Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

Corporate Welfare Piggy Bank

Time Magazine, Vol. 152 No. 19

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent nearly 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

Before we look at the details, a heartfelt plea from the Save the CEO’s Charitable Trust:

There’s so much suffering in the world. It can all get pretty overwhelming sometimes. Consider, for a moment the sorrow in the eyes of a CEO who’s just found out that his end-of-year bonus is only going to be a paltry $2.3 million.

“It felt like a slap in the face. Imagine what it would feel like just before Christmas to find out that you’re going to be forced to scrape by on your standard $8.4 million compensation package alone. Imagine what is was like to have to look into my daughter’s face and tell her that I couldn’t afford to both buy her a dollar sign shaped island and hire someone to chew her food from now on, too. To put her in that situation of having to choose… She’s only a child for God’s sake.”

It doesn’t have to be this way. Thanks to federal subsidies from taxpayers like you, CEO’s like G. Allen Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland was able to take home almost $14 million in executive compensation last year. But he’s one of the lucky ones. There are still corporations out there that actually have to provide goods and services to their consumers in order to survive. They need your help.

For just $93 billion a year the federal government is able to provide a better life for these CEO’s and their families. That’s less than the cost of 240 million cups of coffee a day. Won’t you help a needy corporation today?

The Traditional Welfare Queen

Definition: social welfare

n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to specific individuals.

When one thinks about government welfare, the first thing that comes to mind is the proverbial welfare queen sitting atop her majestic throne of government cheese issuing a royal decree to her clamoring throngs of illegitimate babies that they may shut the hell up while she tries to watch Judge Judy. However, many politically well-connected corporations are also parasitically draining their share of fiscal blood from your paycheck before you ever see it. It’s called corporate welfare. The intent here is to figure out which presents the greater burden to our federal budget, corporate or social welfare programs.

There are, of course, positive and negative aspects to this spending.The primary negative aspect is that you have to increase taxes to pay for it. Taxing individuals lowers their standard of living.  It reduces people’s ability to afford necessities like medical care, education, and low mileage off-road vehicles.The common usage definition of social welfare includes welfare checks and food stamps. Welfare checks are supplied through a federal program called Temporary Aid for Needy Families. Combined federal and state TANF spending was about $26 billion in 2006. In 2009, the federal government will spend about $25 billion on rental aid for low-income households and about $8 billion on public housing projects. For some perspective, that’s about 3 percent of the total federal budget.

Note: I do not consider Medicaid to be included in the term “welfare” as it is used in common parlance.  Typically, if one states that someone is “on welfare”, they mean that the person is receiving direct financial aid from the government.  If we included Medicaid in our definition of social welfare, we would also have to consider any service that the government pays for to be “welfare”.  For instance, public roadways to individuals’ homes would also be considered “welfare” under that expansive definition.

TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families)

Another negative aspect relates to the fact that social welfare programs reduce the incentive for recipients to become productive members of society. However, in 1996, Congress passed a bill enacting limited welfare reform, replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the new Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program. Now, with the recent changes in healthcare including Obamacare tax implications, some states are enacting strict criteria that a family must meet to be eligible for TANF. One key aspect of this reform required recipients to engage in job searches, on the job training, community service work, or other constructive behaviors as a condition for receiving aid. The bill was signed by a man named Bill Clinton, who is much better known for an act of fellatio which, of course, had far greater societal implications. Regardless, the success of this reform was pretty dramatic. Caseloads were cut nearly in half. Once individuals were required to work or undertake constructive activities as a condition of receiving aid they left welfare rapidly. Another surprising result was a drop in the child poverty rate. Employment of single mothers increased substantially and the child poverty rate fell sharply from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 16.3 percent in 2000.

Graph of US Child Poverty Rates by Living Arrangements (1975-2009)

Graph Source:

The Corporate Welfare Queen

Now, let’s consider the other kind of welfare.

Definition: corporate welfare

n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses.

The Cato Institute estimated that, in 2002, $93 billion were devoted to corporate welfare. This is about 5 percent of the federal budget.

What is NOT considered corporate welfare?
  1. Government Contracts – To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud, I suppose the primary service they provide could be considered to be repeatedly violating the American taxpayer.
  2. Tax Breaks – Tax breaks targeted to benefit specific corporations could also be considered a form of welfare. Tax loopholes force other businesses and individual taxpayers without the same political clout to pick up the slack and sacrifice a greater share of their hard-earned money to decrease the financial burden on these corporations. However, to simplify matters, we’ve only included financial handouts to companies in our working definition of corporate welfare.
What IS considered corporate welfare?
  • Subsidies – On the other hand, the $15 billion in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures.
US Energy Subsidies Infographic by GOOD Magazine & Deeplocal


Whenever corporate welfare is presented to voters, it always sounds like a pretty reasonable, well-intended idea. Politicians say that they’re stimulating the economy or helping struggling industries or creating jobs or funding important research. But when you steal money from the paychecks of working people, you hurt the economy by reducing their ability to buy the things they want or need. This decrease in demand damages other industries and puts people out of work.

Most of the pigs at the government trough are among the biggest companies in America, including:

Farm Subsidies

However, the largest fraction of corporate welfare spending, about 40%, went through the Department of Agriculture, most of it in the form of farm subsidies. (Edwards, Corporate Welfare, 2003) Well, that sounds OK. Someone’s got to help struggling family farms stay afloat, right? But in reality, farm subsidies actually tilt the cotton field in favor of the largest industrial farming operations. When it comes to deciding how to dole out the money, the agricultural subsidy system utilizes a process that is essentially the opposite of that used in the social welfare system’s welfare system. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. The result is that the absolute largest 7% of corporate farming operations receive 45% of all subsidies. (Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, 2004) So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.

Graph of Direct Government Payments to Farmers (1990-2004)

Graph Source:

Wal-Mart.  Always high subsidies.  Always.

The same is true in all other industries, too. The government gives tons of favors to the largest corporations, increasing the significant advantage they already have over smaller competing businesses. If, in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart has been tried and convicted for the murder of main street, mom-and-pop America, then the government could easily be found guilty as a willing accomplice. Wal-Mart receives hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidization by local governments throughout the country. These subsidies take the form of bribes by local politicians trying to convince Wal-Mart to come to their town with the dream of significant job creation. Of course, from that follows a larger tax base. For example, a distribution center in Macclenny, Florida received $9 million in government subsidies in the form of free land, government-funded recruitment and training of employees, targeted tax breaks, and housing subsidies for employees allowing them to be paid significantly lower wages. A study by Good Jobs First found that 244 Wal-Marts around the country had received over $1 billion in government favors.

The Big Picture

So now let’s look at the big picture. The final totals are $59 billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and $92 billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations. So, the government spends roughly 50% more on corporate welfare than it does on these particular public assistance programs.

Should we spend less on corporate welfare and/or social welfare programs? Or should we spend even more? It’s up to you. A bunch of people died horrible deaths to make sure this country remained a democracy, so if you feel strongly about this issue you owe it to them to call or write your congressman and senators and give them a piece of your mind.

Some More Sources:

2013 Budget:

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government (Washington: Government Publishing Office), various years; and data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science R&D Budget and Policy Program, various years.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,

Source:  Export-Import Bank, 2006 Annual Report (Washington: Export-Import Bank, 2007).

Source Data from Chris Edwards at Cato:

Corporate Welfare by Agency

Corporate Welfare by Agency 2

Corporate Welfare by Company

I am extremely appreciative of any corrections or additional info that I left out.  Please include hyperlinked SOURCES.  I want to update this post with more recent numbers and more expansive definitions of both corporate and social welfare.


  • Anonymous

    It is high time that we as a country put a stop to all of the corporate welfare, and made our political leaders follow the same rules that the rest of the country follow. and if they won't, remember elections are coming soon.

    • Sadly, repubs and dems are two sides of the same coin. We need to take away corporate personhood. This, in turn, would revoke the first amendment right for corporations to sponsor politicians. If we can stop corporations from funding politicians, then we’d be able to get other parties into office. Doing this would fix a multitude of our problems, actually…

      • It seems like the media has a lot more influence over who gets elected than do campaign commercials. Don’t you think restricting campaign spending will only increase the relative power of the corporate media over election outcomes?

    • Patriot1742

      Problem with this is that if you look at the GAO numbers – over 68% of all money spent goes to social programs – that includes all social programs not just welfare. The article is bogus.

  • 2012 UEFA Euros

    Paulo Freire: “Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.”

  • @Sam I know what your mean. In todays economy its difficult to find a job that pays good enough to live on and is stable . I have discovered that if you just work hard and are consistent you can go places . Look at the author of this page , they are oviously a hard worker and have just been consistent over time and are now enjoying at least what would appear as somewhat of a success. I would encourage everyone to just keep hustling and moving forward.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, lets stop all corporate welfare programs and put more people out of work and drive the price of EVERYTHING up and wages in turn down. I think that idea is great if no one can afford anything then we don’t have to worry because the government will tax the people who actually do work so they can support us. How about this solution: STOP COMPLAINING AND GET A DAMN JOB! Support the economy and keep the standard of living we are used to.

    • On the contrary, returning the money that would be spent on corporate welfare to taxpayers would increasing their disposable income. Since they’d be buying more goods and services, this would create jobs and drive wages up.

      You seem to suggest that if a corporation receives free money from the government that it will distribute the money to it’s employees. In reality, the owners most corporations pay its employees as little as they can get away with regardless of their profit margin.

      Corporations will hire an employee if the can make more money from that employees labor than the employee charges for their services. The amount of free money the corporation receives from the government does not factor into this calculus. Hence, eliminating corporate welfare would not increase unemployment.

      • Anonmyous

        I did NOT at any point say that corporations gave that money to their employees. What I am saying is simple logic. Ask yourself this question: If the price of gas in this country was $10.00 a gallon would you be able to afford it? These corporate welfare programs are being used to artificially keep the price of goods/services at a level that the middle class can afford. Economics 101 teaches this principal…. If it wasn’t for government intervention in the gas matter above all gas prices would have been around $6.00 a gallon in 2004. It’s a basic supply and demand curve. As for unemployment companies bringing in less money usually leads to downsizing (unless you live in backwards land where when you make less money you expand with nothing to back it; WAIT, this theory is EXACTLY the Obama philosophy: “If you can’t afford it who cares do it anyway the people who actually have their lives together and live within their means will pay through the nose so you can keep your $750,000 house that you put 0 down on when you work as a paper boy.” The world shouldn’t be like this. If people would get the damn idea out of their head that they are ENTITLED to anything and come to the realization that you need to work for what you have this country would be a much better place. Yes, it sucks that its come to the point that we need to offset the cost of goods and services with government intervention. I’m a Tea Party Conservative I believe in a small Government anything that creates more spending/more government intervention I am against. But I am also against having to pay absolutely exorbitant amounts of money for goods and services that are required to get me to and from work/keep my standard of living. I do not have a single shred of respect for anyone on unemployment who is not willing to pick up a spatula and flip a burger, or pick up a shovel and start digging just because “They are better than this, they have a degree.” No YOU are a child and you need to grow up. Do what you need to survive. Lately it has been: “I lost my job, lets protest the government!” It doesn’t work that way. Get out there and get a new job start supporting yourself and stop making ME support YOU!

        • Thanks for commenting! Not very many people do, so I’m grateful even though you seem pretty angry with me.

          “What I am saying is simple logic. Ask yourself this question: If the price of gas in this country was $10.00 a gallon would you be able to afford it? These corporate welfare programs are being used to artificially keep the price of goods/services at a level that the middle class can afford. “

          Why would a business lower what it charges because it got free money through lobbying efforts? Wouldn’t it charge the maximum that the consumer is willing to pay for the good or service? If this is true, how could the corporate welfare Energy Policy Act of 2005 reduce the cost of gasoline? The only way that could happen is if the government mandated price controls in exchange for the welfare money which they did not do.

          “If it wasn’t for government intervention in the gas matter above all gas prices would have been around $6.00 a gallon in 2004.”

          How so?

          Even if that is true, which it may very well be, paying $4 per gallon of gas at the pump in addition to having to pay an additional $2 per gallon through your income tax still adds up to $6 per gallon. So if government subsidies are used to bring down prices but the savings come from taxpayer subsidization, how could the taxpayer be saving money overall? Ultimately the taxpayer would be paying even more per gallon because a fraction of the taxes he sends to Washington for the politicians to distribute to the oil company will be inevitably filtered out by the politician. If you just payed the $6 at the pump, you wouldn’t have to pay for the politician’s cut.

          “As for unemployment companies bringing in less money usually leads to downsizing (unless you live in backwards land where when you make less money you expand with nothing to back it; WAIT, this theory is EXACTLY the Obama philosophy: “If you can’t afford it who cares do it anyway the people who actually have their lives together and live within their means will pay through the nose so you can keep your $750,000 house that you put 0 down on when you work as a paper boy.” The world shouldn’t be like this. If people would get the damn idea out of their head that they are ENTITLED to anything and come to the realization that you need to work for what you have this country would be a much better place.”

          I agree.

          “Yes, it sucks that its come to the point that we need to offset the cost of goods and services with government intervention. I’m a Tea Party Conservative I believe in a small Government anything that creates more spending/more government intervention I am against. But I am also against having to pay absolutely exorbitant amounts of money for goods and services that are required to get me to and from work/keep my standard of living.”

          How does giving the government tax money to give to Solyndra or ADM or Exxon will save me money? There’s no price controls attached, so why would that reduce the price they decide to charge the consumer? Even if it did reduce the price correspondingly, why is paying $2 through the government and $4 directly to the company better than paying $6 to the company?

          ” I do not have a single shred of respect for anyone on unemployment who is not willing to pick up a spatula and flip a burger, or pick up a shovel and start digging just because “They are better than this, they have a degree.” “

          I agree.

          ” No YOU are a child and you need to grow up. Do what you need to survive. Lately it has been: “I lost my job, lets protest the government!” It doesn’t work that way. Get out there and get a new job start supporting yourself and stop making ME support YOU!”

          OK. You don’t have to. I’ve worked ~50 hours a week at a private chemistry lab for the last 10 years.

          Please respond to clarify your points if you get time. Thanks!

          • Brian

            To be fair, the free money theoretically increases supply. An increase in supply means that the supply and demand curves cross further out along the x axis, and thus generally lower on the y axis (price). You are correct however, it doesn’t account for the deadweight loss of government intervention, etc… etc… These subsidies need to go.

        • Guest

          Economics 101 is clearly not working. Time for a new economic model?

  • Anonomyous

    Exactly what I expected. Someone makes a point and you delete the whole post. Get a life you liberal scumbag.

    • I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I appreciate the advice.

      However, I’m not really a liberal in the modern politicized sense of the word. I assume that since I site the statistics illustrating that we spend more on corporate welfare suggests that I think we should spend more on social welfare. I do not support government social welfare spending.

      However, the efficiency of the average private charity is 84%. I can’t find the exact figure right now but it seems safe to assume that the government wastes a lot more of their revenues on bureaucracy. If anyone finds it, please post it in a comment.

  • Pingback: Will Iran be attacked? - Page 2 - HCS Snowmobile Forums()

  • Hello there: thanks for taking time of writing up this knowledge. I always make an attempt to additionally my idea of points. Irrespective of whether I consent or disagree, I really like details. I recall the old times once the only supply of specifics was the library or even the newspaper. They the two appear to be so old fashion. : )

  • David

    How do people get it in their head that every recipient of welfare is a drug-loving lazy mother of 6? If you think that, then maybe you should do your research. I’m guesing many of the welfare repipients work harder and put in longer hours than most people reading this post. I’m a corporate pilot and I can apply for welfare on the little I’m getting paid which is unbelivealbe for the responsibility I have. Walfare is not breaking the national budget, neither is social security. This welfare debate is just a convenient way of trying to stop what negative connotaitons come along with it, even if they are false.

    • largo

      It not breaking the national budget, well, now we have 17 millions more people on welfare, let wait until 2016 I wonder how many more millions will be added. How many people on welfare do you need as a nation to call that a national problem?

    • jhgf trenrwe

      Most people who make a decent salary, $60K+, are completely disconnected from the world of poverty, so they make assumptions and just repeat the same old bullshit they hear from other stupid people.

  • MadMike

    Classic Apples vs Oranges argument. What is the return to the taxpayer on each program? Does social welfare contribute to the tax base or take from it only? Does social welfare employ the people it gives money to? Does social welfare enable the recipients to grow and thrive or just the contrary? Liberals are so shallow minded or are they just plain this stupid?

    • Ad hominem is an ineffective way to educate people.

  • MadMike

    Oops sorry, this comment answers the plain stupid question:
    “Walfare(sp) is not breaking the national budget, neither is social security.”
    Wonder what economic reports this idiot is getting that info from?

  • Chris

    Mike, you’re right, the comparison is apples (social welfare programs) to oranges (corporate welfare) here. You’ve got it. No one is trying to make you think that they’re the same thing (both apples).

    They’re both (in this case) bad fruit in some ways. Let’s think about which programs are better though. Certainly there is some abuse within social welfare programs. I think it’s more than fair to say that there is some abuse within the corporate welfare spectrum too. This doesn’t alone make either program illegitimate. You try to cut off the bad part of the fruit and keep the rest.

    Let’s look at your questions, remembering the oranges we’re trying to make a comparison to:

    “What is the return to the taxpayer on each program?”…In the case of social welfare, you could think about this from many angles. If you can think about it like insurance, you might realize that if you (a taxpayer) were ever to need it, you’d be seeing a return. In fact, not all the fruit is bad–most welfare recipients are only temporarily on the dole, and are taxpayers in their regular lives. Now, for corporate welfare programs, they are not so temporary, and the return to the taxpayer is at least as murky. You can argue, and to some degree you may be right, that prices at the pump, at the grocery store, at the Hummer dealer, etc, might be artificially lower. That certainly benefits some taxpayers, but not all equally, and it might hurt others, especially those whose corporations don’t win at the subsidy trough, and have to try to compete with those that do.

    “Does social welfare contribute to the tax base or take from it only?”…Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that all that free money the welfare moms are collecting isn’t going into stocks and foreign investments-it’s getting spent pretty readily, injected immediately back into the economy. Is this just as true for corporate welfare?

    “Does social welfare employ the people it gives money to? Does social welfare enable the recipients to grow and thrive or just the contrary?”…I’m leaving these two questions together as they seem quite similar. I would posit that social welfare as we have it comes closer to those ideals than does corporate welfare; certainly it’s more just and equitable in its distribution than are corporate subsidies doled out largely based on the largest lobbying expenditures by their recipients.

    So, finally, in our apples to oranges comparison, one might conclude that oranges cost 50% more, have a lot more unnecessary sugar, and leave a funny taste in the mouth for a much longer time. Personally I think they look prettier, but I’m not so sure they’re better for us.

    • That was a very thoughtful and cogent analysis. It’s disorienting to see those qualities in the comments section.

  • Stacey

    I’m a very conservative guy, but listening to those who support corporate welfare, but not social welfare remind me again that many of them are just neoconservatives who like big government spending or socialism, if it is their kind of socialism. Their justification for corporate welfare reminds me of the confederate arguments of long ago. It goes something like this, “I demand that the federal government not infringe on my liberties and state rights” while never acknowledging they are denying liberty to others. An inherent contradiction that made their argument unsustainable long term. So if you are going to be against welfare, then be against it across the board, not just against social welfare or the socialism you don’t like. When neoconservatives take such a position, it makes their argument unsustainable. At least be against all forms of welfare, then your argument would be consistent.
    Rugged individualism works to a degree, at least until something tragic happens, then you find you need all those various forms of social welfare, (making such a view unfortunately not practical over the long haul). Please wake up neoconservatives and realize that you are being used to push for an end to social welfare so corporate welfare can still get what they are use to getting as funds get more limited under a devaluing dollar. You are being used the same way poor whites were used by wealthy plantation owners long ago.
    By the way, an extreme example of corporate welfare or more accurately corporate welfare under monopolistic capitalism would be the plantations of long ago. Plantations used state laws or regulations of that time to secure unfair advantages (like denying other human beings their right to the fruits of their labor) and subsidies (taking from the value of others labor without fair compensation). This is an extreme example of the direction our country is moving more towards every day with corporate welfare/monopolies/no bid government contracts etc. So the plantation was really legalized plunder through institutionalized slavery or taxing completely from a slave what he would get from the value of his labor, if he were free. A reverse transfer of wealth to the most wealthy of that time took place through corporate welfare after an initial investment/cost of doing business in lobbying state governments and purchase of slaves. Same concepts, just different terms for different times. Certain policies are returning the middle class back to that kind of surfdom. Imagine a free market guy trying to sell a slave on a plantation a horse, they just don’t go together. So for those who only believe in corporate welfare and not social welfare, if they could go back in time it would sound something like this, “Yeah, but don’t you know, it at least helped the economy by freeing up funds for the plantation owner to be able to buy more slaves instead of it just going to social welfare and not getting anything back for it.” I know it sounds absurd, but that is how those who support corporate welfare, but not social welfare sound.
    Thomas Jefferson who was a slave owner thought corporate monopolies were dangerous, because such corporate monopolies he thought would use government to dominate everything including extracting most of the value from your labor without fair compensation. So neoconservatives become a conservative, which in many ways is similar to a classical liberal. We need to understand the tactic being used against us, which is to divide and conquer! Thanks, check out

    • qcubed

      Your party needs many more who think, and speak, as you do.

