Do you believe corporate or social welfare is the bigger problem in our nation?

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:42:13 -0400

I personally see corporate welfare as the more immediate problem.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made May 7 at 2016 3:45 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:45:07 -0400

Both are having a PROFOUND effect on our Society!

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made May 7 at 2016 4:03 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:03:15 -0400

Corporate welfare has a very negative effect and should be reduced/eliminated. It creates an inefficient market. The problem with social welfare, however, is that the way it is set up now contributes to a sense of dependency on the government and propagates poverty into future generations. Helping those in greatest of needs should be a priority for our government, which is why I believe that social welfare reform is necessary.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 7:56 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 19:56:39 -0400

I'm more concerned (irritated) about the welfare we provide to so-called allies who are as such in name only.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 8:31 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 20:31:07 -0400

My answer is yes. It is two sides of the same coin.

Response by CPO Amb. Terry Earthwind Nichols made May 7 at 2016 9:08 PM

CPO Amb. Terry Earthwind Nichols — Sat, 07 May 2016 21:08:41 -0400

They both make money for the 1%...

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 9:36 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 21:36:19 -0400

I think corporate subsidies, except in the infant industry argument are completely unnecessary. Social, is a whole other beast entirely; and a far more complex one. The idea of handing money to somebody with no strings attached is just a bad idea entirely; I think putting it towards programs that would prepare people for some line of future employment would provide better returns for both the taxpayers and the government, because it is an investment at the end of the day and if that money is spent on preparing somebody for a job (such as for the frictionally and structurally unemployed) so they can stand on their own two feet; and they can do that, everybody will be better off for it than if the government just threw money at the problem and expected it to disappear.

Response by SPC Darren Koele made May 8 at 2016 1:44 AM

SPC Darren Koele — Sun, 08 May 2016 01:44:29 -0400

In their currents forms, all welfare is a problem. Problem is, the definition of welfare seems to be hanging. In the case of corporate welfare, people include tax breaks into this; tax breaks are not welfare. When it comes to social welfare, I don't think card to grave assistance is the right way to do things either. If you are able bodied, your butt should be working. If you're not working, you should be volunteering in exchange for your benefits; benefits which you should only receive for a limited period. Let's also not forget that welfare goes beyond just your assistance check. It also includes food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, obamacare, social security, and other programs. Annual cost? About $2.5 trillion.
Cut that and every government agency in half (eliminate about a half dozen), I've just settled your deficit problem.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made May 8 at 2016 7:57 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sun, 08 May 2016 07:57:07 -0400

Give a man a fish, he is fed, but hungry the next day. Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself all the time(only if he wants to).

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made May 8 at 2016 11:15 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 08 May 2016 11:15:12 -0400

Here is an analysis that identifies the problem in this O/P. The link works, but couldn't delete the garbage noted below the link.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34 [login to see] -47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

%PDF-1.5 %յյ 1 0 obj endobj 2 0 obj endobj 3 0 obj /XObject/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] /MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group/Tabs/S/StructParents 0 endobj 4 0 obj stream xܥä?è!ö"IIA$ÉbËNX&û¶Ým]lÉcËéÉýú«Ûw7t»bXoüüøãËoßÿd^%o~zùüìïD"dòùîÙ"ÉàhL)S¡Ïûg?dÉ=þøùÙ¿/å¿Ï{öÃ_apòodY0;tÊebtæì rJ\§TÄäeIîí9 _7îØ/oÔâ?ÆÉJÒþµT üÛÝÕ8öcãe§Ç:lÚuÓÞ/u|XaRQÃÃ4Û õñ9õ4=||ßo=áÍïÛr%ªTOhJÝÄµL6,ñÝf9âÚvZÔe8ï7}6EzaÆÀäÅOÊ(ÁiåPüa]íWÜöW&jña¿]Þ$LGzf79=8...

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made May 8 at 2016 11:18 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 08 May 2016 11:18:57 -0400

Please define corporate welfare, specifically.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2016 11:31 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 May 2016 11:31:19 -0400

We shouldnt have either. No reason any person or business should be paid to exist, or have what they have earned taken from them.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 8 at 2016 1:57 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 08 May 2016 13:57:56 -0400

Corporate by Far.

Response by Maj John Bell made May 8 at 2016 2:51 PM

Maj John Bell — Sun, 08 May 2016 14:51:47 -0400

Education is considered a major factor in lifelong earnings and failure to graduate from high school has a high correlation with poverty level income. I have a SORT OF tongue in cheek proposal. Since the tax code has become a tool to conduct social engineering, what if we rolled with it. I specifically propose a tax on minor children who drop out from school and tax breaks for low-income households where the minor children have superior academic performance. I have not carefully considered the law of unintended consequences, or what would entitle someone to an exemption. But I consider it an interesting concept.

Response by CPL Ricky Vasquez made May 9 at 2016 12:34 AM

CPL Ricky Vasquez — Mon, 09 May 2016 00:34:38 -0400

You sound like a communist

Response by CSM David Heidke made May 9 at 2016 11:01 AM

CSM David Heidke — Mon, 09 May 2016 11:01:04 -0400

This graphic was written by a liberal think tank, by the way.

As for tax breaks being considered subsidies, that is deceptive. Perhaps oil has the greatest tax breaks because they have the greatest profits, spend the most money, and are the most widely used?

If you kill a tax break, you kill it for everyone, even non energy companies. Tax breaks are not subsidies. Direct payments are properly targeted and should be more closely scrutinized.