare, not welfare. My whole point has been that they're two different terms. I want a definition of welfare, not corporate welfare.

I don't know why you thought this. I brought up welfare when talking about the Dems. You brought up corporate welfare, but that was later on.

No, you missed my point. That's a whole different definition of 'welfare'. It's sort of like saying a piece of paper is a type of pound (english currency) when everyone else was talking about the unit of measuring weight.

Actually, you started out talking about welfare as a specific government program giving money to the poor, and now you seem to be using it as a term for the overall well-being of everyone, so yes, you switched terms on me.

I think you're trying to blend the corporate welfare discussion with the who-pays-what discussion again.

Estimates, not assumptions. There's a huge difference.

Chandos, I've read the poems, I've heard the songs. They don't define love. Most that try fail miserably. Honestly, the dictionary definition is closer to the real thing than any of them. For example: a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

 

Because I brought up corporate welfare, you did not. This dialogue has been about corporate welfare.

You claimed there was "no definition" for corporate welfare, that it was only a "rhetorical device." Now you say there is a definition. Thank you for finally admitting that. I think we are making progress.

No it was not. That was not your whole point. It was that corporate welfare was "a joke." Remember? As I said, you may not agree with the definition, and you are entitled to that, but nevertheless I'm glad you concede that corporate welfare has a definintion and is real.

No, it was my direct response to your post about Democrats and welfare. It took a while for you to explain what you meant by "the Dems being all about welfare." You claimed it was not even about the government program, which is what I thought you were saying (hence the reason I was referring to the specific government program). Instead you were referring to social welfare in general. Are we clear on that?

No, again, I was trying to figure out what you were saying. As I remarked, I thought you were referring in your post about Dems being for welfare about the government program. Think back.

You did that with your Robin Hood analogy, not me. The rich paying for the poor? remember? I did try to lay the groundwork for a response. And I'm satisfied that I succeeded.

Assumptions. Your estimates were not made off any real data.

I suggest a good literature class. Not everyone has the aptitude for understanding art, but classes may help you a bit. Again you can stick with your dictionary - I'll stick with Shakespeare. But that is not our topic.

Sometimes it's the viewer or reader that fails in understanding. Art has its own language that can be difficult for the novice, or beginner. I'm not trying to be insulting, only that you need some training. But that is another topic altogether.

 

Poll Reveals Most Americans Don't Know They Got a Tax Cut

Poll Reveals Most Americans Don't Know They Got a Tax Cut

 

Here's where you've gotten confused. This dialogue has been about two seperate items, but you've fused them into one. I don't know why you did this.

Could you please point out where I said there was 'no definition' for corporate welfare? Maybe, while you're at it, you could find where I said corporate welfare 'didn't exist'. I don't think I ever said either.

... Please, please don't tell me this is where you got all your nutty ideas about what I said. I said it was a 'joke-term', i.e. one not meant literally, i.e. not meant as an actual form of welfare. I never said it didn't exist, nor did I ever say it didn't have a definition.

Yes, I'm sure you've been quite confused. I say 'welfare' and, at first, you assume I must be talking about a specific, singular government program, one single example of welfare. That this is the first thing your mind jumped to at the mention of the term 'welfare' is a little worrying. When I cleared it up and said that's not what I was talking about, you then jumped to corporate welfare and 'welfare for the rich'. Again, I try to tell you that's not what I'm talking about at all. This time, though, you stick with it, and claim this is welfare. When I ask you what definition of 'welfare' you're using that can include 'corporate welfare' as an actual form, you start defining 'corporate welfare'. That's not helpful. It doesn't answer my question.

What groundwork? The only thing you've done is say that everyone pays taxes. Yes, but the rich pay more in taxes (in absolute value, which is what's important here) than others. Thank you for at least recognizing that this is a seperate conversation, though.

That's a load of , and one of the bigger one's you've posted here. I used three pieces of data. One from the link I provided, one from the link you provided, and one from a well-established estimate of the total US population. All you have to do is google US Population to get a number like that. If you want me to do it for you (again), here.

And yes, love and art are a different topic, though I'd remind you that art is inherrantly an entirely subjective thing. Many people find the simple more elegant and beautiful than the wordy.

I think I vaguely remember hearing about someone getting a tax cut at some point. It seems to have gotten somewhat lost in the news, though.