    • Devils Advocate

      You best be kidding me… This guy plans on making an argument by using examples from 150 yrs ago? This is also a non-sustainable argument.

      I understand that history repeats itself but, please, lets not get carried away with the expression. When slavery was allowed the economy was extremely different than the economy today. We cannot realistically compare a isolationist economy to a global economy. What you are pointing out, (I think, though I’m really not sure what the horse part was about), is saying corporations are capitalizing on labor by not compensating their workers. See: “taking from the value of others labor without fair compensation”. You do realize in this country we live in, we have something called minimum wage. That clearly states that any employer must pay an employee a certain wage for their services and employment provided. So please tell me how does that relate to Slavery?

      You are the worst liberal who’s comment I have read so far. This is absolutely outrageous that you compare slavery to modern-day times workers. Please talk to an African American who’s ancestors worked on a plantation and see if they agree by your comparison. This conversation has literally regressed by your opinion. YOUR ARGUMENT IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD. Please refer to common economic theories and policies to understand how this economy is different than the economy of 150 yrs ago. Also, please talk to someone as I stated in the previous paragraph but be ready to get decked by them you douche. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

      • shmaesh

        You seem mad.

  • Robin

    Excellent article and written so ANYONE can understand it. I have been looking for this comparison a long long time. I appreciate it comes across as essentially non partisan (although some naysayers with their negativity and chip on their shoulder obviously don’t agree!) and has well documented resources. Great job!

  • CitizenBob

    A basic social safety net funded by tax dollars is part of living in a modern society. Shit happens to folks; all the time. Often through no fault of their own. Sure there are welfare cheats out there, but as one who has worked in the social service system for years, I can tell you unequivocally that cheats are the exception rather than the rule. Increasing support for fraud investigation and prosecution would contribute to making the system less wasteful and hopefully discourage people from taking advantage of the system, but there will ALWAYS be a certain level of fraud. Just like companies have to write off a certain amount of bad debt each year, government programs have to manage fraud, waste and abuse.

    While there are lots of anecdotes about the “welfare queens” showing up to the aid office in a Cadillac wearing gold chains and diamond jewelry, the reality is that the welfare office in an urban city is a destitute and downtrodden place. Human misery is on full view there and just an afternoon or two of observation will dispel any pre-conceived notions about people living large on the dole.

    I’m a little dubious about the stats from Heritage or Cato; I’ve read a study or two of theirs and their methodology is designed for particular outcomes. I have known for a while that the social welfare spending is a sliver of the federal budget and the corporate welfare tab far exceeds any means-tested program. These issues are more complicated than T-Party folks like to admit.

  • Bryan Gilchrist

    The government pays? No. TAXPAYERS pay. I wish people would stop separating the fact that TAXPAYERS pay for all of these programs, not the Government.

    • Good point.

    • OvaXsposed

      And that includes the descendants whose lives will be impacted for yrs paying off this debt. Man, are we existing in a bubble? These so called assets are eroding by the hour! But the robots will fix it? Hell, i’ll just eat the robot. Maybe the rust will taste like hotsauce!

  • Some years ago California made a study of how much WalMart cost California taxpayers who had to pay for food stamps and emergency medical care and sometimes housing. The hidden subsidy was in the millions and that doesn’t count the money paid by cities and counties. The reason Republicans talk about “socialism” is because they promote socialized business so they pretend to be opposed to it the same way those who condemn gays most loudly turn out to be closet gays.

  • Mike, shouldn’t you include in corporate subsidies? I believe it is closer to $500 billion in the U.S.

    • Good point. However, it’s tough to decide whether tax breaks should be considered a form of corporate welfare. I guess they’re effectively the same thing.

  • Tim

    First things first, the percentage is more like 36% then 50%. You can’t round up 92 and then round down 59.

    • I said “the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.” I suppose one could also say “the government spent 36% less on food stamps and housing assistance than it did on corporate welfare in 2006.” Tomato, tomato.

  • drewmills

    Thanks for the great article.

    You asked for our opinions? As long as the courts support the idea that “Spending Money” == “Free Speech”, then the wealthiest will always receive the most beneficial legislation.

    So, the gap will widen. The center will not hold.

    • Thanks! However, it seems like the media has a lot more influence over who gets elected than do campaign commercials. Restricting campaign spending will only increase the relative power of the corporate media over election outcomes.

  • IOWA

    And you seem to think that if we made corporations pay higher taxes they would actually stay in the country. Think about the big picture here cupcake.

    • I don’t think corporations should pay any taxes. I think people that work for corporations should pay as few taxes as possible.

      I also think they should receive income in exchange for goods and services and not in exchange for campaign contributions.

  • False equivalence, Kendall. The 2011 neo-Republicans (formerly radical fringe right-wingers) operated solely on their own to create the litigation leading to Citizens United (plaintiff “Citizens United” was in fact them); bribed the Supreme Court entirely on their own without Democratic knowledge or complicity; and planned ahead to utilize corporate wealth to defeat voter needs and preferences, which they are doing very successfully.

    So long as we play the “parties are the same” game, or any other game that unrecognizably twists reality, the people lose.

    • Like his predecessors, Obama has been a good friend to big companies, especially banks. Take Bank of America. BoA is what you’d expect of a financial institution coddled by government subsidies and privilege: inefficient, corrupt (unjustly foreclosing on homeowners), and a frequent corporate-welfare recipient.

      Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi reports that when BoA needs help, Obama is there. Taibbi writes that BoA is

      a de facto ward of the state that depends heavily upon public support to stay in business. In fact, without the continued generosity of us taxpayers, and the extraordinary indulgence of our regulators and elected officials, this company long ago would have been swallowed up by scandal, mismanagement, prosecution and litigation, and gone out of business. It would have been liquidated and its component parts sold off, perhaps into a series of smaller regional businesses that would have more respect for the law, and be more responsive to their customers.

      But Bank of America hasn’t gone out of business, for the simple reason that our government has decided to make it the poster child for the “Too Big To Fail” concept.

      Who can we thank? In part, President Barack Obama, who’s planning to run a populist reelection campaign pitting the wealthy and well-connected against the rest of us. Hypocrisy lives — even in Obama’s allegedly post-political world.

      According to Taibbi,

      Bank of America … is perhaps the biggest welfare dependent in American history, with the $45 billion in bailout money and the $118 billion in state guarantees it’s received since 2008 representing just the crest of a veritable mountain of federal bailout support, most of it doled out by the Obama administration. (emphasis added)

      Revealingly, BoA soothed nervous creditors last year by shifting $73 trillion in derivatives to the part of the bank covered by federal deposit insurance — aka the taxpayers. Writes Taibbi,

      This move, encouraged by the Obama administration, put the American taxpayer on the hook for an entire generation of irresponsible gambles made by another failed investment firm that should have gone out of business, but was instead acquired by Bank of America with $25 billion in taxpayer help — Merrill Lynch. (emphasis added)

      This is just one of the many ways in which Obama reveals himself as a friend of big, well-connected business interests — that is, as an advocate of the corporate state.

      Considering that Mitt Romney also favors having government as business’s ally, we can look forward to an election between two variations on this corporatist theme.

      • Truth_Seeking_One

        Love, love, love Matt Taibbi.

  • Carol Morrisey

    Did anyone mention that some of these corporations have stockholders who earn dividends when the company makes money? This is where many pension funds are invested, so when there are dividends, retirees and others who live on their investments will profit. However, I am not really in favor of any sort of “corporate welfare.” The government should not be picking winners and losers in the marketplace. We would all be better off if there were NO farm subsidies at all, for instance. Solyndra is a good example of how poorly the government is able to choose what industries will do well. It was a pure case of cronyism, and somebody ought to end up in jail for it. If the government simply abolished all regulations that are not necessary to protect life and health, and stopped all subsidies, the market would take care of itself.

    • I think you’re probably right about that.

    • addvocate

      Right. Return Farming to the free market. Allow the market to decide whether the twinkie or carrots cost less. Farm subsidies have done a number on health. Too much processed food.

      • JakeCake

        The free market, although not perfect, is what has allowed our country to hold the highest standard of living in history- up until recently. The more the government intervenes, the worse off we sit.

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs | Seniors for a Democratic Society()

  • Pingback: Log of Liberal Lies - Page 9 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs « Media Watchdogg()

  • Pingback: #Occupied: Reports From the Front Lines | My Blog()

  • JH

    That makes no sense at all, the media and campaign commercials are the same thing. Are you 2 years old?

    • Are you saying corporate news media and campaign commercials have identical sources of funding?

  • JH

    Solyndra is a drop in the bucket compared to Archer Daniels Midland, so by your logic a whole lot of people, including many from the W administration should go to jail.

  • Pingback: #Occupied: Reports From the Front Lines | Portland Occupier()

  • Ken Viers

    Iowa- you really think corporations will leave the United States of America? Naive. They have the advantage of having their assets protected in foreign country’s by the largest military in the world. There are also 8,000 +nuclear warheads as insurance. They are not stupid.

    The big boys are focused on selling the emerging markets in China (1.3 billion), India (1billion), Brazil, and other emerging markets. Our 300 million kind of pale in comparison and believe me the big boys are going to be going after the big markets. They need the middle class & poor of the United States to have the ability to pay enough taxes to support our military and that’s it.

  • Ricky Smith

    I read this article and the subscriber’s comments; and there are several valid points to support the fact that there is a problem with corporate and social welfare. I did not recognize arealistic solution. A realistic solution has to be attainable, clearly defined, measurable, and not too broad. I see “cut this” and “stop that” as if e were cancelling hone contract. We over simplify these complex issues so people will jump on the bandwagon, it’s insulting. We need the full story not just the Cliffnotes. I know its up to me to educate myself but I have to hold the media and politicians accountable for not being reliable.

    • The social welfare issue is more difficult to solve. However, I don’t really see the downside to letting consumers deciding what corporations to give their money to, instead of having politicians take it from them and give it to their campaign contributors. Why shouldn’t the solution be as simple as just cutting it?

  • Pingback: #Occupied: Reports From the Front Lines | Local Philadelphia News Aggregator()

  • Pingback: Government Spends More On Corporate Welfare Subsidies Than Social Welfare Programs | For Economic Justice()

  • Pingback: Let’s cut off those corporate welfare queens | Dating Jesus()

  • Pingback: Just babbling for now. Maybe it will get more structured. Which means that I will probably get carried away and by the time I’m done my girlfriend will be pissed. « sailingthetethys()

  • Ann

    I have a question. You say that increasing taxes puts people out of work. Can you give an example of this happening? Thanks.

    • Hi, Ann!

      It seems you’ve caught me basing my views on my intuition instead of actual data. Upon researching this, I was unable to find any data indicating a correlation between average tax rates and unemployment. However, I did find data illustrating a negative correlation between top marginal tax rates and the unemployment rate.

      Since the data don’t support that assertion, I’ve removed it from the post. Thank you very much for noticing this! That statement shouldn’t have been there in the first place, so I also thank you for being so polite about it. It’s rather disorienting to get a comment devoid of ad hominem attacks on the internets.

      I plan to make a new post illustrating the negative correlation between top marginal tax rates and unemployment.

  • J. Scoggins

    First let me say up front I believe most corporate welfare is way out of control and the vast majority should be eliminated. On the other hand I really wonder why you only include 2 of the more than 100 social welfares. Let’s be honest here and if you include all the different corporate welfares shouldn’t you use the same guide and include all the different social welfares?

    I am not very liberal but there are a number of good social welfare programs but all too often they are full of abuse and very poorly administered. Case in point, I know someone that has lived in government housing for over 56 years. Where is the limited benefits in this case?

    You also need to update your numbers to reflect more accurate amounts. Here are some to get you started.

    Food Stamps in 2008 was $36B and projected for 2011 as $75B.
    Overall Nutritional Food Programs for 2010 totaled over $100B.
    Housing in 2010 are up to $77B.
    Medcaid spending from the Federal government is $275B and the states put up another $150B.

    Using the same definition for welfare in both corporate and social the social spending 2010 is up to $900B. That is considerable difference than the $36B you sited. Which one to you is the bigger burden?

    The information you provided was fairly accurate but it is certainly very dated and leads to some very poor comparisons.

    • Thank you so much! If you get a moment, could you share the links to your sources? I’m very curious about the source of the $900 billion.

      As far as definitions of corporate welfare and social welfare, I just tried to pick the most commonly used definitions. One could also include corporate tax loopholes and the profits from ultra low interest Federal Reserve loans in the corporate welfare definition. It’s hard to decide where to draw these lines.

  • Bin Gram

    …so much intelligence, so many facts, so little courage. If we, the 99%’ers had the courage of our grandfathers grandfathers we would not have allowed this to happen.
    Arguing about laws, are you kidding me ? The 1% shift the laws to what they need using a judge or the tactical squad.
    Vote them out ?… o jumpin jesus ,have you never heard of Lobbyist ?? You know the guys who funnel the rich folks money through our elected officials. It used to be called Bribery and in some cultures its a capital offense. Because truly why vote when bribery is legal.

    • Indeed!

    • I liked your comment up until I read the “why vote” ending. It is
      imperative to keep voting to show that we will stay informed and take
      action to protect our communities. If the voting system is corrupted,
      then we will already be organized in large numbers to take other necessary
      actions to correct the corruption in as peaceful a way as possible.

      On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

      “This is the famous dissertation by Henry David Thoreau on
      the duty we have to disobey unjust and unconstitutional laws.
      Where justice is being violated, Thoreau claims that
      Americans have no duty to obey, but, in fact, have a duty
      to disobey. Thoreau believed that to obey an unjust or unconstitutional law is to tacitly endorse that injustice.
      Read it and decide for yourself how you should respond to
      the many ways in which our federal government has exceeded
      its constitutional limits.”

  • Pingback: Free Stuff | LeftOfLiberal()

  • MH

    Mike, nice article. One thing I would point out is that just as payments made by “the government” are really payments made by the taxpayers, so too benefits received by “corporations” are really received by the employees, the management, the supliers, the tax collectors, and, the shareholders of those corporations. So for the most part, corporate welfare goes to middle and upper class people. Since virtually all taxes in this country are paid by middle and upper class people, corporate welfare is really just a reshuffling of money from those constituents with worse lobbyists to those with better lobbyists.

    • Unfortunately, you’re absolutely right.

    • Methiselah

      Well, you’ve got them out of order: employees fall dead last on the list when it comes to the level of benefits received. Surely you are aware of the skyrocketing share of the nation’s wealth that has gone to the truly rich over the last thirty years. Income inequality is at its highest since the Great Dression. And for the record, the middle class have no lobbyists.

    • OvaXsposed

      I agree with that portion of corporate welfare that directly benefits the employee. If the company writes off training as a business expense, thats fair, this escalates my bottom line. If they receive guvmt funds for legitimate upgrades, and I work ot….ok by fact both I and the company pay more witholding. Im also placing greater wealth into the economy. Good point!

  • This is a article that reveals the levels of governmental welfare support for the private sector and for American citizens who cannot support themselves solely through the private sector.

    No solutions are offered but there is plenty indignation about the suffering that is being experienced by increasing numbers of Americans.

    The argument defends the solution calling for more welfare, open or concealed, in the form of essentially make-work jobs, but with higher pay, while declaring that the wealthy should pay more in taxes to support continued governmental-dependent socialisation. Such thinking is on a collision course with the ever-more productive non-human factor of production––productive capital as embodied in the exponential development of human-level artificial intelligence, advanced automation and robotics.

    If we are ever to end corporate subsidies, which thus far have enriched a minority of people by allowing them to concentrate ownership of the non-human productive sector rather than broadening ownership, and spending on social welfare programs we must begin to recognized that there are two-factor of production––human and non-human––and that the latter is the more productive. Superautomation and robotics is transforming the world of manufacturing as robots become lighter, more mobile, and more flexible with better sensing, perception, decision-making, and planning and control capabilities due to advanced digital computerization. Superautomation and robotics will dramatically improve productivity and provide skills and abilities previously unique to human workers. This will effectively increase the size of the labor work force beyond that provided by human workers, no matter what the level of education attained. Thus, if we do not address the impact of technology on poverty, then millions more Americans in the short term and long term will find themselves at the poverty or below poverty level, unable to be self-suffcient but dependent on “everything from Social Security to Medicare and on through the list.” Edelman says the immediate challenge is keeping the social welfare programs that we already have.

    The transition to the non-human factor of production has been occurring for decades but is now experiencing exponential development––the result of tectonic shifts in the technologies of production. As costs for computer-controlled machines become less than the cost of human workers, and the skills and productivity of the machines exceed those of human workers, then robot worker numbers will rapidly increase and enable our society to build architectural wonders, revitalize and redevelop our cities and build new cities of wonder and amazement, and the support energy, transport, and communications systems. With advanced human-level artificial intelligence, computer-controlled machines will be able to learn new knowledge and skills by simply downloading software. This means that the years of training that apply to personal human development will no longer apply to the further sophistication and operation of the machines. The result will be that productivity will soar while the need and demand for human labor will further decline.

    Unfortunately, in the long term unless the vast majority of people have a substantial and viable source of income other than wages and salaries, the impact of technological innovation and invention as embodied in human-level artificial intelligence, machines, superautomation, robotics, digital computerized operations, etc will be devastating.

    There are ONLY two options: either Own or be Owned. The “Owned” model is what our society practices today and is expressed as monopoly capitalism (concentrated ownership) or socialism (taxpayer-supported redistributed social benefits). The “Own” model or what I and others term the Just Third Way (see has yet to be implemented on the scale necessary to empower every man, woman, and child to acquire private, individual ownership stakes in the future income-producing productive capital assets of the “machine age”––facilitated by the future earnings of their investments in the companies developing and employing this unprecedented economic power.

    Unfortunately, the disruptive nature of exponential growth in technology and its impact on productivity––tectonically shifting production of products and services from human workers to non-human means––is ignored by the economic establishment and our political leaders.

    While the rate of technological progress is directly proportional to the number and quality of the people engaged in the fields of science and engineering, economic policy is the mechanism that fuels investment and development of technological innovation and invention. This is where education is critical to our future societal development.

    We have the opportunity to free economic growth from the “enslavement” of human labor and from the financial mechanisms that are based on the slavery of past savings. Technological progress though is no longer dependent on the number and quality of human workers. This fact will become obvious eventually to anyone who can think and analyze. That fact is the reality that human labor will cease to be the primary source of wealth production in the future. As a result we can expect over the long term that unemployment and underemployment will remain high indefinitely. But the difference will be that people will drop out of the labor force voluntarily because they will be able to live off their dividend earnings via their ownership portfolios. This will create swelling demand for human workers who want to continue working. And with both dividend and wage and salary incomes for everyone there will be more customers to purchase the products and services produced, which in turn will create further dividends and earnings, which will create more customers, etc.

    As for education, everyone will have the opportunity to personally developed their own exceptional innate abilities and unlock their creativity.

    This prosperous society is achievable because fortunately, in the near term, we can begin to grow our way out of the swelling unemployment and underemployment by increasing our investment significantly as a ratio of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while simultaneously broadening private, individual ownership of future income-producing productive capital investments, thus initiating the process of empowering every man, woman and child to build over time a viable capital estate and reap the income generated. The key operative is BROADEN OWNERSHIP. Such investment would, in the short term, generate millions of new “real” productive jobs. The result would not only be that the GDP would dramatically grow but tax revenues from the high rate of economic growth would enable us to balance the federal budget, fully fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, provide Universal Health Care, Universal University Education, lower tax rates, and maintain a strong military, all simultaneously.

    Over time and within a few decades, our “machined-powered” growth economy would produce greater wealth, and widespread private, individual ownership would assure prosperity, opportunity, and affluence for every citizen. Broadened productive capital ownership would strengthen our democracy and individuals and families would be less or non-dependent on government welfare, whether disguised or not.

    The question that requires an answer is now timely before us. It was first posed by binary economist Louis Kelso in the 1950s but has never been thoroughly discussed on the national stage. Nor has there been the proper education of our citizenry that addresses what economic justice is and what ownership is. Therefore, by ignoring such issues of economic justice and ownership, our leaders are ignoring the concentration of power through ownership of productive capital, with the result of denying the 99 percenters equal opportunity to become capital owners. The question, as posed by Kelso is: “how are all individuals to be adequately productive when a tiny minority (capital owners) produce a major share and the vast majority (labor workers), a minor share of total goods and service,” and thus, “how do we get from a world in which the most productive factor—physical capital—is owned by a handful of people, to a world where the same factor is owned by a majority—and ultimately 100 percent—of the consumers, while respecting all the constitutional rights of present capital owners?”

    The path to prosperity, opportunity, and economic justice can be found in the writings about the Capital Homestead Act at Also, please see my article “Democratic Capitalism And Binary Economics: Solutions For A Troubled Nation and Economy” at or follow me on Facebook at and

    • Thanks for sharing your views, Gary! Do you support a Land Value Tax system?

    • asault

      This whole post is largely gibberish and non-sequiturs. Extracting whatever valuable info that is contained therein requires shearing away so much nonsense.

      • AD

        Stop being hateful. And you spelled assault wrong.

