Posted on May 7, 2016
SPC Rory J. Mattheisen
8.87K
62
29
7
7
0
9099df82
I personally see corporate welfare as the more immediate problem.
Posted in these groups: Scales of justice BusinessEconomy logo EconomyGold 24 Economics
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 15
MCPO Roger Collins
0
0
0
Edited >1 y ago
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
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Mikel Dawson
0
0
0
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).
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Darren Koele
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO2 Hospital Corpsman
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Geologist
0
0
0
My answer is yes. It is two sides of the same coin.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close