 

I think you are the one who's confused. Of course, it could be that you have been having your own debate, while I've been debating something different.

As I stated, we are making progress, since now that you concede both points. We can move on from here?

We were speaking of policy and government. In fact you then went off to bleat about this:

And you know you were speaking of policy, NOG. "Hence the Wefare check line you dropped." Don't play dumb, or are you just a liar?

No, you said corporations pay more in taxes and you were wrong. In fact, you've been wrong so much on this thread I can understand why you keep trying to change the nature of the debate.

I suggest you go back and look at that again. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Actually, love means different things to different people. Maybe you should remind yourself that it is "subjective."

Edit: NOG - It could be that this argument lost its grounding somewhere along the way. So let me be clear: The only context I'm using for welfare is within that of corporate welfare (as I have been saying over and over and over again). Since you are willing to concede that corporate welfare exisits and that it has a working definition, (which you may or may not agree with), then I'm not sure what we are debating at this point. Welfare for the indvidual, the rich, for animals or anything else, should be treated within a different context and such as a separate debate. Just to be clear....

 

I am starting to think we've been having two different debates this whole time. I'm just not sure why.

There's nothing to concede! I never made the points! It's like me asking you to concede that the US is indeed a nation!

No, we were speaking about communism and perception of politics. Yes, I mentioned a welfare check as an example of welfare, but it's odd that you jumped from that to the assumption that I was only talking about one single program. Do you think Two and a Half Men is the only TV show I was talking about, too?

Actually, no, what I said was:

And it looks like I was right. How about from now on when you say I 'said' something you look it up a quote me so we can tell the difference between your actual claims and your BS. How many times now have you accused me of saying something I never even came close to saying in this thread?

Nor your own work, apparently, including fact-checking. Here's what I said:

The 1/4 was data from what you posed. The 80-85% was an estimate from applying that to the data I provided. 240-255M is from applying that estimate to the easily available (and now commonly advertised with the census) estimate of the US population. Not a single assumption, unless you include the assumption that the sources we've cited are reliable. Again, you're full of it.

So is art.

What we're disagreeing with is what I've said dozens of times: that corporate welfare isn't welfare! It exists, it has a definition, but so do corporate fat-cats (I like that analogy, it works on all levels), but they aren't cats. You want to define corporate welfare as a form of welfare. To do that, you have to do three things:
1.) define 'welfare'
2.) define 'corporate welfare'
3.) show that 2 is a subset of 1
This is basic logic. You've done 2 quite well. You've claimed that you've done 3, but you can't because you haven't done 1. This all started because I said the Dems were the champions of 'welfare' and you countered that the Dem support of it was nothing special considering how much both support 'corporate welfare'. That only makes any sense whatsoever if you were trying to submit your usage of 'corporate welfare' as a subset of my usage of 'welfare'. If, as I claim, it's something completely different, then your response is off-topic and meaningless in the issue.

Chandos, just to be clear here, I really feel like your account has been taken over by someone else or something, and you've been alternating with them, because your posts have been so erratic and ignored so much (and alternately). Are you feeling well? This doesn't seem like something normal for you.

 

I have no idea what that is except that welfare checks have to come from a specific government program, like Aid To Families with Dependent Children (just as an example). That would be an example of a specific government welfare program from which a welfare check could be handed-out. I don't know anything about a TV show.

We've already been through this. Corporations only pay 25 percent. They do not pay more than individuals.

They are not "individuals" which was largely my point. They are corporations. Thusly, they are not rich people, nor are they middle class people nor are they poor people. They are not people at all. I guess your point is that if you take all the taxes that rich individuals pay and you take all the corporations, they equal more than everyone else. That is a meaningless statement, since one can take all the rich people and all the middle class and say they pay more than corporations and poor people. That's pretty meaningless. But I'm sure that is not what you meant. Or is it? Why would that mean anything?

I speaking to a specfic type of welfare - corporate welfare. I gave you definitions from Wiki, Time, and Cato and you rejected those definitions and instead kept giving me some dictionary definition that was not even about corporate welfare, but welfare in a general usage. Like for instance, I look out for the welfare of my neighborhood by joining the neighborhood watch. Is that welfare? Yes. Is it corporate welfare. No. Get it? They are both welfare, but two different types of welfare.