    • steveiii

      “… high rate of economic growth would enable us to balance the federal budget…”

      Any time I read someone make the above claim, I know one thing and one thing only- the author is clueless about Monetary Sovereignty . Since when does taking dollars out of the private sector expand GDP? All six attempts in U.S. history to balance the budget have lead to depressions. All six, since 1817! The debt of the government ($16 trillion, whatever) represents a debt or promise that the government has absolutely NO PROBLEM satisfying or keeping. Therefore, Social Security and Medicare are easily and fully sustainable WITHOUT TAXATION via a government that is Monetarily Sovereign.

      Now, as I continue on with the Federal “debt” discussion…Remember, for every debt (liability) there is a credit (asset). Then who holds the asset side? That’s us, the people. The government’s debt equals the private sector’s asset. The $16 trillion of dollars spent in excess of taxes collected reside with the public and the public holds these dollars, mostly, in the form of Treasury securities that are like government savings accounts or CD’s (Certificates of Deposit). If the government were to “balance” its books or eliminate its debt, it would have to take back, probably through taxation or some other confiscatory measure, those $16 trillion that the public holds. That would reduce the public’s wealth by $16 trillion. That is the ONLY way that the government can eliminate its debt. Would that be a good thing? Hard to see how it would, yet that’s what people like Gary Reber (however inadvertently) are actually calling for.
      So that’s it, a brief explanation of the government “debt.” And the next time someone tries to scare you about this or point to that Debt Clock in Times Square, you ask them where the Asset Clock is. There is none, but there should be, because for every liability there is an asset. It’s just basic accounting. The fact that there is never a discussion of the asset side of the balance sheet is proof that the fear mongers who talk about the debt are either ignorant or intentionally trying to manipulate you into believing something that is not true.

      The author’s roundabout claims for deficit spending to grow infrastructure is at present the ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE for economic expansion in the current economic climate. Therefore, the author should be given some credence.

      Federal Deficits-Net Imports=PRIVATE SAVINGS
      GDP=FEDERAL SPENDING+Private Spending+Net Exports

  • Pingback: » Government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than social welfare

  • Pingback: Sunday READ – 5 August 2012 » 99GetSmart()

  • Melia

    And can you guess who benefits from these tax breaks??? Can you say CEO’s?

    • CEO’s. I can say it! 🙂

    • Devils Advocate

      NO, No I cannot because ALL OF US benefit from these tax breaks. The farther I go down these comments the more pissed and yet disappointed I get at this society. I hope people scroll down these and see how frustrated I am by people not getting simple economic theories and those not realizing how companies run and how CEOs get paid……. Seriously Melia, Goooood Jaaaaab

      • Gigi Jacobs

        I hope somebody goes down this list of comments and has Devils Advocate admitted to a psychiatric hospital..

  • pbj

    Its better for 100 families to buy smaller items in the market, than for 1 person to buy 1 expensive item. Its economics, and plain common sense.

    • Straight up!

      • Michael

        Thus people who make more money should be forced to give even more of it to poorer people and forego the one expensive item so 100 inexpensive items can get bought and help ‘everyone’ in the process. Talk about voodoo economics.

        • You know what the difference between Dema and Repubs is? Dems say “how can we help make everyone’s life better?” and Repubs say “How can I make my own life better?”

        • DonO

          Look at the stock market today vs. 4 years ago, then look at unemployment or average salary for the masses. While the market sails at near record highs, the rest lag way behind. Pretty much proves that “trickle down” doesn’t work when you give the greater share of the wealth to the few.

        • photoglyph

          thou art far, far too simple…

    • qcubed

      You will NEVER get baggers to understand simple math.

    • Gigi Jacobs

      Plain and common sense? What planet are you from again…?

  • Fred

    The Walmart subsidies do not include the fact that almost 50% of Walmart employees qualify for food stamps. The employer and not the government should not be paying to give employees enough to eat. The government paying part of your employee’s salary IS corporate welfare.

    • Michael

      Maybe the standards for food stamps should be lowered so your grade school logic doesn’t have to be read by adults. Walmarts provides 1 million jobs and saves the average family $1,000 a year, probably has an impact on fuel emissions (Driving from one store to another), has revolutiuonized supply-chain efficiencies.

      If they are paying employees legal wages and those employees have no where else to work then making the leap to classiy the welfare the governement pays the EMPLOYEES as CORPORATE welfare is non compus mentis logic.

      • Ffrreedd

        “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to existence in this country.” – FDR

        • Smartuckus

          I put myself through college by working THREE jobs. FDR was the idiot who started this Keynesian/graduated income tax mess over the objections of smarter people who predicted the perils of our current welfare state. He was a populist, saying what needed to be said to get elected, and not what the country needed to hear. If that kind of rhetoric sounds familiar, it’s because the empty suit currently stinking up the Oval Office is equally the populist/opportunist/Marxist.

          I’ve got one for you;
          No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers will survive, because in a free market system, you get what you pay for. Non-skilled employees equal bad service and poor products.

          • Do you come outside your box much? The job market back when you where in school was probably much better than today with over 12 million unemployed and the economy in the toilet! Your disrespect for our President just makes you one of the many ignorant people without compassion for your fellow man as President Obama is looking out for all Americans and not just the rich as has been the practice for over 30 years…feeling threatened by the changes that are occurring in our country doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to disrespect our President in any way!!

          • Smartuckus

            And your moronic view is typical of you ilk. Do you really think that the Presidents’ economic policies leading up to Obama were about helping the rich? That’s just sheer stupidity. I’m sure you showed utmost respect for Reagan, and both Bushes, didn’t you?

          • Irene49

            You are a very disrespectful person. In an earlier post you had the nerve to call someone else out for being insulting – look in the mirror buddy.
            As a single mom raising 3 children I worked two jobs for 10 years and never asked anyone for anything either, so stop tooting your own horn, there are millions of principled people of both parties in America. The free market system today is on the dole. Even worse they have so much of the country’s wealth that can fund their own presidential and congressional candidates that will give them even more power. Why don’t you address those important corruption issues and stop looking like an ignoramus by calling the President a Marxist. He is not even a liberal.

          • Smartuckus

            Irene, Let me point something out. I am not disrespectful to you personally. I attack the ideology, not the person. Yes, Obama is a Marxist; whereas he and his supporters may deny the description, his actions define him thusly, and they do so without reservation. He uses the government to tax earners and distribute their money to people who haven’t earned it. Yes, a Marxist, without any shred of doubt. It’s not an insult, it’s a fact. If you don’t understand that, then I suggest you take a little time to investigate. The Free Market system is on the dole? Ok – I’m not sure how a system could be on the dole. It is a system, not an entity. It is not the “country’s wealth!” The wealth belongs to those who have earned it. It does not belong to anyone else! Let me explain it this way: You 99%er’s aren’t really upset at the rich. You’re upset because you are not rich, maybe you’re poor. but the rich didn’t make you poor by earning lot’s of money. There isn’t a fixed amount of money that needs to be spread around – that type of thinking is definitely Marxist in nature. In a free-market system wealth is created. It is distributed via exchange – monies paid for goods and services by people who WANT those goods and services. Those goods and services are provided by people who have worked hard to position themselves to provide them. They have taken risks in hopes that their hard work will provide them with wealth. You liberals think this is some sort of greed; it isn’t. Envy of wealth is greedy though! Clamoring for more wealth redistribution is a form of greed!
            What is corrupt about the system? I’ll tell you – NOTHING. The corruption we see is due to people – greedy people who lie, cheat and steal to get other peoples’ money unjustly. The system doesn’t do this – people do. Let me give you an example – Senator Bob Menendez. Maybe you’ve heard of the shady back room deals for which he’s under investigation. Or how about Congress using their inside knowledge to transfer their own private investments out of companies they know are going under soon. Yep – that’s corruption. But my beef is with the very intellectually bankrupt ideology of the left, which doesn’t see anything wrong with depriving earners to buy votes from non-earners. Hey, isn’t that a form of corruption?
            You call me an ignoramus yet make the claim that Obama isn’t even a liberal. I don’t know where you live, but you might have heard me laughing all the way from Texas when I read that.
            Position on abortion? – Liberal
            Position on Welfare programs? – Liberal
            Position on gay marriage? – Liberal
            Position on government spending? – Liberal
            Supreme Court nominees? – Liberal
            Cabinet members? – Liberal
            Position on economics? (“spread the wealth) – Liberal
            Position on the role of government? – Liberal
            For the life of me, I can’t think of a single solitary way Obama aligns with conservatism. How could you make such an outrageous claim? As for being an ignoramus, I guess you’ve got some insight into that area. (Ok – that was an insult – but you started it!)

          • ksctw

            Walmart is one of the most successful companies in America – throws your hypothesis in a bit of muddy water

          • Smartuckus

            How so? Would love to see your take and discuss further.

      • the best

        If you work for somebody that is paying you not enough to eat and the tax payer covers your food, that is indeed corporate welfare that walmart is getting. That company is evil.

        • I think this is probably more an indicator that the minimum wage needs to be raised again. If someone is employed and their income is not high enough even at full time hours, to support them in the current economy, then raise the minimum wage instead of allowing taxpayers to absorb the cost of supporting them.

          Btw… I am not disagreeing that wally world is evil.

      • the best

        Now are you going to blame the R….can for what walmart is doing?

        • I believe he is blaming them for the minimum wage being too low. That is how I read it.
          Nice post, Vlad! I just don’t understand how these folks are unable to see what these corporations are doing to our country. Whether you want to admit it or not, Walmart owns this country, albeit in tandem with big oil, Insurers, pharmaceuticals, Banks, and so on…

        • Irene49

          Are you misreading the comment willfully?

      • Onthewater

        Like the “welfare queen” Walmart games the system for its own purposes. Why is it OK for Walmart to play the game, but not the individual?

      • jhgf trenrwe

        Oh boy, Wal-Mart provides one-million jobs!? Great. I’m so glad we have one-million jobs that only provide a person with enough money to rent a room in a three+ bedroom crappy apartment with other poor people, with no money left over to actually “afford” a proper life. Proper car to get to the job? Nope. Proper nutrition? Doubtful. Ability to afford new technology? Nope. Emergency funds? Nope. Healthcare? Nope.
        If ethics don’t apply in your world, then why would you get upset when I come perform a home invasion on you? I know why. Because you’re another douche who doesn’t care about anything until it happens to you.
        Wal-Mart is the fat kid who walks into a party and eats 3/4 of the pizza because “there weren’t any rules” stating he couldn’t.
        An ethical person would look around and make calculations on how much pizza he could eat that would result in relatively equal amounts for all the patrons at the party.
        If Wal-Mart can’t operate a business that pays a living wage, then maybe Wal-Mart shouldn’t run a business. Life got along just fine before Wal-mart existed. If Wal-Mart evaporates, all that demand will fall onto other companies.
        I don’t see the problem. Or your logic. Because you have none.
        It also wouldn’t be against the rules for a rich person to buy up all the homes in your neighborhood and hand them out for free to gang bangers.
        How would you like that, tough guy? Yeah, so next time try keeping your mouth shut until you leave mommy’s house and learn how the world really works.
        Wal-Mart is great when your life is completely removed from the chaos it creates. I doubt the Walton’s even shop at their own stores. And thus, why are they even in business?
        When did it become okay for business owners to operate a business that they take no pride in?
        I know when. When the citizens were duped into believing all the bullshit that spews out of the mouth of the elites.

        • You make some good arguments, but lets try and keep it civil. When we resort to name calling, we invalidate our arguments.

        • stylist_sarah

          How do I copy and paste this?!? Walmart is like the fat kid who eats 3/4 of the pizza…….lol. Think you’re kind of awesome.

        • OvaXsposed

          Section 8 does that already..gangbangers mommy, sister or baby mommy gives him/her FREE room&board for a ‘price’ of course. So your ‘rich guy’, (guvmt) is actually: us! And lest we forget that fine establishment run as an adult daycare..the COUNTY JAIL or the ultra exclusive; STATE PENITIENTURY…looks like the banger has pretty much got his rooming covered! All courtesy of my taxpaying dime.. oh damn…I didnt include his babies, or his crimes,his legal/ judicial, medical, property damages, and or the plagues inflicted on society for yrs to come.

      • Walmart receives over $1.6 billion in tax credits while their employees receive $2.4 billion in welfare. They are the largest employer in the United States with 1.4 million employees. While the owners are sitting around with billions in each of their accounts and getting larger every day, they keep a majority of their employees at part time and keep switching their work schedule around so they can’t find another job to subsidize their survival without welfare. They just discovered a loop hole in the ACA and have made the government pay for their health care…just to push the knife in a little deeper!!
        They have been known to be bribing other countries in order to be able to open up in their countries (Mexico for one!) all while lobbying our government to change or eliminate the laws for doing such things…money talks!

      • kim

        75% of Walmart employes rely on federal welfare and/or food stamps to survive . Walmart pays their employees the minimum wage without benefits while 4 members of the Walton family are in the top 10 of Forbes most wealthy people. If Walmart raised their wages to $12/hour, the average consumer would pay $17 more a year to shop at their store. Instead, tax payers subsidize Walmart wages through food stamps, and the food stamps are spent at Walmart…..therefore, padding their bottom line even further. How is that not corporate welfare? Costco, on the other hand, pays an average $17/hr with benefits and their CEO makes a very reasonable $400k/year.

    • the best

      Yes that is true. Walmart is paying “enough” to these employees to qualify for public assistance, paid by who? the middle class, when we refuse to do so we are called selfish when indeed we are paying to these people parte of the salary that walmart refuse to pay them in the form of welfare.

      • Agreed. I have been employed by companies that consider 32 hours a week full time. It gives them a bigger buffer zone to minimize overtime in a job market that usually requires more hours than scheduled. My question is this. Who is at fault? An employer who knows it can survive by keeping people from earning overtime pay and only working part time employees so that it doesn’t have to contribute to healthcare or retirement? Or a (insert whichever you think is appropriately at fault here if not all) a society, govt, world mentality of entitlement that does not recognize priority in spending.One who thinks we have to spend money we dont have to motivate people to spend money they dont have. Our priorities are screwed up. We value luxuries over needs. We value govt over the people. We see businesses as being of greater importance than the people who make them possible, the consumers and employees. Granted we all have to have businesses that provide us with goods, services and jobs, but when spending out of their control, (usually govt) starts getting more costly, the employees and consumers suffer. When mechanics are paid what they are worth, and movie stars have to work for their money, we may get somewhere. I made under $18k last year to support a wife and 2 kids on and still hand over $2/hour to taxes. I work 40+ hours a week. Now we have a govt telling me what I already know. I need healthcare. I obviously cannot afford it. But their response is to fine me for being broke. It is a failing mentality of this entire country that is to blame, not just a few on welfare or the practice of sliding by just under the wire and not having to provide expensive extras to employees.

        • Just so you know, at you current level of earnings on a family of 4 you will be entitled to medicare at which you will not have to pay a dime for it starting in 2014, you might want to check with your state to see if maybe your already entitled to it…

        • At that income with those dependents NO WAY are you paying $2/hr in taxes! You’re probably getting back a very healthy refund.

      • Peas Creek

        The problem is, the republicans have conditioned you to blame Walmart’s low income workers and not Walmart. And the democrats have conditioned you to accept that only the government can take down Wal-Mart. In the meantime those same republicans and democrats are cleaning up.

    • Gigi Jacobs

      Thank you!

  • boriskist (@boriskist)

    if corporations had to pay for all the costs they externalize, they’d all go out of business. they have been subsidized by society since their creation…

  • Interesting article. I would like to point out that you failed to mention that the individual “corporate welfare” subsidies issued to big companies, on behalf of local/state legislatures, are for fixed periods. Usually three to five years. This contracted subsidy is to entice urban growth in specific areas, and make it more appealing for larger corporations to “set up shop” in a particular region. As such, legislators, council members, and other representatives of the people, offer them in a manner akin to a “free-market” strategy. If one area offers a better deal, the company moves there. Jobs are created, economies prosper, more disposable income is available for the citizenry, money is spent, other businesses prosper, more jobs are created…rinse and repeat. In this free-market approach, larger corporations will actively seek out the best deal for their money. If that means they get tax breaks, so be it. If it costs them more to build in a particular area, one of two things will happen: 1) they will pass that cost on to the consumer, or 2) they will manage their start-up costs by minimizing wages and/or employees. It is a business acumen that is lost on our current government: Fiscal Responsibility.

    What should be more abhorrent than “corporate welfare” are the numerous organized-crime syndicates operating in the United States under the nom-de-plume of Labor Unions. One high-profile case was an issue here in South Carolina with regard to Boeing. They wanted to set up a manufacturing plant in our state, but the machinist’s union in Washington state filed a suit, claiming that expanding (not moving) to SC, where unions are virtually nonexistent, was unfair to them. Enter the NLRB (i.e. Federal-Big-Brother-Supporting-Unions) who filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Machinist’s Union, against a PRIVATE company telling them they could NOT open a plant in SC. The lawsuit was eventually dropped after Boeing conceded to the labor unions that their next line of planes would be built entirely in Washington state. Regardless of whether the planes could be built for a cheaper cost in SC, the federal government steps in and, for lack of a better word, uses EXTORTION tactics against a private company. Really? Thankfully, the 1,000 jobs that were at stake in SC were saved through Boeing’s concession, despite the union-backed federal intervention.

    Now, with regard to “welfare queens,” I have first-hand knowledge concerning the abuse of the TANF program. It involves my ex-wife who, after our divorce, saw fit to continue having babies without regard to her financial / employment situation. I preface the following with this disclaimer: I do not begrudge anyone from receiving assistance if they need it. However, in many cases, there are those who fail to take the appropriate steps to avoid future mistakes by drawing on past experiences, and those of us who are capable of making responsible decisions usually pay the price. I agree with the theory of the TANF program, but the operative word in that program is “Temporary.” However, because my ex-wife continued to have out-of-wedlock babies, and she had no discernable job skills necessary to provide for her children, she has received TANF money for the past FIFTEEN years. The more children she reported, the more assistance she received, in addition to child support. At one point, the state of North Carolina paid for her to get certified as a Dental Hygienist so she could “get back on her feet.” However, she abruptly quit the job they helped her qualify for, when she realized that her occupation meant a vast reduction in her TANF benefits. This is but one case, but I surmise that this scenario is being played out countless times across the country.

    It boils down to personal responsibility. Until the system is reformed to hold people accountable for their actions, and tell them that we (as a society) are only going to forgive ONE mistake, they will continue to make the same mistakes. It is the proverbial “feeder bar” theory. If you reward a mouse for bad behavior, the mouse will continue to hit the feeder bar expecting more reward for increasingly bad behavior. Not suprisingly, when you try to pick that mouse up, it WILL bite the hand that feeds it. With regard to social welfare programs, too many people have found a way to abuse the system. Which is why so many of us hard-working people have grown cynical to their plight, regardless of their circumstances. Thus, your “welfare queen” analogy is viewed as an accurate depiction whether or not it is warranted.

    • Excellent point, Scott! Thanks for sharing your experience.

    • Chris Foster

      You are a deplorable human being, Scott. Simply put, unions and the thinking behind them are one of maybe three things this country has to be proud of. ALL TRUE ‘FREE MARKET’ SCENARIOS RESULT IN SLAVERY, ABUSE, AND HUMAN TRAFFICING. IN EVERY INSTANCE!

      • DeAngela R Osborne

        How is Scott a deplorable human being but not his ex-wife? That makes no sense. Why can’t the abuse be recognized as a whole and we address it as a whole? That’s where most that staunchly defend social welfare programs lose people, they are not willing to acknowledge the abuse within that system. Abuse is abuse and none of it should be tolerated.

    • qcubed

      One has to wonder what a pitiful manner of man you are to get such a woman to marry you?

      • Devils Advocate

        ^who invited the dick?

    • Truth_Seeking_One

      Just because your ex-wife abused the system, it does not mean that all who use it abuse it. It seems like everyone against any form of aid just happens to know some scumbag who abuses it and assumes everyone using aid abuses it. That is my pet peeve. If for every 5 people in dire need of it, 1 abuses it, it is still worth helping those 5 people.

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs « FUTURE PRIMATE()

  • Unsilent Observer

    Hello Mike,
    I am curious – why did you not include the biggest Corporate Welfare Donation of all? $16 Trillion given to the financial industry? Everything else is peanuts in comparison…

    • That’s a fact, Jack! However, these numbers are from years prior to the bailouts. Regardless, preferential interest rates from the Federal Reserve didn’t fall into what I considered the common usage definition of corporate welfare. Maybe it should. I should probably do another post using all encompassing definitions for both types of welfare.

    • Actually those are low interest loans and buying up assets. A close examination shows that number to be completely and totally a non-issue that doesn’t affect government spending, debt, deficits, in any way whatsoever. I would suggest taking a few days to research how the Federal reserve system works and why it works that way.

  • All of this corporate welfare is ridiculous. These are corporations that are making billions in profits and then we as tax payers are giving them even more?! This needs to end and you can be sure I will be writing some fairly scathing letters to my congress people about this for what good it will do. Getting them to change this will be difficult considering they all personally receive monetary benefit from these corporations either through lobbysts or campaign contributions. I’m afraid we will have to end political corruption before this issue will get addressed. This was an excellent and informative article though and I hope others will write letters as well. Maybe if enough of us respond with outrage, they will at least reduce the corporate subsidies.

