About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006. How can I explain to my liberal friends that it is ok for our government to give money to corporations but not to the poor. I keep losing at these arguments. I mean the government should be able to give money to corporations  but not to the poor or middle class. Subsidies and corporations go hand in hand, but giving money to the poor and middle class is a terrible idea they don't deserve it. Am I right?

Slow your roll. One topic at a time. Give people a chance to respond.

Quote from: planetearth on May 03, 2015, 11:49:29 PM
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006. How can I explain to my liberal friends that it is ok for our government to give money to corporations but not to the poor. I keep losing at these arguments. I mean the government should be able to give money to corporations  but not to the poor or middle class. Subsidies and corporations go hand in hand, but giving money to the poor and middle class is a terrible idea they don't deserve it. Am I right?

Link(s) please your posting on a Conservative board. 

Quote from: planetearth on May 03, 2015, 11:49:29 PM
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006. How can I explain to my liberal friends that it is ok for our government to give money to corporations but not to the poor. I keep losing at these arguments. I mean the government should be able to give money to corporations  but not to the poor or middle class. Subsidies and corporations go hand in hand, but giving money to the poor and middle class is a terrible idea they don't deserve it. Am I right?

Yet you believed the lie of "Hope and Change", "Most Transparent Administration in History",
"There won't be Lobbyists's in my Administration", that Green energy had noting to do with Marxism, or Crony Capitalism was only in Establishment GOP", a lie you still believe today and will ignorantly and blindly vote Dem Marxist because you're too dammed stupid to break your herd mentality.

Am I right lib? You come in here with the idea that what you said is somehow connected to the right, that somehow it is Govt's responsibility to feed and house the poor.
Yeah, we see your ignorant asses on a daily basis, voting for ridiculous min wage increases, then when you get it, are shocked at the fact prices go up, people lose their jobs, businesses close, communities suffer.

Yes, you freakin moron, it's idiots like you that empower Marxist ideals, then wonder what went wrong.
Kick the Koolaid habit, and try some TEA.

I dare you to come back and challenge one single thing I said, just one.

The first mistake is trying to explain anything to a liberal. Our only hope is to get leaders who understand how the economy works and live up to the responsibilities of leadership. We have in leadership now, predominantly people who see elected and public positions as primarily a way to make themselves money, the more the better.  The people, the saps, accept this.

Quote from: walkstall on May 04, 2015, 04:13:00 AM
 


Link(s) please your posting on a Conservative board.

What, an opinion piece from the NY Slimes? You know libs can't link to the idiocy in their tiny little minds.

Quote from: planetearth on May 03, 2015, 11:49:29 PM
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006. How can I explain to my liberal friends that it is ok for our government to give money to corporations but not to the poor. I keep losing at these arguments.

Why pay for parasites when you can support domestic jobs and those who create them?

QuoteI mean the government should be able to give money to corporations  but not to the poor or middle class.

Agreed. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which explicitly states it is the business of government to perform acts of charity. Promotion of trade and commerce, however, IS.

QuoteSubsidies and corporations go hand in hand, but giving money to the poor and middle class is a terrible idea they don't deserve it. Am I right?

Since the poor don't pay taxes, and are totally unlikely to HIRE people, the smart money should go to those who create jobs, once they are free from government intervention. The middle class, which bears the real tax burden, should be given bigger breaks than the companies.

Quote from: planetearth on May 03, 2015, 11:49:29 PM
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006. How can I explain to my liberal friends that it is ok for our government to give money to corporations but not to the poor. I keep losing at these arguments. I mean the government should be able to give money to corporations  but not to the poor or middle class. Subsidies and corporations go hand in hand, but giving money to the poor and middle class is a terrible idea they don't deserve it. Am I right?

Why should the government use tax dollars to subsidize anyone? Does the Constitution allow our CONgresscritters to spend tax dollars that way? BTW it's not OK to give away tax dollars to anyone! Only a lefty believes that.

With the exception of the Import-Export Bank, much of the "subsidies" government gives to business are to prop up the pension funds that depend upon the health of those business.

Quote from: planetearth on May 03, 2015, 11:49:29 PM
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs.

Please post a link to support this.

Quote
$92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies.

Please post a link to support this.

Quote
So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

Prove it.

Quote
How can I explain to my liberal friends that it is ok for our government to give money to corporations but not to the poor.

Why would you want to explain that?  That would make you stupid.  It's not OK for the government to seize our earnings and give it to anyone.

Quote
I keep losing at these arguments.

I see why.

Quote
I mean the government should be able to give money to corporations

No, it shouldn't. 

Quote
  but not to the poor or middle class.

It shouldn't give money to anyone.

Quote
Subsidies and corporations go hand in hand, but giving money to the poor and middle class is a terrible idea they don't deserve it. Am I right?

Any subsidies are bad.  End them all!  See how easy that is?

Quote from: planetearth on May 03, 2015, 11:49:29 PM
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

Common core is kicking your ass. How do you get 50% from 59 and 92. Someone needs to beat the hell out of your math teacher.

And like Taxed stated what right does our goverment have to give away any of our money away...?

Quote from: Bronx on May 04, 2015, 01:28:42 PM
Common core is kicking your ass. How do you get 50% from 59 and 92. Someone needs to beat the hell out of your math teacher.

And like Taxed stated what right does our goverment have to give away any of our money away...?

92 billion minus 59 billion equals 33 billion. 33 billion divided by 59 billion equals 55.9%.

Quote from: planetearth on May 03, 2015, 11:49:29 PM
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006. How can I explain to my liberal friends that it is ok for our government to give money to corporations but not to the poor. I keep losing at these arguments. I mean the government should be able to give money to corporations  but not to the poor or middle class. Subsidies and corporations go hand in hand, but giving money to the poor and middle class is a terrible idea they don't deserve it. Am I right?

I don't believe your numbers are accurate but I figured I would post something that will totally blow your lib mind! Corporations don't pay any taxes the consumer does through the cost of the product. If you eliminated Oil Company subsidies for exploration What do you think would happen? The price of fuel would go up to cover their additional costs and guess what it is Johnny paycheck that will pick up the burden in what would amount to a regressive tax on the poor! Same with Farm products an increase of the cost of food at the store!
All products are priced on the cost of production and overhead. Corporate taxes are part of the overhead. Without subsidies overhead cost increase and are pass to the consumer! By all means lets eliminate subsidies so people can see what the real time cost really are!   

Often what collectivist call "subsidies" are simply tax breaks to corporations.

In this case the OP is equating the government not taking money from a corporation to that same government giving away other people's money to people who did nothing to earn it.

If there ever was a "apples to oranges" argument, this is it!

Where did he go????