I explained to you how this works, and I know it is difficult. When I worked for Ralph Nadar, the person who first defined corporate welfare, we used to talk about how difficult it is for people to see, because this type of welfare is "supposed" to benefit almost everyone. It is done under the notion of putting unemployed people to work, improving economic conditions and bringing income into a community, raising home values, improving neighborhoods, blah, blah, blah. But the facts don't support this. In some instances, it does create a marginal improvement. But if you just took all the free give-aways that corporations receive and gave it to the individuals, or the community they would actually be better off. In fact, many corporations just suck up the money and benefits and after a short time, just move on to somewhere else and do the same, generally overseas as outsourcing.

Politicians love corporate welfare because they take donations from the corps, pretend they are doing something of benefit for the welfare of the unemployed and a community, but are really only helping themselves to stay in office. If anything, corporate welfare takes from the rich and gives to itself, because rich individuals pay the most in taxes, but if they have most of the money, it makes sense that they should pay the most in taxes. So corporations take from all individuals, from all classes. Along the way, they may create some jobs, give indivuduals some training, and for a short period, improve economic conditions within a community. But if you read the links I provided, you see that it doesn't happen as much as it should and sometimes only happens for short periods.

But in a larger sense, it undermines the notion of a free market economy because it provides an unfair advantage to corporations at the expense of other business within the communtity, those local companies or small busnesses that are not lucky enough to be lining the pockets of the politicians that hand out taxpayer money. The same rules should apply to all companies so that they can compete on a level playing field.

I have tried to keep you focused on the issue, a specific issue, and I would not allow you to spin your way out of it. And no, you don't need any double-talk about "subsets" or any other BS about "a," "b," or "c.". If you want to know the definition of "corporate welfare," then you look up "corporate welfare" in your dictionary. It's really that simple.

 

Two and a Half Men was my example for the Collosseum. Or do you not recognize the name as a TV show? It's gotten all kinds of commercials over here for quite a while, so it was the first one to pop into my mind. My point was that I was taking singular examples from larger groups in both cases.

Given that that 25% of the money equates to about 85% of the population, I'd say that, on average, they do pay more than individuals. That's what my calculations were meant to show. How you missed that, I don't know. The corporations pay as much as about 255 million people!

I swear, you're intentionally missing my point. My point was that the average individual corporation pays much more for welfare than the average individual person. So does the average individual rich person. Combine that with the tendency for those two groups to be the targets of Democratic tax hikes (and Republican tax breaks, but that's a different issue) and it's not hard to say that they pay for welfare.

Again, you missed my point entirely. My point in all this wasn't to reject your definition of corporate welfare, but to show that it isn't really a form of welfare. I've said this as plainly as I can about a dozen times.

Here's the problem, your 'issue' that you want things focussed on is a non-issue. Here's how it worked:
You: Why does everyone call Obama a Marxist
Me: The Dems are champions of welfare. Some idiots think that's Marxist.
You: No they aren't, the Reps champion corporate welfare just as much as the Dems do.
Me: That's not welfare.

You now seem to be admitting that you switched terms on me, that your definition of 'corporate welfare' has nothing at all to do with my usage (or just about anyone else's) of the term 'welfare'. You can talk about it all you want, you can define it and cite studies of it. I won't challenge you, but it's off-topic. If you want to talk about corproate welfare, feel free to start another topic.

If you want to define it as a form of welfare you do. That's not BS and it's not double-talk. That's basic logic. That you're failing to grasp this amazes me.

 

If corporations pay 25 percent and individuals pay 75 percent, individuals pay more. I don't know how you missed that.

I have no idea how you arrived at such an inane conclusion. And as I pointed out to you, and you continued to ignore, if they get their money back again in the form of corporate welfare, how much are they really paying? Nothing?

Never heard of it.

I'm not combining anything (it's largely a part of your double-talk). You are the one trying to create a new debate about the rich being taxed by democrats. As I mentioned in my first post, both Repbublicans and Democrats are corporate patrons. Now you are trying to change the nature of the debate. I was careful to put corporate welfare in a separate category. The rich individuals have NOTHING to do with receiving corporate welfare. In fact, they mostly pay for it! I know it is difficult, but take some time to think it over.

if you wish to have a seperate discussion about whom the Democrats wish to tax, we can have that. But corporate welfare is a separate discussion. Got it.