    • Thanks, Kimberly! We only need about 100 million more Americans like you and we’ll get this country all straightened out. 🙂

    • L. B. F.

      good luck with that

    • Write a letter? Why bother? You want to create a change in our Government? We need to all come together and march on the congress steps and demand change NOW!!!

  • Liberals think this is an argument against conservatism. It’s actually an argument against social welfare as a justification for the existence of the state.

    • tecolote1

      It’s actually an argument for fairness.

  • Pingback: Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs | Twisted Tree Words()

  • Josh

    Ooh! Ooh! I know how! Pick me, pick me!

    People believe the lie of “the welfare queen” because it’s shoveled down their throats by every political pundit out there that would rather step on someone’s head than help them when they’re down. It’s been a well-orchestrated campaign of talking points for so many years that people just believe it to be true, even though TANF back in the 90’s put recipients back on the path of at least trying to get themselves out of needing government assistance.

    The ultimate catch-22: the Wal-Mart employee that is kept at 39 hours a week to keep from being “full-time” (and when they do work 40+ hours a week, those hours are rolled over to the next week that’s 40- hours) who picks up his paycheck right next to a stack of flyers informing him about how to apply for government assistance because his pay is so low his family qualifies for Medicaid.

    • Thanks for commenting, Josh!

      • Mj

        Agreed Josh and also every news broadcast and lamestream media outlet. I’m so disgusted with these parasite pigs.

    • keenspirit

      Very well explained! Thank you for articulating this so well. I have had to explain this reality many times…sad that it is still not understood.

    • there do exist people that get pregnant for the check etc A friend of mine encountered one that wanted him to get her pregnant for such a purpose…
      that said they are a lot fewer than one might suppose and they make it harder much harder for those who actually need the help. There will always be someone out there to “cheat the system” so because there is one or two we need to make it hard if not impossible for the rest?

      Oh and for those that yell when Social security benefits and veterans benefits are increased. They get increased and immediately medicare and several other groups start increasing their costs by about the same amount so in essence the person receiving the benefits actually has an end result of less money to spend rather than more.

    • Gayle D

      Fiona…. well said!

    • So very true. And with the implementation of Obamacare the price of healthcare is going up. I have personally seen it double with the anticipation of Obamacare. Businesses will have to pay tons extra to the govt for it and it will result in either layoffs or cut in pay/hours. So this “great” healthcare plan (Obamacare) that everyone voted back in office is about to unemploy us all. I work for a family owned business, I don’t have healthcare. I will never be able to afford it at this rate. And with my last pay raise I thought I was finally close…

      • B Kevin

        With or without ObamaCare, the costs of healthcare services have increased at a rate of significantly more than twice that of inflation for YEARS!

        { }

        Also worth noting, costs to employers from Health Insurers rose 2.2% in 2011, but insurance premium cost increases charged to employees rose over 7% nationally.

        I used to work for a family owned business. The owner had a great home, a great weekend cabin, a time share in Hawaii, a new $50K pick up truck every year, kids had Corvettes, boat, jet skis, ATVs…. but “the business couldn’t afford to provide” anything more than Ultra-High deductible, catastrophic coverage ( and we had to pay 50%!!). Greed isn’t confined to Wall Street or Wal-Mart

        So I quit. I took all the business that I created there and went out on my own. Self employed now. No one to blame but me. I’m not saying that’s what you or anybody else should do, but WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ECONOMY.

        • Onthewater

          But, but he was the owner and ENTITLED to be greedy. He was living the “me first” life on the backs of those who worked in his business. Until more of us recognize their greed, people will continue to enable the Waltons, your old boss, etc.

        • caring conservative

          The owner who had all of the responsibility actually was somewhat successful? Shameful! How dare he!

          • I don’t believe it is his success that is being looked down upon. As an employee of that company, you would want your employer to do well so that you continue to have a job. I believe what B. Kevin is saying is that despite all of his success, the employer still opted not to spend a bit more to provide decent care for his employees. It is this greed that is tearing us up.

          • Smartuckus

            Because somehow it’s an employers “responsability” t provide healthcare to his employees? The health insurance industry came into existance because of government mandate. Prior to WWII there was no health insurance indusdtry. It was the government that froze wages. So to attract the best talent, businesses like GM starting offering to pay for a prospective employee’s, and his family’s, healthcare in lieu of a more competitive salary (which he couldn’t offer due to the wage freeze). Once many companies started offering healthcare, it became difficult to manage, so the health insurance industry was created to handle the coverage policies offered by employers. In no way shape or form was employer provided healthcare ever envisioned as a “right,” it as a benefit. Of course, following WWII the government couldn’t wait to dip its greedy clutches into the new benefit; regulation after regulation followed, and now the government forces companies with more than 50 full-time employees to offer healthcare plans, including mental health plans. You want to know why the price of healthcare has skyrocketed? Pharmaceutical companies add massive amounts to the cost, absolutely, but they are over-regulated too – and regulation will always drive costs up. When did people start thinking that healthcare was a “right”? It’s that entitlement mentality, that began with Social Security.

            So Walmart provides millions of jobs. I hate Walmart. I won’t shop there. Not because of their employee pay though, but because their service is so incredibly bad. It’s true that if they paid their employees more money they might be able to find workers who don’t leave the cusomer wondering, “who DIDN’T get the job?” But their business model is sound, and they do provide products to consumers at lower prices then most of their competitors. You could group Walmart in with McDonalds and just about every other fast food chain: they didn’t envision their lower wage jobs being worked by adults with children; they were targeting teenagers. Perhaps what Walmart should do is fire all of the adults from these low paying jobs and fill the open positions with people aged 20 or younger who are on their parent’s health insurance, seeking some cash while they finish high-school or college. Then everyone can stop bitching about them, right?

            Is healthcare a right? Only in the minds of the Marxists. We all have a right to acquire any sort of healthcare within our means, but healthcare itself is not a right, it is a service. We have rights – unalienable rights. The right to life, liberty, and property to name some. These rights are yours inherently, innately. You have a right, if not a duty, to defend your life, your liberty and your property even if in doing so you must threaten or cause harm to anyone infringing upon those rights. You do not posses a right to threaten a doctor or nurse for your healthcare needs. You are not legally nor morally endowed with a right to cause harm to a physician who refuses to treat you. Are healthcare workers exchanging their services, like everyone else, for pay, or are they slaves? If healthcare is a “right”, then people should be able to demand that healthcare workers take care of them at no cost. Doesn’t it also become possible that a person’s rights are being violated if there are no healthcare workers near enough to take care of his needs? Wouldn’t that mean that the government could force healthcare workers to move to other areas simply to take care of the “rights” of others? I know, I know, you think this is an extreme hypothetical, don’t you? Well, go take a look at the Clinton’s efforts to nationalize healthcare in the ’90’s – they included these provisions.

            Healthcare is NOT a right. Employers offer subsidized healthcare plans to employees as a benefit. If you don’t like our astronomical and ever-rising healthcare costs, then the first thing you should do is stop voting for candidates who think like Marxists. You can guess who they are.

          • ksctw

            Hope you, your spouse or children never have a catastrophic illness or injury

          • Smartuckus

            I have a child with Cystic Fibrosis. His medicines are very expensive; Pulmazyme, albuterol, Tobi, special vitamins, a nebulyzer and a percusser system. All told his monthly medical expenses would, without my health insurance, cost me over $3000.00. He’s supposed to be taking a new medicine called Cayston, but higher costs, driven by Obamacare, have limited supply. His situation is completely opposite of the liberal narrative that demonizes those evil insurance companies while painting Obamacare as the protector of his benefits.
            His life expectancy when he was born was 30. He’s 15 now, and because of the healthcare he’s received there is no reason to believe he won’t live to be an old man. He went from a frail, sickly child to a very healthy teen-ager. He’s on the high school swim team and very buff. In fact, his CF doctors find it hard to believe he has, not just CF, but the worst possible genitic mutation of it.
            Obamacare, and I’m speaking from experience here, is directly contributing to even higher costs for his equipment, treatment, and medicines. Future rationing of care will have an adverse affect on his future, as will projected doctor shortages. So, while you take a view on this issue based upon a false narrative, the liberal utopian one, mine is based on reality.
            By stating a simple fact, that healthcare is not a right, I am not implying that I want anyone to suffer illness. Liberals are full of non-sequiturs, logical flaws. You are assuming that because I don’t believe healthcare is a right that I want people to suffer. What I want is for healthcare to be affordable again, and the only way that will ever come about is to remove the shackles of government control. Does that make sense to you?

          • Sounds like he was damn successful…plenty successful enough to offer his employee healthcare. Or is it I got mine screw everybody else?

      • sitdownmich

        I don’t think you understand how Obamacare works. After it’s implementation you WILL have healthcare. The only question is how much will you pay for it? The answer to this depends on your level of income, which is basically means tested to decide how much you should be subsidised (if at all).

      • Smartuckus

        One of the problems with people who criticize health insurance companies is their profound ignorance of them. Profit margin for these companies? Between 1 and 3 percent. Breweries? 36 percent. There aren’t going to be any health insurance companies soon, because they will not be able to compete with the crappy Obamacare exchanges.
        If you employ 50 or more full-time employees, you will be required to pay 85% of a single employee’s premiums, or 65% of the premiums for employees with family plans. That’s a staggering amount for some companies. The alternative is to drop medical coverage and pay the $2000.00 per employee fine, which is exactly what more and more companies will do, not to be greedy, but to survive. Or, businesses will cut hours to decrease the number of full-time employees.
        As an individual you will be required to purchase health insurance (around $2000.00 with obamacare exchanges) whether or not you can afford it, and whether or not you need it. However, those who don’t will simply have to pay the $90.00 fine if they require healthcare. That fine will increase to $700.00 after 5 years. So, how many enterprising people will pay the fine rather than spend 2k on healthcare insurance? I’m sure that we could assume at least everyone currently on welfare now, plus everyone else who sees the inherent injustice in being the few who end up subsidizing everyone else’s healthcare.
        To make matters worse for health insurance companies, they can no longer deny membership for pre-existing conditions. That’s like an auto insurance provider being forced to provide coverage for a person after an accident. The bottom line is that there won’t be any health insurance companies in a few short years; all those employees will be unemployed soon, and healthcare cost will go up at much higher rates than eve before. Additionally, healthcare workers will tire of being reimbursed by the government at a rate of 10% of cost and will be forced to switch careers. Our best and brightest who might otherwise go into the health profession won’t, because they won’t get paid enough to wipe butts, clean vomit, put their lives at risk by handling HIV infected blood, and face potential law suits after making difficult life and death decisions while being on-call 36 hours straight, and this after a minimum of 11 years of education on borrowed money. This is what Obamacare and its successive full blown socialized medicine will bring us, and you libs will still be blaming Bush and insurance companies. Fools, the lot of you!

        • Mark in Cleveland

          Where to begin…

          1) You say: “There aren’t going to be any health insurance companies soon, because
          they will not be able to compete with the crappy Obamacare exchanges.”

          The “Obamacare exchanges” are nothing more than a website in which insurers who meet coverage minimums will be able to directly compete for customers. They will be like Travelocity for insurance coverage. There is no public health insurance competing with private companies. And these insurance companies are on board because the ACA will dramatically expand their pool of insured. And while they can no longer drop coverage due to lifetime caps or deny insurance due to preexisting conditions, they also are looking at millions of more customers (many of whom are young and healthy).

          2) Companies under 50 employees are exempted from the insurance requirement (a number which includes 96% of small businesses). Those over 50 employees will now be able purchase health insurance on special employer-only exchanges. This means that mid-sized firms will be able to get rates that were previously only available to the largest companies, increasing competition, and reducing their costs by pooling insurance with other small businesses.

          3) Healthcare workers are not being paid by the government. Doctors, nurses, clinicians, etc. They are still private, as are the hospitals they work for and the insurance companies that set reimbursement rates for care. There is no 10% of cost ratio for reimbursement of care. Actually, a cost-plus system would likely increase profits, but also drive up costs since there’s no incentive to find efficiency there. Rather, there has been a plan floating around for years to reduce Medicare reimbursements.

          4) You make preexisting conditions, rescissions, caps, and other ways of preventing people from getting access to medical care sound like a good thing. Jerk.

          • Thank you for putting this SOB straight with all his fear mongering lies!!!

          • Smartuckus

            Mark, health insurance companies will not be able to compete; they will no longer be profitable because of the several reasons I mentioned. Suggesting that the exchanges are nothing but websites is completely inaccurate and simplistic. ALL insurance companies are being forced under this legislation to offer premium plans and eliminate lower cost plans, and then divorcing the actual cost to the individual by levying higher taxes. Take the young and healthy you mention, who have no need for premium plans. They will, sort of, be required to pay $2k per year for their plan. If they don’t pay, they will have to pay a $95.00 fine when and if they need some sort of care. Prior to Obamacare, a young healthy individual could have purchased catastrophic coverage and paid out of pocket for a yearly checkup.

            Companies under 50 employees are exempted from them insurance requirement, true, but healthcare insurance rates will cost much more as a result of this law than they would have otherwise. Mid-size companies and larger will be dropping their employer provided plans to save money so that their employees can purchase insurance via the exchanges. Don’t you read much?

            Obamacare is being subsidized by the tax payers. That’s what that new army of IRS agents is all about – collecting tax dollars in support of Obamacare, so yes, the government will be very stingy when making reimbursements to insurance companies. The bureaucracy will become stifling as insurance companies will deny certain treatments they deem unnecessary because the government will not reimburse them. A real example: a doctor prescribed a particular medicine to a patient to help with acid reflux. This medicine is administered in liquid form only. The insurance company denied this medicine in favor of Nexium because it was three times cheaper. Trouble is, the patient was a premature newborn incapable of swallowing pills. It took time to sort this out with the insurance company, especially as this was a Medicaid patient. Do we want government mandates interfering with the decisions of our healthcare professionals? As with every single crappy government program EVER to have cursed this nation of ours, we will have similar problems with the controlling beuracracies. People will suffer as a result.

            No one likes pre-existing conditions. However, health insurance companies are FOR PROFIT businesses, JACKASS! I don’t like it when people go hungry either, but that doesn’t mean I would support government mandates requiring restaurants to bankrupt themselves by giving their food away. I would support a restaurant owner’s charitable giving though; in which HE determines how much he can afford to donate, and to whom.

        • More fear mongering rhetoric from someone with an agenda…Don’t believe any of this garbage because it is all wrong!!! Do your own research and see with your own eyes exactly how things will get better for everyone, including the greedy SOB’s we call CEO’s.

          • Smartuckus

            My only agenda is to allow everyone to keep what they earn, and to motivate everyone to become earners. I want to be financially self-sufficient and in no way dependent on government handouts, and would like to reduce the overwhelming dependency of others. I want to pay for my own children’s education and my own retirement. I would also like to be able to donate to the charities of MY choice. What’s wrong with my agenda, you little Hitler?

            Are you one of those unwashed, drug-using Occupy Wall Street types crapping on police cars? Sounds like it. CEO’s are greedy SOB’s, huh? They didn’t acquire what they have through hard work and dedication? They all just stepped over your beer-bong partaking self and stole your life’s savings while you were rutting with the rest of the 99%? You should change your name to Sloth Envy, you Stalinist.

            Funny, all those Conservative predictions, once labeled “fear-mongering” have come true or are in the process. Gee, who could have thought that the threat of the housing bubble bursting was nothing more than “fear-mongering”?

    • SlimPicanny

      That isn’t irony Fiona, it’s just plain evil. Let’s call it what it is. At the current rate America as we once knew it will be gone before you can say “Citizens United”.
      Small wonder we have corporate welfare, we have corporate rule and they’re the ones writing the new laws that Congress rubber stamps.

    • Always Played Fairly!

      So we pay, what, $800 million for employers of Walmart on welfare and then they use their food stamp cards to shop there……so what we have is the modern day “company store!”

    • Pith_n_Vinegar

      Obama phones, too.

      • Dean Barr

        A program started under Bush that costs taxpayers zero dollars. Look it up. Geesh you righties have trouble doing independent research….

    • Gigi Jacobs

      That’s the truth, Josh!

  • Charles

    I work for a social services non profit. 80% of our revenues come from local, state or federal grants (tax money). 75% of our $1.5 M budget is personnel. That means a minimum of $1.125M of our revenues are taxed as personal income, contributing to the tax base. That also means that a minimum of $1.125M of our revenue is cycled back into the economy via mortgage, rent, gas, food, utilities, etc. purchased by our employees. I imagine that there are hard line conservative business owners who gladly accept payments for services/goods from our employees-even though the money is from govt sources. So, in short, of course social welfare programs contribute to the economy. Are you shallow minded or just plain stupid?

    • Hi, Charles!

      Can’t I be both shallow-minded and plain stupid?

      You’re right. Social welfare programs do stimulate the economy. However, the taxes required to fund them depress the economy. Given that the government is kind of a leaky bucket in its wealth transfer, I tend to think that the depression probably exceeds the stimulation.

      Maybe I’m wrong though. Thanks for commenting!

    • lalalala

      it never furthers your argument to resort to name calling.

  • Actually, that statement is wrong, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . ” When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.” We are talking about people with an annual income of less than $34,000.

  • I understand if you begrudge your failed relationship with your ex, but you’re wrong about TANF. Regardless of how many kids your ex has, the maximum amount of benefits you can receive under TANF is $2,000 a month, and the maximum duration is 60 mos over the recipients lifetime. She would also be required to work while receiving TANF. There is no such thing as sitting on your ass collecting welfare, and hasn’t been since 1997. You can read the facts about TANF here:

    • you are not required to work to receive tanf anymore, thanx again to obummer’s administration.

      • asault

        Not exactly correct. The Obama Admin relaxed the rules for work requirements because the STATES, including many republican governors thereof, requested as much.

        • keenspirit

          Actually the Obama administration has not relaxed the rules for work requirements. The states still have the same level of expected welfare to work requirements.The Obama administration is allowing state waivers from welfare work
          requirements “only if they had a credible plan to increase employment
          by 20 percent.”

          • Car

            I volunteer at some foodbanks in illinois… can’t even get TANF here..if you do..its about 200 a month for 3months..

          • Here in MO I lost my job for a while, took a part time job to try to make ends meet and needed food stamps to feed my family. However TANF was offered as a separate form of assistance. As my situation did not warrant that I declined. But when filling out legal documents I was instructed to list myself as not receiving TANF as they are different.

          • The question here, (not that I am disputing what you say, I’m seeking justification for his actions) is whether or not any of those states were able to actually increase (and maintain) that 20% and what was the course taken for those who could not maintain it? Did they lose the waiver?

          • MKG

            Anytime we are trying to reduce budget expenditures it is a good practice to find where new approaches can save money. That is the justification. As far as the audit items/requirements go for those receiving waivers, might I suggest looking at the government publications that address the facts? (rather than asking for more commentary). A quick Google search should be sufficient.

          • Smartuckus

            But NPR, MSNBC and company are upstanding, trustworthy news sources absent any bias whatsoever!

          • NPR is rather unbiased and their listeners are fairly well informed.

            MSNBC leans left, but you’re defending accusations that people aren’t making. No one brought an MSNBC or NPR post as a credible source…

          • Smartuckus

            My point is that the source of information is of far less importance than the information itself. I disagree that NPR is unbiased; they are, based upon their own actions, leftist, ideologically speaking. But that doesn’t mean that the information they provide should be automatically rejected, and therefore, neither should information from conservative sources. Provide, if you will, a study from a conservative source that you think has it all wrong and explain why. Perhaps then an honest dialogue can occur.

        • photoglyph

          so effectively, Republican Governors requested the authority to relax the work requirements… you need to be accurate.

          • MKG

            and just so you know…I live in one of the states that asked for a waiver, we have a democratic governor. Again, the waivers were to try new approaches to save overall monies in the respective states. Not across the board request to relax work requirements. For our state, the waivers allowed us to save tons of money in day care subsidies which could then be spent on other badly needed programs. Grrr I get annoyed with people who throw out blanket statements without knowing the facts…

          • photoglyph

            Don’t be a clown, MKG. The gist of my statement is correct, unless you are intending to enumerate which Democratic governors and which Republican governors supported it…

        • MKG

          Not exactly correct either, see my response to Frank above. The rules for work requirements were not ‘relaxed’, the states were just given the freedom to experiment and try to come up with some more efficient models for the program.

      • David A

        At the request of Repbublican governors, BTW.

      • photoglyph

        uh-oh, a dip-shit on the page….

      • photoglyph

        should read: Frank S. Dip-s**t’

      • wenjenaz

        Taken directly from TANF website:
        Work Guidelines

        1. Recipients of TANF must be working no later than 2 years from the start of receiving the government assistance program

        2. To maintain eligibility toward the States eligibility guidelines,
        work must consist of employment of no less than 30 hours per week (or 20
        hours a week if there is a child in the household under 6 years of

      • MKG

        Frank, you obviously have not bothered to read anything other than sound bites and people’s online discussions. I work with TANF recipients every day at my job in the required Job Search portion and am fairly well-versed with the program (I help these folks find work). It angers me when I see the lies constantly being tossed about in this regard. And I used to receive assistance for a brief period of time, had 4 dependent children, and never received more than $500.00 per month in cash assistance. My husband and I were both out of work. Never heard of anyone receiving $2000.00 per month, I will have to look into that one further. The waivers were given so states could try some innovative new approaches in order to try and help the program to be more efficient, while at the same time not have the peripheral needs suck the state dollars dry (day care subsidies, for instance). I am very proud of the innovative approach my state has taken in this regard. Your lack of IQ and/or general laziness is showing, that is all…

        • tuttlemsm

          Frank is my brother. I know him pretty well. His political viewpoints irritate me to no end, but there are reasons why people become emotionally wrapped up in angry right-wing politics. You don’t know him, so throwing around facile accusations like “laziness” and “lack of IQ” are unfounded. People like my brother are willfully misinformed because there is something lacking in their lives, a hole that gets filled up by angry right-wing crap. You don’t know him, and your glib oneupsmanship only undermines your point— which, if I’m not mistaken, is “you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

          • she knew what she was talking about and stated her points clearly. Your brother came off as being obnoxous

          • Irene49

            So sorry that your brother has something lacking in his life but that’s no reason to spread misinformation which causes more hate and division in this country.

