ClassWarrior

I remember hearing some of the better off people talking about some of the less fortunate members of society how they were "undeserving" and "sorry." I asked them what they thought about Exxon Mobile getting 12 billion dollars in tax payer subsidies, which was nothing more than welfare. They were unaware of this. I also told them that in addition to the 12 billion of dollars of tax payer subsidies (which they do not pay back) they get another 7 billion over a period of 5-10 years as well. It is basically a huge return on investment for these private companies to use their money to get politicans elected and those politicans turn around and subsidized their companies which the subsidy in and of itself is far more than what the company gave to that politican's political campaign. It's quite funny, actually, to hear people scoff at welfare for the poor and less fortunate when the rich and wealthy become every more wealthy through welfare themselves in the form of corporate welfare. I think their are alot of people, at least where I live, who are unaware of the corporate welfare programs. What makes these corporations more deserving of welfare than the less fortunate members of our society? Shouldn't we be assisting and helping the less fortunate to where they become productive members of society? And doesn't corporate welfare go against the notions of free market competition by unfarily rigging the game in favor of the wealthy?

__________________
"An eye for an eye makes everybody blind." -Gandhi

hkbajwa

hahahahaha... very good point.. i have always found the US stance on socialist policies to be contradictory.. SOME things can be funded but others can't.. SOME corporations deserve subsidies, but the single mom in the ghetto can goddamn jolly well look after herself.

I find it INSANE that you can spend billions upon BILLIONS on military spending ( even though nobody could mess with you even if you only spent HALF the amount - it would still be more than 4 times what any other nation spends) yet will not spend money on keeping people literate and healthy.. absolutely crazy.

I'm telling you dude.. ur all getting screwed by big business and this halfassed "capitalist" system ( government subsidy for SOME but not for others)

__________________
Love for all, Hatred for none

indago

ClassWarrior

The military spending that you talk about is part of the corporate welfare or the welfare for the rich I have been talking about. This is what we call the military industrial complex where these defense companies rely on government subsidies to keep them in business and keep their shareholders happy. I absolutely agree with you, as an American, that this is absolutely insane. Complete madness. But this is part of the class war being waged on the American working poor. But it's not just the American working poor, it is a class war which is being waged on a global scale.

Yup, we sure are. I always get a kick out of people here where I live, making fun of the poor who are on welfare. I usually step and explain how the rich collect way more welfare benefits than the poor. They have bought into the myth of the "undeserving" poor.

__________________
"An eye for an eye makes everybody blind." -Gandhi

ClassWarrior

Because we don't have a choice. If we don't subsidize the corporations, we go to jail. The corporations here in America own american politicans. American politicans in Congress and at the White House are bought and paid for by big business. The US is essientially a dictatorship by the rich, wealthy few and like all dictatorships, if we refuse to cooperate we go to prison or worse.

__________________
"An eye for an eye makes everybody blind." -Gandhi

baloney_detector

You *do* realize, however, that the US's military industrial complex employs millions of working Americans and that the sale of it's products support the US economy as well as help provide security to the US and her allies...and that other industries in the US are also subsidized, right?

Perhaps it's the products that they make that you truely do not agree with?

indago

ClassWarrior wrote:They can't put everybody in prison...

-------------------------------------------------
British Officer: "You don't think we're just going to walk out of India?"

Gandhi: "Yes. In the end, you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation — till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving"

hkbajwa

Well it IS a fact that those very same people could find employment in any number of state-subsidized industries. Instead of paying people to make weapons, perhaps you would consider paying them to take care of a free hospital.

In any case the military-industrial complex makes a few people VERY rich. Sure it provides people with employment but look at the cost these same people actually pay. THey make weapons that the companies sell to turn a profit. THey get their salaries but see none of the "benefits" of selling weapons.

However if even only HALF of current military spending was redirected to healthcare, it would provide the same level of employment. Only the advantages would trickle down to EVERY american and not just the company directors and shareholders.

And how does the sale support the US economy? They are SUBSIDIZED industries.. that means that the government actually SPENDS on them. And as is typical in america, the companies can expect tax breaks and other benefits, so i sincerely doubt the benefit these companies provide to the american people.

It's sort of insane that everybody is all too happy to produce weapons to sell to people so they may kill each other.. but you will not spend money on making your people healthier... unebelievable!

__________________
Love for all, Hatred for none

baloney_detector

First of all, when the government subsidizes an industry this generally means that that industry is gaining an economic benefit from taxpayers dollars...meaning that those businesses pay artificially lowered taxes or the products they produce have price controls layed upon them that artificially act to inflate the sales prices of those items that, in turn, creates greater profits for those companies...or any number of ways that the government acts to help that industry endure.

(When price controls are put into effect that artificially raise the price of goods or services, the end consumer, which is usually the general population, sort of pays an indirect tax on those goods or services because the prices of those goods or services would be lower in a free market. So, in this situation, the general population is, in a way, paying taxes indirectly-or subsidies directly-to an industry...which makes those industries more profitable.)

However, when the US government purchases goods or services from industries, those businesses in those industries aren't, in fact, being subsidized because the government, in this case, is just like any other consumer of those goods or services.

Now, regarding the US military industrial complex, the simple sale of weapons to the government would not mean that that industry is being subsidized...unless, of course, that industry does have some level of real subsidization, meaning tax breaks to the industry and so forth.

So, even if the US military industrial complex is truly being subsidized to some extent, there are still actual exchanges of cash, in the form of taxes, for goods or services that are occuring over and above that subsidization.

Now, you can argue that this industry shouldn't be subsidized at all so that more taxpayer's dollars can be spent elsewhere....which I'd probably agree with you since this industry clearly has a future, even though particular companies within the industry might scream that they aren't making a great enough profit for various reasons.

However, when you compare subsidies to other industries, such as agriculture, you have a different picture because the government generally isn't actually getting any direct goods or services in return for its investment.

So, if one is to argue that the US industrial complex shouldn't be subsided, then it would be rational to conclude that other industries shouldn't be subsidized either...regardless of the goods or services such industries provide...especially if the US government isn't getting anything in return for taxpayer's money.

Personally speaking, I've always felt that the US government should be run like a small "Mom and Pop" corner store because if Mom and Pop don't make a profit, or at least break-even overall, Mom and Pop don't get to eat.

(As a side note, workers in the US military industrial complex tend do get paid fairly well...and I know this because I've known several people within that industry over the years.)

knot_e_lady

WAYYYYY back when, in my early 20's I worked for a government contractor (Hughes Aircraft). We were working on the F14 mission trainer to be set up down in NAS Miramar and NAS Virginia Beach. We were working on the trainer for the RIO, and it would link up with the pilot trainer that was built by Grumman.

Now, keep in mind, this was 1984, but I know several of the software engineers, even then, were making upwards to $35.00 per hour, not including overtime.