That's just beyond silly (and comments like that is what's making this difficult). Some corporations don't even receive corporate welfare. Some corporations pay no taxes, some pay gigantic amounts of taxes; some don't even make a profit, so they don't pay anything. Some individuals pay a lot in taxes, some pay nothing. Again, we are speaking of corporate welfare. That means that some corporations receive government aid for training, grants, loans, whatever, just like an individual.

This is just more double-talk and you know it.

Me? Everyone calls Obama a Marxist? Whatever. I never said that.

You: The dems are really all about welfare. ????????? Because they buy their votes with it. Here's your line:

THAT'S what you said.

Which means:

Government hand-outs to buy votes, more specifically Democrats. Nice try. Keep on spinning, homeboy.

 

Again, you missed it entirely. I never said that corporations payed more than all individuals combined. What I actually said was that corporations and the rich pay more than the rest of us. I had intended it as combined, but it looks to be true even individually.

Which shocks me to no end, considering I spelled it out step-by-step. Do I need to show you charts or something?

1.) You have yet to show that the average corporation gets as much through government incentive programs as it pays through taxes.
2.) I'm not talking about corporate welfare here, but regular, real welfare.

Wow, that's surprising. Maybe The Simpsons or American Idol would be better. Heroes?

That's not 'double-talk' at all, and please stop using that term as you apparently don't even know what it means. I have not engaged in any double-talk at all in this entire thread. I've disected a complex issue (or at least tried to) and when I've shown you connected issues, you accuse me of double-talk.

*sigh* This all came up because I tried to explain why the Dems are so often seen as communist, which was a direct, on-topic response to your original post. You then side-stepped the issue by claiming that the Dems and Reps are both equal patrons of corporations. This may or may not be true (I see the Reps as much bigger patrons, but that may be a perception flaw), but has nothing to do with my claim that the Dems are the champions of welfare (which is what you responded to).

Good, I'm glad you're finally realizing that.

This is starting to get entertaining. I realize it may be hard for you to do, but you have to realize that when I say 'welfare', I'm not talking about 'corporate welfare'. You've done this over and over agian, substituting your pet phrase in for my single word. They're two completely different things. Look back at what I said and apply the definition I've been using for 'welfare' since post #12, as opposed to your 'corporate welfare', which you've been using since post #13. I think it will make a lot more sense when you do that.

This is just more BS and you know it.

So, now, trying to differentiate between 'corporate welfare' and 'welfare' is double-talk? What are you thinking?

Excuse me, not everyone, just conservative pundits.

Actually, my intention was more to portray it as a tool to pacify the sheepish masses and stay in power, rather than 'buying votes', which sounds much more like direct, intentional bribery. And yes, I think it's pretty sound. Again, the Republicans aren't much better, but their favored tool is the favor of the rich and corporations, which is much more like buying votes in my opinion.

 

No that's not what you said, you said corporations pay more than individuals.

...And your point would be?

No, you didn't.

I presented it as a question. Did you read the TIME link? And since they get money back in the way of training, grants and loans, they don't really pay the 25 percent.

I hardly watch TV.

No, you have not. You presented nothing but spin and double-talk, even from your first post. What complex issue?

No, you said that Demcrats buy votes with welfare checks. That's what you said in your first post.

It's been entertaining. You made a partisan statement and I explained to you that there was enough "vote buying" on both sides, and you tried to duck out of it. Then you denied even saying Dems bought votes with welfare, and they suddenly became "Champions of Welfare." You are a funny guy.

And there it is. You finally concede it. God be praised. That was my whole point. Next time, say what you mean, or mean what you say. Either one will do.

The Dems give government handouts to the poor to get votes, (you said), and I said in post #13, that Republicans do the same for the rich but that both parties give handouts to corporations for lobby and special interest money.

It is an overly cynical view, nevetheless, and it is partisan politics to make such statements about Republicans and Democrats (and I realize I made it as well). But politics has become both cynical and partisan. However, corporate welfare is especially bad because all individuals pay for it: the rich, the working class and the poor (or any individual who pays taxes).