      • Not true!

      • Maureen

        I did not check out all the other states, but according to the states I did check, TANF does not appear to be a federal program where the rules are the same in all 50 states. The welfare reform legislation of 1996 ended the federal Aid for Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). The AFDC program was the notorious federal program that famously created and promoted the “Welfare Queen” culture by awarding extra cash and benefits for as many children as a woman could produce, completely void of restrictions on the length of time one could receive benefits or maximum amount of cash. When AFDC was ended, the federal government established the TANF program in its place, which is the cash assistance program discussed here and still in place today. TANF has addressed the major issues that arose because of the AFDC by putting a 5 year eligibility limit on the benefits and also putting a cash assistance cap of $2,000 a month, regardless of how many children a woman/man has. These changes have likely prevented a lot of children from being born who otherwise would have just been Mama’s meal ticket and the taxpayers responsibility. Another change with TANF is that recipients do not receive their benefits directly from the federal government. Instead, TANF funds are awarded annually to each individual state who then create their own budget and outline their own eligibility guidelines, based on their state’s cost of living and volume of people who are in need of the benefits, among other factors. Designated state agencies are then responsible to distribute aid to their eligible residents and monitor to make sure work requirements are fulfilled. If my presumption is correct, (I can’t claim to be an expert on the topic, just an interested scholar), then “Obummer” would have absolutely no influence on the eligibility requirements, or lack thereof, for the TANF program since it is the governor of each state who decides the eligibility requirements of the program and how the funds will be distributed. As usual, everyone points at and bashes Obama, regardless of whether he is at fault or not! I wish more people would realize just how limited the president’s power is, regardless of which president it is!! It’s not Obama’s fault and it was not Bush’s fault either! Congress are the people who are REALLY in power and are constantly getting away with creating legislation that protects and profits them while leaving us regular citizens vulnerable and poor. The sad part is that they don’t even have to sneak around to get away with it because the majority of citizens in our country are either ignorant or indifferent to the real impact WE THE PEOPLE can make if we get together and fight back. The president is just the mouthpiece for the government, not someone who actually gets laws passed!! He is the scapegoat for Congress and he accepts the role because he too is benefiting from it. Everyone shows up in droves to the polls for the presidential elections, but only a tiny percentage show up for the “smaller” elections that are for the politicians that actually have impact on the laws of our land!! I wish more people would educate themselves on the way our government operates. I don’t know everything, and I am even often wrong, but I feel confident saying that there is a lot I DO know and continue to learn because when I am uniformed about something, I pick up a book or newspaper and try to educate myself! It should be obvious that a company whose profits are so high that they are giving twenty million dollar BONUSES to their CEO’s do not deserve 100 billion dollars in subsidies from the government!! That seems like basic common sense… something even a baby could figure out! Why haven’t we, the American people, gotten outraged enough yet to change things? While we are busy bickering about abortion, gay marriage, and whether Obama was born in the United States, the fat cats in Congress are taking vacations and buying yachts with our hard earned money. And because we are not paying attention, the Republicans are convincing 49% of the population to fight to get rid of the social programs that ensure all children have food, shelter, and a good education plus making them believe that the tax cuts for the rich must be upheld in order to “create jobs.” Then you have the other 51% if the population buying a pipe dream from a man whose title and role in the government won’t allow him to make the changes he promises to make, no matter how honest his intentions are. He simply does not have the support from Congress to make the big changes he envisions in his perfect world scenario. Clearly we need changes in order to progress and move forward in the right direction; what we have been doing obviously is not working. The first change that could be made in the interest of the general public would be this corporate entitlement. Take away the funding and reintroduce competition to the market. Give someone else a chance to create a successful business!

      • It is you who is lying. Not only are you full of it, but Obama didn’t even have the authority to waive the work requirements, only the reporting to DHS could be waived. You libs lie, and twist, and are just dispicable!

        • Ruby

          because the president has all the power right? people who complain about the government but refuse to learn how it works usually never have the right answers when it comes to government…instead of the ill-informed BLOG, try this on for size…

        • JaneyVee

          Mike, FALSE! He left it to the states. Isn’t that what you RWNJs always say, State’s Rights? Suck it conservatard.

        • Irene49

          Mike, you might try doing some research instead of relying on partisan conservative propaganda sites. I clicked on TANF requirements on the site and this is what was there:

          Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidance regarding waivers for the TANF program. These waivers will strengthen welfare reform by accelerating job placement and moving more Americans from welfare to work. Under this policy, no waivers that undercut work requirements in welfare reform will be approved.
          This policy will allow States to test new, more effective ways to help people get and keep a job. For years, Republican and Democratic Governors have requested more flexibility in implementing welfare reform so they can meet their States’ specific needs.


          wow so now its an us vs them mentality? whenever you put an entire group in a box its normally a vicious stereotype. Thanks for bringing that twisted lie into this conversation. That is just despicable! Also i agree with Ruby you realize that the “Blog” is under no legal requirements to tell the truth also the Heritage foundation is publicly dedicated to tearing down Obama, please next time find a half way reliable source i might even be willing to settle for FOX NEWS.

          • Smartuckus

            Can I call you “Ima” for short? I agree with Mike about the “us vs. them” mentality. I offer the Occupy Wall Street crowd as proof. Alright, we all have our preferred sources and dislike sources that present information with which we ideologically disagree. We’re all guilty of poo pooing information from these sources because they came from these sources without first investigating the information. I don’t think it’s fair to downplay an article because the source was Rachel Maddow or the Heritage Foundation. What should be scrutinized is the information provided, don’t you agree?

        • Irene49

          Next you’ll send us something from FreedomWorks right? If you get all of your information from right-wing sites then you are very misinformed and might try to find a non-partisan source for news.

          • Smartuckus

            Non-partisan like MSNBC and NPR, right?


            You realize that NPR is just about as nonbias as you can get. Not their fault that most reporters are liberal. FYI is there something telling about the fact that the most informed people consistently support the Left?

          • Smartuckus

            Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa… BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! Good ones! Ok, seriously, NPR is unbiased? Here’s my take about liberal news entities; it isn’t just what they report, it’s what they purposefully choose not to report. What about Ron Schiller? Vivian Schiller? I know they aren’t with NPR any longer, but one would have to be a fool to think the squeeze over their scandals threatening to cost NPR government funding had nothing to do with their forced resignations; it certainly wasn’t due to any sense of journalistic integrity. What of NPR’s support of that extreme propaganda piece known as “The Story of Stuff”? Or their endless obsession with anything and everything related to the Koch brothers? I’ve never heard NPR worked up about George Soros.
            Most informed people support the left? You mean like the woman who supported Obama in the now famous video declaring that Obama was gonna pay her mortgage or buy her a car?
            I recall Howard Stern’s interviews where he attributed conservative principles to Obama, opposite of Obama’s actual ideology, and asked Obama supporters if they were voting for him because of those values, and they all said yes! Let’s face it, most Obama supporters didn’t vote for him because of what he stood for, most voted for him because of his skin color, or how glowingly he was portrayed by the media. Those who truly understood his agenda and STILL voted for him are either fundamentally misguided, or evil. Informed people with at least half a brain are conservative. BTW, please don’t get worked up… Saying all this in my head sort of tongue and cheek.

      • Ruby

        this is simply false.

      • Irene49

        Please stop spreading lies.


        WRONG!!! Obama opened certain loopholes for single mothers and others who have disabilities. So I guess your right if you don’t consider motherhood to be a hard job or would rather trade places with a schizophrenic or a double amputee that is forced to live at below minimum wage.

    • My partner’s daughter is on TANF and she is not even required to look for work. She spends her time with a scrapper/methhead who steals metal and sells it as scrap while they both smoke meth. Our tax dollars hard at work.

      • We all know that there are people out there that abuse the program. That does not mean that it is not useful. We are just spinning our wheels bringing up this kind of thing.

        Drinking alcohol can be relaxing and fun. Some people abuse it and cause problems, drive drunk, and are a danger to themselves and others. Should we ban alcohol completely?

        Sometimes planes crash. Let’s ban air travel completely!

        My uncle had heart surgery and it went terribly wrong. He died on the operating table. Does this mean that no one should ever have heart surgery?

        I saw a movie last month which starred Jim Carrey. I did not like it. Does this mean all of his movies suck?

        In grade school you might have seen something like this:
        Some boys like baseball
        Gary is a boy
        Gary must like baseball True or False?

        Do you see where I’m going with this?

        • Smartuckus

          But you miss a big part of the problem; we are each entitled to what we earn, nothing more and nothing less. When government confiscates from earners, and rewards non-earners it punishes success and rewards sloth. The program itself is innately wrong, whether or not some people “abuse the system.” The system IS an abuse!

          • Humble learner


          • Smartuckus

            Humble, you make your case like every other misinformed liberal: Rather than discussing the virtue or lack thereof of a point made in a discussion, you attack the person. Typical of liberals who then scratch their empty heads and wonder why our nation is so gridlocked.
            Oh, I’ve had help from family to be sure. It wasn’t forced under threat of punishment; it was freely given and the related benefactor had the liberty of choosing not only to give, but also how much.
            I’ve had a job since my first paper route when I was a third grader. I am not wealthy, but I do respect basic common sense concepts of individual liberty and ownership; private property. I am not envious of the wealthy, but have great respect for the work ethic that brought them success.
            I have never received welfare and am determined to never do so. I have been officially unemployed, but performed contract work until something else became available. In other words, I never drew unemployment. I found work, even though it wasn’t the kind of work I would have preferred. I had to take what I could to put food on the table.
            You want to know the secret? Have principles. Live every day according to those principles and to the Moral Law which is their foundation. Treat your neighbor as you would be treated. Stop focussing on what you can ‘t do and start accomplishing what you can. Learn from your mistakes and thank God for the priceless lessons gleaned from failure. The only real failure is the failure to try.
            Am I a “self-made man?” To a degree, but again, I am not wealthy. Just happy. Am I the only self-made man? Hardly. Most of the wealthy are self-made. And you could learn a thing or two from them if you could just stop thinking that someone, or everyone for that matter, owes you something. Pay yourself first, Humble, and let others do the same.

          • hokieduck

            And I am willing to bet good money that you are a white man over the age of 50. Just guessing…

          • Smartuckus

            White, yes. Over 50? No. Based upon your question I can only assume you’re a racist, being as that you want to inject race into a monetary discussion. And whose money would you be wagering; money you received from TANF or some other welfare program?

          • hokieduck

            And yet you also do not, how did you say it, “make your case like every other misinformed (liberal): Rather than discussing the virtue or lack thereof of a point made in a discussion, you attack the person. Typical of (liberals) who then scratch their empty heads and wonder why our nation is so gridlocked.”

            Yet you fail to address in even the smallest way that the point of the article is that corporate subsidies and tax breaks almost double the amount of subsidies to actual people. And you do so by “attacking the person” , ie, liberal, progressive people.


          • Smartuckus

            That’s because the notion that corporate subsidies are double what are given to welfare recipients is completely and utterly false. The writer of the article is either lying or misinformed. If he told you that wolverines make good house pets, would you believe him?

            Here is a link to a report given by the Congressional Research Service detailing means-tested welfare spending between 2008 and 2011. These aren’t predictive numbers – they illustrate what was actually spent.


            The National Center for Policy Analysis confirms the numbers:


            Of course, the progressives want to poo-poo the numbers by claiming that “welfare” should be defined only by dollars spent on the TANF program, which in reality, is ONE program from among roughly 80 welfare programs. IMO progressives avoid clarity and preciseness, and they do so purposefully. What’s the definition of welfare? “Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.”

            In other words, the “statutory effort” is “law” and the “promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need” means wealth redistribution. Can we at least agree on that?

            So, by definition, any and all money confiscated from earners and re-distributed to the “poor and needy” is, by definition, WELFARE. To say that the paltry-by-comparison billions provided solely by TANF is the sum of our yearly welfare spending is so egregiously false one must question the motives, if not the sanity, of anyone regurgitating this lie. Time for an analogy. Suppose that person A stole from a baker, and that the baker caught him in the act. The police arrive and say, “yup, he stole from the baker and we’re going to put him in jail.” Person B on the other hand steals from the butcher, but wasn’t caught in the act. Well, to anyone with even half a brain, both person A and person B engaged in acts of theft. The progressive “Salon” mentality stating “TANF alone is welfare” is tantamount to someone declaring that only person A was stealing because he’s the only one who got caught.

          • hokieduck

            You cite a ncpa source whose data are clearly stated as coming from the Heritage Foundation. The CRS memo you cite includes everything from Native American Educational Assistance to Pell Grants. The memo clearly states that these figures also ar inflated by the Stiimulus funds and that the rate of increase after 2010 has been about 2%. Your links, sir.

            Even though people have continued to ask you to address what the issue you deride is all about, corporate welfare by way of tax subsidies and industry stimulus, you glibly do not address it, calling it a “made up term”.

            Just for example, this month marks the 100th anniversary of the depletion allowance for big oil which allows them to write off oil in the ground as capital equipment. The foreign tax credits, domestic manufacturing tax credits, drilling write offs which allow the oil companies to write off huge costs in the first year rather than amortizing them over the life of the investment as my small business has to do. And that is just for oil… I haven’t mentioned the banking industries or auto or, for god’s sake, the military and industrial complex.

            Your refusal to even address these things is exactly like your Republican brothers in Congress who make even mention of these corporate “entitlements” like skewering the sacred cow.

            You have no credibility when you are not willing to talk about your “entitlements” but like to call the poor and aged and infirm social pariahs who are but drags on the golden “earners” you revere so much.

            You may very well be rich in belongings, you are certainly intelligent and well spoken; however, I fear you are shallow in places that you think little of anyway. Heart. Soul. Compassion.

            Have a nice life.

          • Smartuckus

            I did address it. I stated that subsidies granted to businesses that don’t exceed their tax are simply a means of allowing businesses to keep their own money. If the government has money to give to businesses, then the government is taxing too much. Money given to businesses that would exceed their tax burden should rightly be called corporate welfare, and programs such as this should be terminated. Again, the guiding principle is that we are each entitled to what we earn.
            Some facts about taxes and spending: on average, for every dollar collected by the government via tax and ear marked for welfare spending, only 15% gets to a welfare recipient. 85% of the money is exhausted as it traverses all of the bureaucratic layers of government. This is one reason government is the last institution we should consider getting involved. The extraordinary inefficiencies of government bureaucracy increase cost and allow far greater avenues for fraud. Consider private charities which demonstrate an efficiency of 85% or better; not only are the poor and needy in communities better served, but the financial burden placed on earners isn’t stifling.
            Hoodieduck, you, like your liberal friends, are simply misinformed by your class warfare-obsessed elitist leaders; conservatives want to help the poor and the needy. We simply want the means to be fair and just. Charity should not line the pockets of bureaucrats before the needy receive the leftover pittance, nor should it be used by politicians to gain and retain power via populist, class-warfare rhetoric. The majority of people on various welfare programs are not the destitute and elderly you think. Most, today, are able-bodied. We can certainly get rid of Obama phones, can’t we? Of the 83 means-tested welfare programs out there, do you think all are necessary?

          • You should see my Facebook battles. I can use you on my team.

          • Yeah, you had to toss the “liberal” epithet in there as if it were a bad thing. I bet that you love Jefferson, right? Well, son, he was a liberal.

          • Smartuckus

            Well Gina, he was a classical liberal. Classical Liberalism advocates civil liberties and political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market; in other words, he would be known as a Libertarian/conservative today. I take it you’ve never cracked open the pages of the Federalist Papers, eh?

          • nice come back. By the way, for the Libertarian fruit cakes posting here…Ayn Rand would not have made it to this country without her family’s handouts. She would not have become a screen writer without some help from a studio head and she would not have survived her old age without SOCIAL SECURITY which she accepted. Stop quoting from a lying twit who was also a lousy writer and NOT well educated.

          • Smartuckus

            Nice try Gina. Your comment is modern liberalism on display:
            1. Make stuff up to sully those with whom you disagree. (For example, what does Ayn Rand have to do with my statement? Am I some Ayn Rand drone, or is this simply a circumstance where my conviction, that people are entitled to what they earn, happened to be shared by Ayn Rand – among many others too, most of whom were long dead by the time Rand was born. Ever heard of Adam Smith? – It might not have occurred to you, but my statement was my own. I could engage in the same tactics as you – as I have done, I admit, with others. You share convictions that would lead you to expand big government programs that confiscate from earners, with Hitler and Stalin. I suppose that makes you a Nazi, or a blood thirsty communist, hmmmmmmm? The difference is that Conservatives like me engage in these tactics to point out the absurdity of liberals for whom these tactics are the only way they know how to engage in a debate.)

            2. What you think you know about Conservatism simply isn’t true. (I won’t pretend to be an expert on Ayn Rand, I’m not, and I am not all that familiar with her work either. However, you stated that she wouldn’t have made it to this country without her family’s handouts, or assistance from other individuals. So? What’s wrong with that? Isn’t family the proper entity to lend a hand? That falls right on line with Conservative values. Her family in the U.S. was given a choice, and they chose to help her. No government agency acted on her behalf, no politburo confiscated money from tax payers to fund her relocation, or her living expenses once she arrived. The fact of the matter is that she fled the kind of oppression that you and others would establish here in this country. I’m not saying that oppression is your goal, it’s just it has proven to be the outcome every time, in every nation throughout the history of the world. So let me state this again; Conservatives want to help people, they just don’t believe it’s morally acceptable to steal from earners in order to ostensibly spread the wealth around. Furthermore, Conservatives don’t think government is an agency that should be involved in such a process because, without exception, money and power corrupt. Government bureaucrats always serve themselves and set their own self-interests above all others’. If you don’t believe that, then simply ask yourself why it is that the fortunes of most politicians grow exponentially once they’ve “served” the public for any length of time. Ask yourself why politicians exempt themselves from the laws, mandates and regulations that they foist upon the rest of us.)

            3.) Ad hominem attacks. (You assert that Ayn Rand was a “lying twit”. Ok, can you back that up with proof? Again, I don’t know a whole lot about her, but you seem to think you do. Why do you think she lied? Can you provide examples, or are you just an angry liberal injecting a venomous statement about someone with whom you disagree? If you can’t provide examples of Rand lying, then doesn’t that make a liar out of you? Was she really a twit? Far from that narrative, she seems to have been quite intelligent. She recognized early on the oppressive nature of the revolution and those behind it. She came to this country as soon as she could. She, whether or not you like her work, published books. How many have you published? You would seem to suggest that, if Rand was a twit, than you yourself must be an even bigger twit, since your own accomplishments pale in comparison. While I have not read her books myself, I have heard of them, and her. Quite frankly, I’d never heard of “Gina de Miranda, the angry liberal” until you posted your screed, and so far I remain unimpressed.)

          • what about the elderly and the disabled. What about people who had jobs and now are not able to get a job. What about the low paying jobs that does not pay enough for a person to live on;;;no insurace benefits etc;

          • Smartuckus

            Derek, the elderly and the disabled are certainly a concern. However, our welfare spending on those who can’t work is infinitesimal compared to the vast amounts of money we spend overall on welfare for those who CAN work. ($1 TRILLION in means-tested welfare last year alone!) Most people with jobs work hard and are having difficulty getting by. Our taxes are higher and the goods and services we purchase are all costing more. In terms of value, families are making, on average, $4,000 less per year, and that amount is increasing. At what point is it morally acceptible to take more from these people? (or anyone for that matter?) It’s OK to legally plunder money from those who are earning it simply to take it, line the pockets of the politicians who are responsible for the legal plunder in the first place, and then give the remainder to those who simply did not earn it, all because they are needy? The earners are needy too – it’s why they are busting their butts to earn their paychecks. Don’t be fooled by those who would have you believe that taxes are only going to go up on the “wealthiest of Americans.” That’s all bull shit. When taxes go up on the wealthy – or those who own businesses, whether they be wealthy or not – they pass that along to you and me through price increases.
            A fiend of mine rents an apartment. He can’t get it through his thick skull that he pays property taxes. He may not see the tax bill every year or have to negotiate with the county tax assesor, but I have assured him many times that the cost of the property taxes is included in the rent of each and every renter. In a similar fashion, higher taxes and forced wage increases always end up hurting the average joe – because to cover all these mandated increases, companies raise the prices on all the things our average joe needs to purchase. It’s economics 101. And the political party who supposedly “looks out for the little guy” is driving the bull shit train off that fiscal cliff.

          • Ruby

            Smartuckus, what do you propose we do about the system then? How does it get fixed? I only ask you because you seem to have a rebuttal for everything the “misinformed liberals” say but no clear suggestions on how things could be done better besides, “Have principles. Live every day according to those principles and to the Moral Law which is their foundation. Treat your neighbor as you would be treated. Stop focussing on what you can ‘t do and start accomplishing what you can. Learn from your mistakes and thank God for the priceless lessons gleaned from failure. The only real failure is the failure to try”, which sadly is an idea/motivational speech not a plan of action. Living to a moral law based on who and what? What are these principles you adhere by that allow you to do these things? What of those people who don’t believe in God? What I am saying is, you can’t diss the system and replace it with flowery suggestions that do NOT help anyone financially. I am a student, a vet, have a low paying job, and a woman without children. I am unable to afford school books half the time let alone a healthy diet to sustain my output. I don’t receive anything accept financial aid (which leaves me with approximately 300 a month to buy food, transportation, and utilities after the school bill). The problem is the cost of living has risen exponentially and the price we pay people has faltered. If I could get food stamps to help feed myself, while I work and get an education I would take it, why would that be abuse? I am busting my hump. I don’t have children so I don’t qualify though. Sadly, being a productive member of society isn’t enough to keep you fed and warm. Please scale back the rhetoric on principles and morals…it has NOTHING to do with personal financial crisis most people on/or needing aid are feeling. The people who should be lectured on principles and morals are the people in positions of power, not just Barack Obama, all of the political entities sworn to serve and care about their constituents. We’d rather blame people with no power though right? Typical of our forgetful culture…blaming the victim is USUALLY the wrong answer. We are all victims to poor governing, overreaching, overspending, over warring, etc…

          • Smartuckus

            I can’t spell out a comprehensive solution here. I can give few and
            broad ideas. In short, what’s wrong with our economy is everything that Keynesian Democrats and Republicans have created. The welfare state, a cultural collapse on an enormous scale. While the solution may be mufti-faceted and take years to make happen, it isn’t as complex as you might think. If they have a D by their names on election day, stop voting for them. If they are RINOs, don’t vote for them. Take everything the liberals have done over the last 50 years and get rid of it. (BTW, Civil Rights Legislation was a Republican cause – the Senate Democrats voted it down FIVE times before it was finally passed. I mention it now because the first thing that’s going to pop into some lunk-head’s mind when he reads “Take everything the liberals have done over the last 50 years and get rid of it” is going to be Civil Rights legislation – which we obviously need to keep.)

            It took decades to create the mess we’re in today – logically it will take decades to fix. Our attention span seems to be fixed in 4 year cycles. We have to stop that and think in terms of long term solutions. Can we shut down all welfare programs tomorrow and expect to succeed? No – we need something – or rather, a lot of things – to replace them, and cultural solutions will be key. Our culture devolved from emphasizing hard work and success into one that romanticizes sloth, envy and entitlement-thinking. Let’s come up with an 80 year plan to end welfare and entitlement programs whereby cuts to these programs will be phased in gently and private counter parts can be created.

            Education reform – we need high-schoolers to learn about personal finance, investment strategies etc., so that they start planning and working toward their own retirements, home-ownership etc. For example, if a person invests $100.00 per month for 6 years and that investment averages a 10% rate of return every year for 35 years, the investor will be a millionaire. Take that same person who began investing at age 18, but increased the amount invested every month as circumstances allowed, and kept investing until age 65. He or she would be a multi-millionaire and wouldn’t need government handouts to survive.

            Leftists fear the market. They fear investment strategies, despite those strategies that use diversification to protect investments – something uncommon prior to the crash of ’29 and the Great Depression. Privatizing Social Security is actually a very smart thing to do, yet the leftists abhor the idea citing risk. Technically, there is more risk leaving it in government hands!

            Lower taxes, allow people to keep and invest their own money. Stop rewarding non-earners. The deeper problem is not THAT they are on welfare, it’s WHY they are on welfare. If we want to fix the problem we have to eliminate the WHY. You know the old saying: People don’t plan to fail…they fail to plan. Engaging high-school aged kids to prepare them for financial success will help eliminate the WHY. Part of the reason people aren’t trying hard enough is that they can always fall back on the largesse of the federal government. There is no incentive to get off of welfare once you’re on it. We didn’t have a welfare system of any kind prior to FDR – gee, how did people get by?

            You ask about people who don’t believe in God. Well, there is a common moral order among people whether or not they believe in God. We know, innately, that it’s wrong to steal, murder, rape etc., whether we believe in God or not. In other words, murder isn’t wrong because God said so; God, whether you believe in Him or not, was merely stating the obvious. I can’t think of a single atheist who doesn’t believe in a moral code of conduct. There may be differences of opinion regarding aspects of morality, but those same differences exist between people of differing religions too.

            The ends do not justify the means. If we want to help the needy, that end is a good thing. But are we able to help the needy by stealing from others? Theft is wrong – using ill gotten goods and/or money to help the needy is a violation of any moral code.

            You said: ” The problem is the cost of living has risen exponentially and the price we pay people has faltered.”

            Inflation has not been as much of a problem as it was in the 70’s (although it will likely be soon). So the cost of living can’t be blamed on inflation today. Yet the cost of living has sky-rocketed in recent years. Why? Because of government mandates, generally higher taxes on businesses, increased minimum wage standards and gross government spending. New taxes will always cause businesses to raise prices to cover those costs. You want businesses to pay more of their “fair share?” Fine, but understand that you, the consumer – the poor – are actually going to be the one paying for those higher taxes. When fuel prices go up (most especially due to our ridiculous energy policy) you, the poor consumer, are the one paying for it. Higher fuel prices equal higher prices for everything – food, clothing, paper, pencils, entertainment, cable/dsl – everything! And those higher prices are always passed on to the consumer. Is that because businesses are greedy? NO! It’s because businesses need to survive too! It’s because a business man or woman gives all of his/her time, for years, to build a business, often barely squeaking by, in hopes that one day he or she can reap the rewards of his/her hard work. If they can’t maintain a profit margin they deem “worth the effort” they will simply close down, forcing all of their employees onto the unemployment line. If you want the cost of living to go down so that you can afford the things you need, then we need to CUT taxes for EVERYONE and figure out a way to end government welfare programs over time. We need a common sense energy policy not driven by environmentalist Chicken Littles.

            What are all the welfare recipients going to do when all the money is gone? Take all those “1 percenters”. If they decide that they’ve had enough of the slander and verbal abuse and stop working and earning incomes for which they pay taxes – if they close down their businesses, empty their investment portfolios and keep all the income they’ve already paid taxes on – what are the welfare recipients to do then? Is our government going to decide that it needs to confiscate the remaining money too?
            I wish I had the influence necessary to solve the problem; I do vote, and express my opinion, but as the saying goes, you can’t make the horse drink the water.
            BTW – I appreciate your dialogue, and I am sympathetic to your situation. I would like to keep more of my own money to help with my children, especially my special-needs child. You may continue to receive food-stamps, but maybe you should consider that those of us paying taxes (and I’m not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination) that fund your food stamps need to keep more of what we earn for very good reasons too. I don’t want to be equal if by “equal” it means equally poor. I would hope we could all be equally successful, but the current tax code is making the first option the more likely.


            I have about a hundred problems with your argument(yes this is a hyperbole please don’t latch on to this instead how about you focus on my actual argument.)

            Problem 1: You say that everyone is entitled to what they earn? then shouldn’t everyone be entitled to an equal shoot at earning it? I am not arguing for socialism when I say this, all I am saying is that people born to lower class families have a much lower chance of moving out of this bracket. Please don’t advocate for social Darwinism as the excuse here. Almost every account of poor or poverty level children climbing out of poverty has something to do with an outside influence that supported and encouraged them to lead a better life. The child has nothing to do with how lucky they were at birth. A simple flip of the coin could determine whether or not he wen’t to boarding school or a dumpy inner city school(please explain where the equality is in this) No i am not grudging the lucky few who get a chance to go to those elite schools but I don’t think that poor children should be demonized for never having a single idea taught to them that coincides with mainstream society.

            Problem 2: So you think that everyone should keep what everyone earns? what about the children of the rich. Did they earn their inheritance when they were born? They never have to work a day in their lives and yet they shouldn’t have any responsibility to help the poor out who work their fingers to the bone each day and yet don’t make enough to get by.

            Problem 3: You say that the rich should get to keep their money because they will reinvest it in the economy? Well any and every single economist out there will tell you that if you gave some of that wealth to the poor it would be injected back into the economy far quicker. The reason poor people don’t have the ability to save the millions of dollars in bank accounts that many of the ultra wealth do. Even with a supplemented income they would be required to spend it all as soon as it comes in. Therefor there would be an increase in the money circulation of our economy(in case your wondering this benefits every single human being existing in the US)

            Problem 4: this ties back into problem 3 but its so ridiculous that I thought it deserved its own section what do you have to say about the fact that 80% of the $ in the US? and the fact that the bottom 40% only control .3%(please note the point) of our $. do we just have a couple hundred million takers in our society that only want to live off welfare, even though *news flash* it is physically impossible to live above the poverty level off welfare alone.

            Sorry just thought of another Problem 5: So you have a problem with our taxes? what about the middle class New York citizen who doesn’t drive? Why should he be forced to pay to support the upper classes fetish for driving BMW’s down state highways. Shouldn’t he be exempt from that tax? The answer is obviously no because of the fact that taxes help everyone. The poor will spend their money and it will find its way back to the rich who will then be taxed and the cycle repeats. The only difference is that slowly and surly the poor crawl out of poverty. Will there always be poor people yes but for the most part it isn’t because they are the lazy drags on society that you portray but the fact that they were just unlucky enough to be born in that specific situation.

          • Smartuckus

            First let me thank you for a well spoken reply. Problem 1 answer: There is no way to give everyone a completely equal shot, is there? We are all equal in the sense that each human life is of equal value in a moral sense. One is not better than another because he is wealthier – one is not entitled to better treatment by virtue of his wealth. However, we are not equal in terms of capability. Some are stronger, some are smarter, some have a better work ethic, some are better looking, some are kinder, some are more charismatic; each of us is endowed with abilities in greater measure than others. I hope that doesn’t sound elitist – it’s just a fact of life. Otherwise we’d all be models-Olympians-medical doctors- physicists-etc. we can all agree that certain forms of discrimination are morally wrong, but nonetheless we all discriminate. For example, you aren’t likely to hire a known sex offender to work in your daycare, are you? If you own a business you want to hire the best candidate for the job that you can, regardless of race, religion (excepting militant jihadists), gender etc, right? Did the sex offender not place himself on unequal grounds when he made the choice to commit a sex offense? Likewise, aren’t all children in this country given an opportunity to learn and excel? If students and their parents don’t make the most of those opportunities, is the tax payer to blame? So why do we punish the tax payer by raising his taxes to ostensibly give assistance to the high school dropout/ sexually promiscuous teen mother or father/ drug addict/ criminal – all of whom squandered their opportunities? Even then these people have second and third chances, but each requires effort and self discipline on the part of the individual, do they not?
            Most of the wealthy in this country earned their wealth. There are few families by comparison who maintain wealth after two or more generations. You may know of the phenomenon particular to lottery winners, whereby most of them are broke within 5 years of a windfall lottery win. The same sort of phenomenon exists among the wealthy. Kids who inherit wealth are more likely, statistically speaking, to blow it all, because the value of that wealth and the hard work it took to acquire it are lost on them. Most of the currently wealthy in this country have earned, honestly, their wealth within the last 20 years, and the cycle will continue. Being as that such is the case, those born in poverty have every means available to them to earn and accumulate wealth. Most are unaware of the opportunities, which is why teaching kids about these opportunities is far more important than teaching them wood shop, metal shop, or that “Heather Has Two Mommies.” So I must counter that people born to lower economic families have every opportunity to move out of that bracket. Don’t take my word for it; talk to the Vietnamese kids whose families immigrated here not knowing a word of English, worked 2 and three menial labor type jobs, yet instilled such a work ethic into their children that they, the children, have PHD’s and very high incomes today.
            I won’t argue that some schools are poor, both financially and at teaching. Are they so bad that kids remain hopeless? Or is that really, as I would argue, an outcome of the entitlement / welfare state mentality? Abe Lincoln’s formal education ended in the eighth grade. His family was, by any measure, poor. Yet he was one of the most else eloquent speakers/writers in our nation’s history – oh yeah, he was the best President too. Beethoven was abused as a child. History is replete with examples of people who overcame severe disability and hardship to achieve success. I would argue that the vast majority of the wealthy in this country faced the same challenges to various degrees as the poor. If we were all truly equal we would possess the same drive too. Government can’t give that to people no matter how much we spend. Note, I am not demonizing the poor. I am demonizing a system that has undermined the drive and work ethic of society and has therefore made poverty worse. Most liberals would argue that we should end the war on drugs. We’ve spent a lot of money on that program and have very little to show for it. Why can they not apply the same logic to the war on poverty? Not only does spending on that program (or programs) dwarf that of the war on drugs, there are more poor today than in 1960 – and I insist that it is all those programs (war on poverty) that have made it so. Liberal/progressive plans may be laid with the best of intentions, but over time they have proven that as far as equality goes, they will only make us all equally poor and equally dependent on government; enslaved if you will.

            Problem 2 answer:
            In general, yes, everyone should keep what he earns. I am not advocating for a tax less country: we need to maintain services and institutions that exist for the common welfare, such as judiciaries, police, fire and emergency and defense. I’m flabbergasted that the concept is strange to some. Private ownership is an inherent, innate sort of thing. The rich parents, by virtue of their ownership are fully within their rights to give their children their money, just as they are entitled to give it to anyone else. There are different ways to earn. First is by means of contract wage. Second is by barter or exchange. This would include investing, winning a lottery or gambling. (Risk was bartered for potential reward). Third is by way of gift. Someone else may have earned money by wage or investment, and then given it to someone else. The receiver is entitled to the gift – he or she becomes the new owner. You don’t actually disagree with that principle and here’s why I know that: Let’s suppose the wealthy parents gave their money to an impoverished widow who finds herself raising 2 great-grandchildren. Now she doesn’t have to work another day in her life. Should she be allowed to keep all that money? I would argue that she does. She earned it by way of gift. Now, I would argue that a parent’s first responsibility is to his/her children and family, but sometimes a lesson is a better gift than money. The principle is private ownership. The earner has every right to give to whom he/she pleases. We all do have a responsibility to help the poor BTW. I am saying that government welfare is the wrong way to go about that task.

            Problem 3 answer:
            I say that people, all people, should get to keep their money because it belongs to them. It is their money to do with what they please. It may surprise you that most people would give more to charity if they had the money to do so. Unfortunately, punitive taxation prevents this. I say businesses reinvest, which creates jobs. Simply injecting money into the economy isn’t the solution. There is no more money injected into the economy via welfare to the poor then there is if the wealthy spend it, is there? Our welfare system keeps poor people poor. There is no incentive for them to work if an unskilled job wage pays, for 40 hours of work, barely more than a weekly welfare check. As we’ve extended unemployment from six months to 99 weeks, more people remain jobless longer because they can. One might think that increasing the minimum wage would offer a solution, but it wouldn’t. Businesses would hirer fewer people and prices would go up, thus neutralizing any benefit to an increased minimum wage. The only substantive, long term fix is to lower unemployment checks and/or decrease the number of weeks of eligibility.

            Problem 4 answer: what do you think of the fact that the wealthiest 25% pay 86% of income taxes? It’s a two way street. But, understand that you are falling into a trap here. The trap is the erroneous notion that there is only x amount of wealth to go around. Let’s say that x is an apple pie. If you divide it between 2 people they each get half a pie… No problem there. If you have three people they each get a third. Eventually, if you have a million people, the each receive (if equality matters) one one- millionth of the pie. No one is going to be satisfied with that, right? Of course, that isn’t the trap yet. What if two people get half of the pie (one quarter each) and the other million receive one millionth of the remaining half? That’s where your sense of injustice kicks in. So let me ask you, what if one of the quarter pie owners supplied the dough and baked the pie, and the other quarter-pie owner supplied the sugar and apples? Is it still as unjust as you originally thought? Ah, but we’re still operating in the trapped logic of the progressives. Why is there only one pie? Can’t we make enough pie for everyone? If everyone participates, why not? Why can’t we give one quarter to everyone, especially those who provide more apples, cinnamon, sugar, flour, etc? And aren’t those who contribute actually entitled to bigger pieces? My friend, wealth works exactly the same.

            Problem 5 answer: that middle class citizen benefits from the goods and services delivered via that state highway, just as does the upper-class citizen. They should pay an equal tax. The upper-class’s fetish for driving BMW’s? To me, that sounds like class envy. How many years did that upper-class citizen work to climb out of lower-class/middle-class income brackets to be able to afford the BMW? I don’t think all the poor are lazy. I do think that circumstances beyond their control can contribute to their economic status. But that’s not the issue. The issue is government involvement and the adverse effects it causes. When we begin to eliminate government involvement we may see real solutions.

          • Lynn

            Much of the “sniping from the spectators” aside, I have thoroughly enjoyed these exchanges between you two! [Smartuckus and IMASOCIALIST(NOT)] You have both expressed your points of view in a very intellectual and from-the-heart perspective with only an occasional “mini-snipe”, which one can appreciate given the passion with which you each approached your points of view. You are both a credit to your positions and although I have felt incredibly as passionate on the side of one of you, the other of you has given me enough food for thought to want to read and re-read, then research all the factual representations that each of you has brought to the table. Gentle[men/women], I thank you for this spirited discourse and would love to hear more of your polarized exchanges on other issues, as well. This is what debating should be; a passionate, non-threatening exchange between intelligent, informed, knowledgeable, and articulate points of view. Well done and thank you! 🙂

          • I agree wholeheartedly Lynn. Very well done Smartuckus and IMASOCIALIST(NOT). I too had thought one way, but now that I have read the exchange between you two, I can see both sides clearer than I had before. Thank you for the information and facts.

          • Smartuckus

            Ditto to you Mari!

          • Smartuckus

            Thanks Lynn! You are more than welcome to participate, if you have any questions, concerns or thoughts.

          • Smartuckus

            Amazing developments in the last day or two have occurred in Cyprus, a nation whose government has check and balances modeled after our own. Progressive policy has dominated the politics in that nation and, low and behold, the government is out of money and the nation heavily in debt. What are they doing after their progressive tax and spend policies have run the course? they are confiscating (already taxed) money from their citizens’ bank accounts (the banks having been nationalized). I’m sure that if one were to dig deep enough one would find, in the not too distant past, more conservative-minded Cypriots predicting this sort of thing coming about, and the typical progressive verbal retaliation of “fear-mongering!” This should be a lesson to all here in this country that if we continue down the same road we will inevitably arrive at the same destination.

          • JaneyVee

            Ruckus, You’re absolutely wrong. MOST of welfare recipients ARE elderly & children. Get a brain morans!

          • Smartuckus

            I would like to cite this source:

            Granted this is a story about disability insurance in Great Britain, but no one should pretend that the outright fraud occurring there is any different than what is taking place here; human nature is not exclusive to Great Britain. So only one in eight people drawing disability in Great Britain are truly in need of that benefit as the article illustrates. The Labor Party ( the party most like our Democrat Party) set up the system without any genuine oversight. People took unfair advantage of the system, and thus the tax payers who funded it.
            Don’t we see the same failures in every government program here? I’m willing to wager that if we put measures into place that required proof before benefits were granted, our welfare spending would reduced by similar percentages.

          • Smartuckus

            And here is another source citing 1,100+ in MA who received welfare payments up to 27 months after they died, costing tax payers $2.39 Million dollars!


            That’s one state too – I wonder how much more of this fraud goes on in all the other states, especially California, New York and Illinois?
            Janey, you simply can’t remain this naive!

          • ZincKidd

            Great idea, except for one thing– THERE AREN’T ENOUGH JOBS.

          • Irene49

            I don’t hear you say ANYTHING about the abuse of corporate welfare. Doesn’t it bother you that billion dollar profit companies are taking money from YOUR pocket Smartuckus? This article state that social welfare is 59 billion a year yet you site a trillion. Where are you getting your numbers from. Maybe it is you are misinformed (lots of conservatives are) and you should stop insulting liberals before you go off on them for being insulting just like ‘typical liberals’.

          • Smartuckus

            Corporate Welfare…hmmm, what a stupid, stupid invented term. There are no billion dollar companies taking money out of my pocket. The government does that!!!!! If a company earns profit of 100K and pays 20K in taxes, then the government says “hey, we’re going to give you a tax subsidy of 5K,” what this really means is that this company paid 15K in taxes. Allowing a company to keep its own profits is NOT a form of welfare. If the government gives money to corporations to spur economic growth in order to create jobs, there may be a good outcome. I have two thoughts on such a scenario:

            1. The ends do not justify the means. The government should not be in the business of favoring any company or industry over another. The government should not be “giving” money to any company.

            2. However, if the money received from the government is of a lesser amount than taxes paid, then I view this as a company getting back what was its money in the first place.

            Corporate Welfare would only be an accurate term in cases where a business received more money from the government than it has paid in taxes (like GE, which also contributed heavily to the Obama campaign – are you mad about that one or are you gonna give them and the Obama administration a pass?). Otherwise the term is false on its face and only serves to stir up feelings of “us vs. them.”