 

You know, the least you could do is actually find a quote of me saying that. It's kind of useless, though, since I quoted myself just a few posts ago on this same topic. Here it is again:

Yes, I did. Actually, I quoted that in the same post that I quoted the above in. Here it is again.

Try to pay attention, this time.

I read the TIME link, yes. I didn't see any numbers on this, though. And I thought loans didn't count, since you had to pay them back. Add to that the ludicrous idea of placing a financial value on 'gov't training' and your arguement is really starting to fall through.

Actually, you aren't missing much.

What complex issue? Are you serious? How about the modern political theater? How about who pays what in taxes? How about the variable definitions of 'welfare'. Here, specifically though, it was tracing the mentality of the Democratic party when simultaneously raising taxes on the rich and corporations (coupled together) and increasing spending on real welfare programs (notice the lower-case 'w' and the 's' at the end of 'programs', just in case you got confused).

While we're at it, though, how about you give a definition of 'double-talk' that actually makes sense in this context. I realize you'll probably ignore me again, but I have to ask.

Chandos, this is amazing. This time, you quoted me! Here it is again, however:

To be clear, historically, panem et circenses isn't 'buying votes' (since many of the people exercizing it in Rome weren't elected, or at least not by the people) but rather satisfying the masses. How you read that as 'buying votes', I don't understand.

This really does show you and I have been having two wildly different conversations. Now I understand how, though. You've been reading BS into my every post. To clear things up, my statement on the Dems wasn't 'partisan' in any sense other than that it talked about one party and not the other. You'll notice I've been plenty critical of the Republicans in my posts, too, but they aren't the primary topic, so I haven't gotten more into it. Next, you're attempt to explain 'vote buying' (and here, talking about corporate welfare, I think you have it right) was completely off-topic, since I wasn't talking about corporate welfare or 'vote buying'. I didn't try to duck it, just make some modicum of sense as to why you posted it in the first place. And yes, I do deny that I ever said Dems buy votes with welfare, because I never did. You did, but not me. And the Dems have been the champions of welfare (at least in speech, though even in action much more than the Republicans) for years. There's nothing sudden about it. Mind you, I'm talking about actual welfare, not your BS 'corporate welfare', so I imagine you're confused again.

From now on, read what I write, not what you want to see.

I have, both. I was talking about the Republicans above. We were talking about the Dems before. Or, does 'Republicans' suddenly mean 'Democrats' in you're bizarre lexicon?

A few things. One, I never said they give the money to get votes. It's more complex than that. They give money to the poor to keep the poor docile. They then make big speeches, demonize corporations and the rich, and make lots of promises to win votes from the docile poor and middle-class. Two, though the Republicans buy votes from the rich, that's a very different thing than what the Dems do, and it definitely isn't welfare. Three, short of this past recession, I've seen a lot more favor to the corporations coming from the Republicans than from the Dems. Even in this recession, a lot of Dems have criticized Obama over his bailouts of corporations.

Just out of curiosity, is it partisan to say such things about both parties, since that doesn't show support for either one of them? If you don't respond to this one, I'll understand, as it really is off-topic, but I think it's an interesting question.

 

No, you can say right now, and up-front, that you agree that indiviuals pay more than corporations. End of story. "The rich" in this instance, are individuals as well, so cut the crap, NOG.

Not all corporations receive corporate welfare. I made this point to you a few times already and you ignored it. So your "estimates" are only assumptions, and really bad ones. Thanks for playing.

I think Aldeth made this same point to you about student loans regarding social welfare, and you did not agree, or did you? I can't remember. You've said no many different things here.

It is government hands-outs to win popular support. So which is it? Is it welfare to benefit the poor, which you claimed was the "real" definition of "welfare," or is it "panem et circenses?" Here's your chance: Will the real NOG please stand up and provide for us what he really means by "welfare."

So are you just giving us a history lesson, or are you speaking of Democrats? That would make a difference in this debate.

Well, that's something you got right. I WAS quoting you.

That's not really a "complex" issue.

I crafted this topic, and it was about the opposition, which is mostly - drum roll please - Republicans.

Yes, like not going hungry, or having health care, or an education? You claimed that that was the real purpose of "welfare," benefiting the poor. So what do really mean here? A thoughtful and accurate explanation would be helpful for once.