            The article sites ONE form of means-tested Welfare. The total spent in 2012 for ALL means-tested welfare programs was over 1 TRILLION dollars. (And actually, the same is true of 2011, and will be true of 2013). You can get the information from any .gov website dealing with budget specifics. Keep in mind, that understating financial records is a key ploy of the leftists. You need to get your facts straight. Stop thinking in terms of “us vs. them, rich vs. poor” Understand that each and every individual on the planet is inherently, unalienably entitled to what he or she earns, not a penny more or less. Also, you need to understand that it is not the government’s job to handle charity. It does so poorly, corruptly and inefficiently. There are many organizations out there that performed this task admirably and more efficiently over the course of centuries before governments bullied their way into the arena – and the government does so in order to attain/maintain power and to line the pockets of bureaucrats.

          • DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE????? The biggest lesson in the bible is that you help the poor . If you do , you will be remembered on judgement .If you DON’T, THAT ALSO WILL BE REMEMBERED ON JUDGEMENT.DAY.The only reason America is so powerful nation and also a prosperous nation is God looks on us and bleses us.If we take all the help for the poorer nations and the help for the poor , we won’t be a great nation for long.All you that can’t stand for someone getting help havew nothing BUT HATE IN YOU .that’s alright , I won’t have to answer for you on judgement day, so keep on hating !!!!!

          • Smartuckus

            Wow – More gibberish from a pseudo-bible scholar. First let me point out that you know nothing about me. You don’t know how much time and money I already donate to charities and associations that work with the poor and needy, do you? You are completely unaware of the volunteer work I do for children with diseases at the local Children’s Hospital, aren’t you? I can assure you, the last thing that these children and their parents would think of me is that I am a “hater” of any kind.

            The biggest lesson in the Bible is that you love God above all else, and second to that is that you love your neighbor as yourself. Nowhere is it found in the pages of the Bible that we are required to allow government to confiscate our income to redistribute it to the “poor”. In fact, the government is the worst steward of our money because it contributes to organizations that are in fact ungodly, and is so prone to corruption. You are confused Dennis; I am not advocating that we abandon the poor. I am advocating that earners be allowed to keep their own money, with which they can determine to whom they will give, and how much, since they are the best people to make those decisions. and I would encourage people to give to the poor. More importantly I would encourage them to donate their time.

            Legalized plunder (confiscatory taxes) is still theft – last time I checked, “Thou Shalt Not Steal” was a commandment that God-fearing people take to heart. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable. Slavery was once legal – would you argue that it was OK? Abortion is legal – do you think God finds it acceptable? In the same manner, legalized plunder may be legal, but it is wrong.

            Here’s a problem I have with Bible-thumpers like you. Despite any possible protest on your part, you don’t really know your Bible; you don’t know its history, its context, nor are you really familiar with it in its entirety, so you focus on a few of its passages that support your distorted interpretation of it and remain ignorant of the rest.

            In the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 24:17, Leviticus 19:9) God admonished the people to leave a portion of their crops to the poor. However, the Hebrews were to leave this food unharvested so that the poor had to work for their charity. In the New Testament, St.Paul also demanded that the poor work for their charity. The work requirement prevented an entitlement attitude. It prevented sloth and laziness. And if all were working, it encouraged a sense of community instead of an “us versus them” attitude that tears communities apart.

            Another requirement for charity was that the poor, widows etc., were required to live moral lives. Where are the work and moral requirements for those on the dole in our society? Those on the left clamor for wealth redistribution, as if such is a moral responsibility, yet they tell conservatives that we can’t legislate morality. They imagine that it is only the wealthy who must contribute their “fair share” yet the people most adversely affected by higher taxes are the poor and the needy. When taxes go up, charitable contributions go down, and prices on everything go up. If you really want to help the poor and the needy, you’d want lower taxes that spur economic growth and enable the poor to work and to earn.
            Now go find a Bible and read more than just those passages that you think support your Marxist, big-government views!


            SOOOOO… We are quoting Leviticus now are we? Forgive me if I’m wrong(I’m not actually a practicing Christian) but isn’t that the one where you cant wear cloths of more then one material. or touch a pig? Sorry but unless you’ve never worn polyester I don’t think that you can quote this book of the bible. Also many of our welfare systems do have work requirements and it still isn’t enough to live on. I may have missed it but where did god say that if this is the case just hang them out to dry and hope that they stay in the city away from you own house and sheltered life.

          • Smartuckus

            I missed this response, so please forgive the tardy reply. Thank goodness for you! I must say I appreciate your responses because you do indeed debate the issues rather than attack the messenger.
            So in the Old Testament we find many disciplinary requirements that Christians no longer recognize as necessary. These were required to demonstrate obedience; Christianity contains within its structures different measures of obedience, being as that Christ’s death fulfilled the Old Covenant and set into motion the New. Moral requirements remain, such as the Ten Commandments. What I was trying to illustrate was the congruity/continuity of moral requirements established by God concerning Charity toward the poor, and what is expected of both the giver and the receiver as found in both the Old and New Testaments. To answer your specific question, St. Paul teaches, ” For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.
            It was not my intention to inject religion into the debate being as that all of us undoubtedly practice different faiths, or perhaps none at all. But since Dennis wanted to go all medieval on me, I felt it necessary to nip that one in the bud.

          • Smartukus I am a fan. Just one correction to better state an already well stated fact: When you reward failure and penalize success you get more failure and less success. The way you wrote it will miss the point because the common liberal as you know will interpret sloth to mean anyone on any type of assistance is sloth like. They aren’t. Like you stated they are victims of a well intended act but which undermines good work ethics.
            Unfortunately the first answer from a supporter of such well intended acts, when that act (welfare) is threatened either verbally or legislatively is a violent reaction.
            The reason is BECAUSE it undermines an ability all human beings possess to one degree or another of surviving. That pseudo survival dynamic (welfare) is threatened and they will react as if the food were being ripped from the table immediately. Yes some liberal bureaucrat fear mongering of how this will starve grandma and the children have a part to play in the reaction but for the most part the individual has forgotten that he/she can produce for their own survival (undermining work ethic).
            But what of the struggling student or single mom or laid off dad who without the government controlled and wasteful charity they wouldn’t survive? Again Liberal fear mongering. Because if not for government over taxation to redistribute another’s wealth, private charities would other wise have to means to support them. It goes further but I’m sure my views are going to be attacked as they contribute no immediate solution to replace welfare. To them I say nature abhors a vacuum and intelligent administrators of public security (wish we had more) would have to, as you Smartucus, have stated (funny how I’ve said the same in different forums only not as detailed and eloquently) that it will take just as long to fix the problem or even longer (have you ever fallen behind on bills? took a short time but catching up takes 3 times or more as long!) to correct. It will take realigning our education system from filler type classes like wood shop to broader economic classes that can enable an individual to survive on bare necessities until he or she can push through and achieve success and financial independence.
            Welfare isn’t going to go away as long as people are made to believe they are less than what’s needed in order to survive. It takes hard work to bring a being down and keep him there and they’ve been at it for almost a century. So it will take that long or more to undo the mess and be a prosperous nation once again.

          • Smartuckus

            Thanks Rodney. Sometimes electronic formats are not the best means for communicating ideas. When I type something, I hear my voice in my head, saying things how I would say them – emphasizing this word or that, with this amount of compassion or that, or maybe even sarcasm. The reader replays the message in his or her head and may hear things differently. Where I make a compassionate statement, he or she may not “hear” it; he or she may think it sarcasm. It doesn’t help that I am such a poor typist and speller either. I usually use an iPad that “auto-corrects” words wrongly, so if I’m not paying attention I’m liable to sound like a complete pumpkin head.

            Your point is well taken. I don’t believe that everyone on some form of welfare is lazy – some need that assistance; but the reason they need it is because they’ve been made to need it. Our struggle should be to stop making people need welfare which, as we have both pointed out, is one seriously Herculean task.

          • jc25

            Why do people confuse greedy corporate welfare over social welfare like they are one in the same.. Corporate welfare account’s for way more debt than social welfare.

          • SMartuckus

            How so? Again, means-tested welfare programs accounted for $1.3 trillion federal dollars in 2012. According to government statistics “corporate welfare” accounted for less that 10% of that number. Means-tested welfare programs do not include entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which, after time, do operate as welfare programs. Our federal spending was $3.5 or $3.6 trillion dollars last year, while federal tax revenue was $2.3 trillion. that leaves us with a deficit of roughly the same amount that we spent on means-tested welfare. Most of the rest of the spending was on Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, Medicaid and interest on the national debt. If you are starting to understand that we do indeed have a spending problem in this country, then you are on your way to figuring out that the only solution is to spend less, not more. Any time money is confiscated from people or businesses who earned it and given to people who didn’t, it’s welfare; social or corporate – using your terms. The problem is that the people and businesses who earn the money are entitled to it – by virtue of the fact that they earned it. The welfare recipients, social or corporate, are NOT entitled to it specifically because they didn’t earn it. The progressive mentality replaces the virtue, “earning,” with a condition, “need.” This is the same mentality that inspires a thief to steal from someone who has more more than he: “he doesn’t need it.” If you think I am comparing our government bureaucrats to thieves, you are absolutely correct. They ARE thieves; instead of guns and knives they use the force of law. The outcome is the same. They abuse our democratic system: essentially they have resorted to mob rule, in which they have the larger mob

            The term “corporate welfare” is misused. If a company earns a profit of $100k and would have to pay $20k in taxes, yet receives a tax subsidy of $25k, then that company has received $5k in “corporate welfare.” I think everyone can pretty much agree that this shouldn’t happen. Despite the reporting of progressive news organizations and Hollywood propaganda, such a scenario is very, very rare. (Well, except for all that relatively recent stimulus spending, especially on “Green Energy” companies like Solyndra). The more realistic scenario is when a company earns a profit of $100k and must pay, under threat of law and imprisonment, $20k in taxes. The money earned is still $100k – it rightfully belongs to the company. If the government grants a tax subsidy to that company of $5k, so that in the end the company must only pay $15k in taxes, that isn’t welfare. But that’s not how the progressives view it. The government views this as a net loss of $5k in tax revenue, when in fact it was a gain of $15k. Progressives believe, in contravention to every nation and people to ever have existed except Marxist/dictatorial regimes, that the wealth of the country belongs to everyone, regardless of who earned it, regardless of basic principles of ownership; that there is only so much money to go around and that it must be equally divided for the sake of “fairness.” The outcome of progressive economic policy is easily predictable; Cyprus, Greece, North Korea, China (until they started adopting more capitalist policy – and they still use virtual slave labor), Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, California, and so on.

            Our National Debt is approaching $17 Trillion dollars, and that’s very, very bad. But what’s really scary is our federal unfunded liabilities which currently sit at about $90 Trillion! Unfunded liabilities include Social Security, federal pension plans, etc. The bottom line is that the government simply doesn’t have the money to pay its debts, or to make good on its promises. Consider that Cyprus has a national debt of $14 Billion, which pales in comparison to ours. The Cypriot government is confiscating post-tax dollars from the bank accounts of citizens and foreign account holders. And do you think that when the smoke clears that Cyprus will be fiscally solvent? Consider Stockdon California, having filed bankruptcy, is going to give short shrift to bond-holders while not addressing the real root of their fiscal woes, unfunded pensions for state and union workers. Yet California has some of the highest tax rates in the country.

            I wonder, if every person and business were allowed to keep more of their earnings, would Stockdon even be in this situation? So, how many in Stockdon are going to hit the unemployment lines? How many are going to apply for food stamps? How many are going to ask the tax payers for money via some form of welfare? It seems to me that increasing welfare spending and taxing people more to pay for these increases is causing more people onto welfare. If we want to solve the problem and get people back to work and off of welfare, we must lower taxes and reverse the progressive trend that began in 1935.

          • jc25

            To me it would be more of a problem with corporations taking on welfare, all the while hurting small businesses and making people close their doors, lose jobs, and forcing them on social welfare. Rather than having a free market without government intervention allowing for small businesses to compete against each other and these big mega corporations as they grow. The only reason they get so big now is because of tax dollars and expansion forcing the people to buy product at a lower cost . Just another way to keep the rich rich and poor, poor..How about make it illegal for these scum bags have any government ties period so that businesses can compete and people can create real jobs that pay a decent living.

          • that is utter crap.

          • Smartuckus

            What is? You have expressed an opinion – surely your opinion is based on something substantive.

          • CherMoe

            Then we DEFINITELY should NOT give subsidies and tax breaks and loopholes to corporations, should we? Corporations hiding money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes as well as sending jobs overseas means all they’re doing is selling their cheap junk to consumers at inflated prices. They are NOT contributing to the American economy. THIS is the abuse. WE, THE PEOPLE should NOT be bailing out banks and big corporations. There were a whole lot more than the auto industry who took money. Even Mitt Romney, if I’m not mistaken. The REAL welfare queens are in the top 1%. That’s how they got there.

        • Great answer for people who insist on using anecdotal evidence as proof. I am going to borrow and paraphrase this when people do this to me.

      • Midwest21

        You know people on meth and have not reported them? If you have not reported them then you have very little to complain about.

      • Sounds like a bad parenting issue not a TANF issue.

      • Stephanie V

        Your partner must just love how you are so supportive of her daughter. Parenting and early development play a role in adult’s decision making, just so you know. Structures, life choices, life chances, etc. If she is some helpless meth addict with a meth addict man, perhaps she just has a hard time choosing good, supportive men – a trait likely passed down from her mother. You’re a real winner, Nic Stevens….

    • April Johnson

      I know a useless “baby mama” who sat on her ass for two years collecting welfare, she just recently found a part time job…and guess what? she got knocked up again and now receives more welfare! So yes there is such a thing as sitting on your ass and collecting welfare. My three yr old is currently not covered by insurance because I cannot afford the crappy insurance through my job, and the state won’t even let me pay for coverage through them. But my daughter’s biological grandmother gets all her expenses paid for including her TWO massive oxygen tanks that she so desperately needs while she chain smokes in her bedroom. Welcome to Americia….1997 my ass

    • MadMaxx63

      There are several “welfare type programs of which TANF is a part of! And FYI…we went from three years as a goal to remove people from “welfare”… Now it’s 5 years! Real progress there!!!

      • history cant lie

        Corporations of all stripes have been weasling the tax codes as well as the workin peeps for a looong time. Slightly less in the 20th century, however Teddy R. and his progressive politics have so faded that the anti-trust laws that should be dismantling these internationals that recently crashed the money values are nowhere to be found. Corporations are not human, but they seemed to have gathered more rights under the title of Person than the people brought under the standing of the Constitution by the 14th Amendment. The system is called capitalism cuz money is the only thing that makes money. People only receive Slave wages in too many instances. Trickle down economics came of age and fell flat on its face. We need another progressive shake-up

      • qcubed

        Without companies opening up their wallets to pay people a wage that allows discretionary spending, there will be NO progress.

      • WhyUh8 .

        We also went from a great economy to a recession. Way to keep things in context though.

  • Not exactly true. The politician that spends the most wins. There are several people running for president in this election. Can you name any of them other than the Democrat and Republican party candidates? Most people can’t.

  • Pingback: A New Concept in Handling Welfare - Page 2 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • I watched a documentary on the book Trance-formation of America. I am so shocked & sad! Is this story valid?

    • Mike Sinn

      Hi, Thomas.

      I’ve never heard of that. I’ll check it out.


  • Mike Sinn

    I got somethin’ to say!

  • Sidney18511

    And the republicans are able to convince their sheeple that ALL OUR FINANCIAL PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY THE BROWN AND BLACK PEOPLE LIVIMG HIGH ON THE HOG. What fools.

  • Pingback: Republicans: "Blacks only vote Democrat to get more handouts" - City-Data Forum()

  • Because wealth creates envy, some reformers want to take it
    away via taxes and spend it on things they think are good for the poor. But
    let’s keep peeling the onion. It’s not just loopholes that enrich a handful of
    CEOs. It’s also outright gifts from public treasuries — and more.

    It’s all the money that society spends for the nature it
    uses, for land such as parcels beneath buildings and for resources such as oil
    in the ground, not to mention the value of the airwaves and other natural gifts
    – trillions of dollars annually unduly enriching a tiny sliver. Government
    could redirect that spending into everyone’s pockets via a geonomic system of
    land dues in and “rent” dividends out. Both MLK and Tom Paine urged paying ourselves
    a dividend from this social surplus, our common wealth.

    Once people do get their fair share of Earth’s worth, then
    they’ll be sufficiently endowed to afford social services of their own
    choosing. Politicians will lose their excuse to control the public purse. And
    once government shifts its revenue raising from taxing anything that moves to
    just using fees and dues to guide only socially-generated values into the
    public treasury — Paine urged shifting taxes from individual efforts to a
    region’s land and King cited Henry George, famous for his Single Tax on land —
    then politicians will lose their excuse for carving out loopholes. To make it
    happen, let’s think outside the box of knee-jerk taxation.

  • forsuthe

    It is, if his company gets subsidies from the govt. and grants for research & development and he gets a high salary because he can get those $$$ His salary is definitely supported by corporate “welfare”; also if this company is allowed to not pay their fair share of taxes, then everybody else has to pay more to make up for that. IT’S the worst kind of govt. charity.
    Concerning attracting business with special deals, many businesses make it part of their profit picture to collect as much government money, state or federal, as they can; rather than relying on a good business plan. They have teams of lawyers looking for ways they can take advantage of the govt’s tendency to favor businesses with lucrative deals. These are the big business companies, who need help the least.

  • Marvin F. Johnson Sr

    You know peoples got up and found work when the welfare changed, we had jobs! now, there are very little to no decent paying jobs for the: young, peoples whom made a mistakes (x criminals), and the elderly. BRING BACK *AFDC & *GR temporarily until we fix this jobs mess.

  • Marvin F. Johnson Sr

    What bothers this x felon is? All the economists and harvard heads in washings ton doesn’t understand what FDR & LBJ did!!! which was there will be no recovery without spending from the bottom!!!!!!

  • Jason Conley

    So, you only use the numbers from three programs. As of 2011 there was $496 Billion spent on programs that help families in need alone from hundreds of programs that you fail to account for. That does not include Medicare, Medicaid, or children s health insurance assistance funds which amount to $732 Billion. Really the only number you got correct was the corporate funding of $92 Billion which is from a prior bailout number. I am not for corporate welfare but you are not being honest in your “Think Numbers” piece because you are omitting what does not conform to your initial thoughts. You sir are what I would say is a propagandist. How can you live with lying to just to make a point. It is wrong to give large businesses money but you are lying and say we spend more on that than social programs. You have no credibility. This article completely makes yours irrelevant and slanderous.

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs | Eric's Basement Office()

  • alwaysthink

    You completely missed the hidden corporate/business welfare of Food Stamps and Medicaid. Low wages mean many working families qualify for these programs. About 85% of Food Stamp users work at these low wage jobs so more profits can go to business owners. It’s estimated that Walmart employees alone use about $2 Billion a year via this hidden subsidy to corporate profits.

    If the minimum wage can be eliminated then the middle class can pay even larger subsidies to corporate profits.

    • Michael

      The middle class pays nothing to corporate profits. The top 1% pays almost 40% of federal taxes and the corproations pay another 20% on top of that. Bottom 50% pays 2%. Profits don’t ‘go to owners’ they are earned by owners who pay market value for labor just like you don’t pay more for products simply to support businesses. Here’s an idea; want profits from a company; go f-ing risj your time money health and future building one. Want a higher wage? Go train yourself on new technologies or techniques or work more hours. Want a bigger slice of the pie in corporations? Go figure out technologies that increase efficiency and present them to your boss. Want part of the 20% growth in the economy? Work 20% harder or better. Until then just do your damn job and go home and watch American Idol

      • Corporations are pyramid schemes. They funnel money from the sweat of the workers into the pockets of the CEOs. And that should be illegal, because as a worker, you deserve a fair wage, a living wage, and equity in whatever business you are helping to build. Democratic socialism ensures that everyone profits, not just a few greedy pigs that live off the labor of their fellow man. Do you know why minimum wage exists? Because if a business owner could pay you less, they would.

        • Dave Lach

          Edward, nicely said!

        • the best

          good comment

      • Dan Henderson

        Hey Mikey go fauck yourself. I would love to see your arse kicked to the bottom rung on the ladder, see how you feel about your fellow members of the human race then.

      • Michael, why are you so angry? I have no problem with companies making profits. But if your company profits from modern day slave labor why should I have to pick up the tab for their care? I don’t want to. I’m not benefiting from paying people an unfair wage, they are. It is simple math. I don’t want to pay for companies/corporations who don’t take care of their employees.

        • He’s angry because he truly believes what he spews, but feels cheated that it is not working for him.
          He can’t grasp that he’s wrong- someone must be holding him back because if he just works hard he’ll be as rich as Romney!

      • AFVet

        You really don’t get it. I, for example, am in the technical field (2 masters degrees) and see my income shrinking every year. Higher wage? Give me a break. Work harder? You must be kidding. Some of the hardest working people make the lowest wages. Your logic is illogical at best.

        • Mike

          You’re forgetting the other half of the equation. If you pay employees more, the cost of the products they produce will go up proportionally, so they still won’t be able to afford them. People are paid based on the demand for their skills.

          • Killinumofo

            NO MIKE its the GREED of the corporations that KILLS everyone. Share and allow everyone to make a living wage and EVERYONE does better all around. Profit is fine but GREED is NOT

          • No they won’t go up proportionally, they will only go up as high as people will pay. They go up to high and people stop buying. That’s when the corporation has to give up a little of its profit…at the point where both customers and employees are being treated fairly.

          • OvaXsposed

            True, true, soooo True! Thats why you no longer have Zenith or Magnavox tvs. People laughed their asses off over all the cheap gadgets and cars from overseas. USA produced quality stuff. Workers had damn good wages/benefits. Then almost overnite, that high price and sloven dropoff of product drove consumers away! Somehow Sony and Panasonic upgraded. Walmart united cheap labor/quality to underscore the likes of Sears, Wards,…anyone remember Ventures? Blue collar wages been on a death knell ever since!

      • jcarian

        Michael – you hit the nail on the head 🙂

        • photoglyph

          No, he missed and smashed his thumbnail.

      • photoglyph

        Come now, young man… one cannot post something like this without supporting links. Unless there are none, of course.

        Prove what you stated.

      • photoglyph

        You’re a simpleton, Michael.

      • jhgf trenrwe

        It’s sad that there are still people like Michael that live in a delusional world where he thinks being successful is all about hard work.
        I think all the intelligent artists, poets, scientists, politicians, and even comedians over the past century disagree with you, bub. Because they’ve all warned the citizens about the deceptive, corrupt, fraudulant practices of people in power.

      • Most of the largest corporations pay 0% or less in taxes and some even receive millions in refunds while showing a profit of $5 billion…what a joke our tax system is!!!
        Gee, I wonder why Romney refused to show us his tax return? You assume they pay up to 40% in taxes, what a joke!!!
        That bottom 50% (sounds like Romney’s 47% remark) pays up to 35% in taxes out of each and every pay check…while the owners have a right to make a profit (without a doubt) they shouldn’t be willing to do it at the cost of hurting their employees to the point of poverty (not able to even survive from pay check to pay check).
        I did risk my time, money and future (never my health) on 3 different businesses and with the help of all my employees we where all able to live a decent life well above the poverty level…when you have happy and healthy employees you not only have a great business but one that will prosper because you will have employees that will have your back (not like Walmart, who talk so bad about them) through good times and bad.
        President Obama has made it easier for all Americans to afford college today. So before you know it, you will be having much more competition for all those jobs you so rudely told us to go and get.
        What country are you living in where the growth is 20%, try less than 2%.
        Being hateful and without compassion for others is just old school and soon enough your kind will be extinct just like the dinosaurs!!!

      • They pay 40% of the taxes and rake in 90% of the wealth so they aren’t paying their fair share. And here’s an idea, raise minimum wage high enough so the workers make enough to pay taxes. That would solve many problems..

        • OvaXsposed

          If the pyramid worked as a process, the organization would provide goods and services that supported nicely enriched workers at all levels and scales. It would adequately compensate its managers and investors a decent return while not restricting additional growth. Taxes at all levels would assist the less fortunate as well the new hires entering the job market. Graduates, new familys and others could advance their way up the ladder, building communities, replacing and supporting retirees while stiffening the financial structure. ….NOT! The Fat Cats are squeezing all the value thru the top echelons while leaving the lower slobs to make do tha best they can. The shrinking middleclass has become the modern day slave carrying the tax burden. We are about to learn; as Pharoah told Moses, “Let them make bricks without straw.”

      • ozymandius

        Or you can remember some people do not have the mental capacity for a masters degree. Does this mean they should starve because they will never be able to rise above a minimum wage job? Also, keep in mind corporations are pyramid in structure. Most of the jobs are at the lower level and each higher level has less positions available. People in the highest levels have a very low attrition rate leaving very few places to advance. So, you may say start your own business, but this is slightly more difficult than you may think as you have to compete with places like Walmart who will intentionally lower prices to close your business down. They have multiple departments or locations whose profits can offset any losses incurred.

    • You’re singing my song Fiona! And the beauty of all beauties is that the worker, who gets paid an income that qualifies for Government assistance by Walmart et al , turns around and spends the money at the place that imports the stuff from a country he will never see, where workers make less than he/she does so the corporation can make even more profit!!! Multiple levels of insult. Anybody up for cocktails? I make a mean Molotov. (Just kidding)

      • Dave Lach

        Wow Lady Tiger, I’m impressed, very smart and beautiful. All your comments are rational and thoughtful which is refreshing. Lady Tiger for President 2016! Sorry Hillary 🙁

      • L. B.F.

        And a good portion of these people vote for republicans who we all know is out for our well being.

    • b kevin

      And, when the Wal-Mart Employee buys his/her groceries at Wal-Mart with the food stamps…Wal-Mart wins AGAIN!

  • Jason

    You deleted my post that showed that your social spending is far off from the real number of $492 Billion not including medicare, medicaid, and children’s insurance assistance programs. Social spending makes up 20% of the budget. If you are going to be the beacon of truth you have to tell it. You only include 3 programs. This article is a real look at the numbers.

    • Hi, Jason! Thanks for commenting!

      I didn’t delete your comment. It’s still here. I don’t know why you can’t see it.

      Anyway, I appreciate your point and am trying to build a wiki version of this site so that good citizens such as yourself can correct my unfortunate omissions.

      I do want to update this post to have more recent numbers and more expansive definitions of both corporate and social welfare. Unfortunately, I’m crazy busy right now. I manage a chemistry lab full time and I’m building another Quantified Self data integration application.

      But for the time being, I thank you for sharing this info in the comments and I hope to have the wiki feature added within the coming months. 🙂

    • Sean

      I do not see any issue with what is being posted. The article specifically lays out that it is comparing the recipients of aid who are pejoratively labeled “Welfare Queens” versus those who are receiving Corporate welfare. There are other safety-net programs that make up that $492 billion besides, but for which we do not seem to get “bees in our bonnets” about. The numbers you present are cut differently (neither these specific welfare programs, nor the corporate subsidies are broken out) true, but you are not presenting a effective counter argument by putting up such numbers. If you can refute the authors specific numbers, which are thoroughly sourced (try clicking the links and reading them), then you may have a case. The only issue I have is the $92 B corporate welfare is a 2002 number
      from the Bush Administration and is probably much higher now.

  • Pingback: Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like' - Page 13 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: Cultures of Poverty and Cycles of Dependency « Intro to Women's and Gender Studies()

  • Pingback: Common Dreams on “Welfare” | Seniors for a Democratic Society()

  • You have some important figures here, but you missed the true motivation – the collective governments of the U.S. are the biggest shareholders of U.S. corporations of all, owning, by one estimate, a full 70% of shares. Think pension funds, rainy day funds, special “locked up” funds etc. and you have up to $110 Trillion (according to Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) analyst, Walter Burien). I was able to find half a trillion just in half a dozen NY gov’t funds – from which a relative pittance of 5% or so is paid out to pensioners, and a bit more for other kinds of gov’t expenses, but never enough to dent the assets much. California’s two major pension funds – Calpers and Calstrs – have a trillion dollars between them and pay out less than 4% to pensioners, and even less net of “management” fees.
    So, the next time you wonder “where’s MY bailout?” now you know.

  • Social Security ($725 billion) and Medicare and Medicaid ($835 billion) aren’t welfare programs? That’s an odd twist of semantics. Quick reference:
    Detailed reference (Table S-3 is handy):

    I also find it amusing that Newt’s “New Republican” welfare brainstorm, TANF, is credited to Clinton. The vote on that bill was mostly party-line, Republicans (who had achieved a Congressional majority in ’94) were in favor and Democrats mostly against. Yes, Clinton signed TANF, but his own welfare reform bill had been defeated earlier. Voting summary (House, then Senate):
    Quick background summary:

    I’m not saying that the thrust of this article is incorrect, I’m just nitpicking a few points that I found to be incorrect.

  • Jordan

    One important correction should be made: The US is not now, nor has it ever been a democracy.

  • keenspirit

    Mike, thank you so much for compiling facts so people can actually see what is happening instead of being distracted and redirected with false information and propaganda. I really like the wiki-izing idea! Great work!!

  • Michael

    Welfare: when a non producing entity is given money by the government taken from producing entities. Using the term ‘welfare’ for a person who doesn’t work and gets money taken (at the point of a gun when you come to it) from people who do work and in the same breath for corporations who DO work and DO produce when we take LESS money from them for taxes is double talk of the highest order. It simply reveals your mindset that other people’s money belongs to you as you see fit.

    Here’s an idea; make a graph of the contributiuon to american economy by the industries you made graphs of and one by the people who receive welfare. THen go try to find another term. It is as a big a lie of words as ‘Tax cut for the rich’ which never existed.

  • Pingback: Is drug testing welfare recipients worth the cost? «()

  • Pingback: What is #pintsandpols? « eat.drink.give.go()

  • Pingback: U.S. Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Danny Tejada

    Here’s another that has to do with our favorite sports teams, not just speaking on New York; it affects all!

  • JF

    Look up the goverment statistics. We spend $600 billion + on welfare.

    • Note that these numbers are for 2007. Please provide links to your sources and specify the types of welfare and the year.

  • 1.5 million people on Food Stamps are military personnel and their family. Gonna take that away too Mitt???

  • For many Americans the next ‘New Deal’ is already a necessity.
    In case it slipped by you….
    The policies passed under FDR helped the US to pay off a national debt 125% of GDP, social programs intact. Fastest growing economy in history… Damn… seems that ‘socialists’ makes better economies than republicans… lol…

  • Right Truethinker

    If you are include tax credits and exemptions for corporations your “numbers” need to add in all the credits and exemptions given to individual taxpayers and non-taxpayers like those who file and get more than they paid in back as a so called refund. Earned income credit, child care credit and any other credit would have to be included to make you article credible.

    • I stated early in the article that there are so many tax credits for corporations and individuals that it would be impossible for me to calculate them all with my limited time and resources. Therefor, I stated that they would not be included in my definition. If you would be so kind to provide me with the numbers for all tax credits, I will include them.

  • Pingback: » STUDY: U.S. Spends $59 Billion on Social Welfare…$92 Billion on Corporate Welfare()

  • Seymour A. Nuss

    If you define slavery as wether or not you can walk way from your situation or circumstance. What are the 99%? Can the Wal-Mart employee just walk away? Look at income parity between the highest and lowest wage earners over the last century and you will see that around the ’80s we saw an income gap that continues to widen. What made the 50s and 60s such a prosperous period for the US was a lower debt to income ratio. But the moment we buy goods as assets is the moment a star begins producing iron. When investors put their money into debt instead of manufacturing goods the whole system goes supernova. We implode under the weight of trickle-up economics then tell people, tough luck. Add a trillion plus in tax cuts on top of the corporate tax racket, mix in two unfunded wars and you have American Slavery 2012.

  • Pingback: Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs « prettymeadow()

  • Pingback: Soldiers, Students, Seniors and Single Moms: Why Women Are Most of 47%Political News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View | Political News and Opinion from a Multicultural Point of View()

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs « JoeWo Joe Wosik Blog()

  • DonChron

    Mike, I don’t understand why you compare different years when looking at social and corporate welfare numbers. TANF spending was $26 billion in 2006 but what was it in 2009 when you mention the $25 billion the government spent on rental aid and the $8 billion on public housing. Then you compare that to corporate welfare spending from 2002. Do you have averages of the spending over these years?

  • Not You

    Bailing out corporations with other people’s money is OK, therefore bailing out people with other people’s money is OK.

    How about let us gradually minimize bailing out everything that fails, because failure is rarely accidental, and more often volitional.

  • jcarian

    There are quite a few logical fallacies (slippery slope) throughout this article. I’ll start in the beginning…

    “Thanks to federal subsidies from taxpayers like you…”
    – The truth is, the majority of CEOs are able to take home tremendous salaries because of their guidance and impact on a business. CEOs are responsible for how a company operates, where it manufactures, the product line, the talented minds, and of course – to create profits. The corporations this article points to are owned by the public. A corporation’s #1 priority is to generate shareholder wealth by generating positive cash flow and creating a more valuable company. Is this a job anyone can step up and do? Would you say innovators and CEOs such as Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Eric Schmidt, and others do not deserve their salaries?

    “It reduces people’s ability to afford necessities like medical care, education…”
    -Quite the statement…because we have such a fantastic Medical and Education system here in the USA! There’s a reason that our medical field is one of the best in the world, a large piece being it’s a private industry. Education? Completely public and government run…and yet we have one of the worst school systems in existence.

    As for investing in “Green” energy – how about we take a look at Solyndra and Obama’s complete fiasco there? It’s not very difficult to understand how the private industry works. When a technology (fuel, solar, rail, wind, whatever) is READY and COMPARABLE to the price of oil/gas, the private money will fund the ventures. The REASON these companies are going bankrupt is because they don’t compete (yet). The technology isn’t there currently, so why waste exorbitant dollars subsidizing and industry which isn’t ready?

    Farm Subsidizes
    Question: Do you think locally grown produce can feed the nation? Do you think the organically grown, chemical free produce crops can yield enough food for everyone? The government gives more money to the largest farming companies because these companies are directly responsible for what WE (the citizens) pay at the store.

    There are hundreds of economic studies you can do on the net effect a Wal-Mart has on a city or state. You’ll find that most cities can’t go WITHOUT a Wal-Mart due to the net cash Wal-Mart brings back to the city. Hence, cities provide subsidies for Wal-Mart for building in their area!

    The richest people in this country, as well as the largest corporations, already pay the majority of our taxes. We are great at creating new social welfare programs, but how about we take a step back and start CUTTING these programs from the Government, rather than blaming the wealthy for not paying enough? Maybe the issue is that we SPEND TOO MUCH on subsidies and social programs OF ANY SORT. The Government has pulled the shield over everyone’s creating two sides in this battle: the rich vs the rest. The real monster here are the shitty politicians and lobbyists that drive up our bill.

  • Pingback: Welfare Spending Nearly Half What U.S. Forked Out In Corporate Subsidies In 2006: Study | Test()

  • Pingback: Welfare Spending Nearly Half What U.S. Forked Out In Corporate Subsidies In 2006: Study « Go to News!()

  • $92 billion on corporate subsidies. But Romney and the GOP bitch about the 47% taking too much from government.

  • Pingback: The real welfare queens: Giant corporations | Justice League()

  • BArb

    You missed technological unemployment which is robots taking jobs and the need for a resource based economy via no money economy as a result. Check out the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement.

    There is much more than what you said on this and some is not accurate in this article. do some research into the RBe and the Zeitgeist Movies 2 and 3. You will see what I am talking about there. But a lot of what is said is correct.

  • Pingback: romney 47 percent()

  • Blondmyk

    You said something that made me question your article a bit, but please keep in mind I support the point that you are trying to make. You mentioned that LOCAL governments provide the corporate welfare to places like “Walmart” in order to try to create jobs for their community. How much of this corporate welfare comes from local governments as opposed to the Federal Government paying for it? If it is the individual states footing the bill, then it’s not the same subject as the “entitlements” that effect the federal budget. Again, let me repeat that I’m a supporter of the point that you”re trying to make here…I’m just not politically saavy enough to understand how all this works. And, I apologize for that fact.

  • Pingback: Public Money Continues to Supplement the Building of Private Corporate Infrastructure | Catherine Crier()

  • Pingback: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos | Conbustible()

  • Pingback: CORPORATE WELFARE + SOCIAL WELFARE = COLLAPSE « The Burning Platform()

  • Pingback: Ron Paul: We Must Fiscally Restrain Our Government()

  • Pingback: Ron Paul: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos | Ron Paul 2012()

  • JT

    The U.S. government spends $59 billion in social welfare?? Only 3% of the budget?? I don’t want to laugh, but you’re not even close.

    From an April 2012 study by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute:

    “News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty.”

    And no, that doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare.

    Check it out for yourself:$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail

  • Pingback: Rand Paul Review | Government Dependency Will End in Chaos – Ron Paul()

  • Pingback: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos « r3volution! News()

  • Pingback: Welfare Programs Are Not The Cause Of America’s Financial Problems « Liberal Lore()

  • Pingback: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos | Nwo Report()

  • Pingback: Will government entitlement harm fragile economy? « The U.S. Chronicle()

  • Pingback: Ron Paul: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos – Secrets of the Fed()

  • Pingback: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos – The Final Transmission()

  • Pingback: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos - Rise of the Right()

  • Pingback: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos | Pakalert Press()

  • Pingback: Government Dependency Will End in Chaos | Ron Paul Revolution()

  • Pingback: Just babbling for now. Maybe it will get more structured. Which means that I will probably get carried away and by the time I’m done my girlfriend will be pissed. – sailingthetethys()

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs | Aristonico Belargio()

  • you need to include all “welfare programs” which is estimated to exceed .750 trillion dollars in 2012. And I’m with you on farm aid subsidies and and certain other “corporate welfare” breaks like walmart takes with their employees. That comes down to closing loopholes in the tax system which is why republicans just blocked Obama’s “Bring Jobs Back Home.” bill. That bill opened up a ton of different loopholes for corporations to take advantage of. But you also need to dig a little deeper to understand how these tax loopholes come about. THey often have their beginnings in legislation that sounds great like the “Bring Jobs Home Act.” The other analysis you need to really run is understanding total corporate welfare versus total tax paid. We can say that Walmart and and ExxonMobile are the beneficiaries of corporate welfare through tax loopholes they take advantage of today. But they also employ a million americans and pay billions and billions in taxes every year. If the US collects 20 billion in taxes from Exxon and then pays out 5 billion in “corporate welfare,” I really don’t have a problem with that 5 billion in subsidies because the net is still 15 billion dollars. And most of those subsidies are given in the form of tax loopholes not cash payments. Farm subsidies, which do need to go, are probably the only ones left that do cash payments. Exxon uses loopholes by developing cleaner gas or some other sort of incentive that are in the tax code.

    Did you know for every gallon of gas that Exxon digs from the ground, cleans, transports and sells, they make probably $.30-.40 profit. The federal government makes on average $.25 for every gallon of gas sold for doing nothing. So for doing all the work of digging and refining and transporting crude, Exxon makes slightly more profit than the federal government who just takes their share because they are the government. If we really want the price of gas to go down, we should be asking why the government is taxing it so high in the first place. And this is on top of Exxon already paying billions in taxes yearly and employing 300k people. The government is RAKING in the money when it comes to consumers purchasing gasoline. And personally, I would rather more money stay with Exxon because I know they can create jobs unlike the federal government.

    What you ought to be spending your time on, which is far more important in my mind, is looking into how much waste is involved in federal spending. Where does that 50 billion in taxes the government collects from Americans every year from purchasing gas go??? Some sort of highway trust but every time we have major infrastructure upgrades you never hear that it’s that money that is being used. Where does that 50 billion dollars go?? Most people don’t mind paying taxes, but when they know 30 cents on every dollar is being wasted on an ever expanding bureaucracy, that’s when tax payers start to become upset with the welfare queens and SNAP, etc. If the government ran more efficiently, we would have half these problems. We can’t keep taking from the producers to satiate an out of control government.

  • Pingback: Why I Will Not Vote For Mitt Romney For President of the USA « J W Gray's Thoughts()

  • Pingback: Discussion on Welfare | Our New Anahuac()

  • Pingback: Welfare in 2011: $60,000 Per Household - Page 2 - Political Wrinkles()

  • Pingback: I’m Goin’ There…. | owlbethere()

  • Pingback: Grieving and Hope After the Election « Let Hope Rise()

  • largo

    government assistance to corporate employees is off course, corporate welfare. The “salary” they get should be enough to cover basic needs, if not then that salary is not serving the social function it is intended to serve and that corporation(in this case walmart) is off course stealing money from the tax payers.

  • ken williams

    I am new to the discussion but on the surface this does not seem to be an apples to apples comparison. We give welfare to those who unable or (i am sure) choose NOT to work. Money goes out, but I doubt anything comes back in the way of “product” Conversely, I believe that we get a hell of a lot more from “corporate welfare”, yes ?

  • Paul

    “A bunch of people died horrible deaths to make sure this country remained a democracy…”The US was not created a democracy! That’s the problem here now. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

  • lisarose

    There is so much emphasis on putting other people down to get yourself up! The people at the bottom, and the old, and the poor, can literally not get by. They are there, they need help or the next snowstorm will wipe out the lot of them, and no amount of posturing, chest thrusting and name calling will take that away. On the other hand, to actively punish business for being rich is all very well, but you’ll have to ask France how that is working for them. I believe any money that possibly can is rolling away in tears to find a home where someone appreciates it. We need a floor. We need a basic, essential services safety net for every citizen because we are not monsters and we must realize that, in order to allow some of us to become very, very, rich there are going to be others who are left with nothing. As a society we simply DO NOT HAVE jobs enough for everyone. HOW DARE WE then proceed to starve and punish those of us who are left at the bottom. I am a Capatilist. I do not believe in a ceiling, nor in huge, punishing taxes for the rich. I WANT to keep Capital Gains, I Love investment deductions. But I will not see anyone starve or go without the basics while they wait for their turn on top…. and I am willing to pay a little more to participate in a society of human beings.

  • Pingback: Democrat Death Spiral - Page 7 - HCS Snowmobile Forums()

  • Pingback: Obama Triumphus: The Ten Real Reasons Why the Republicans Lost the Presidency - Page 13()

  • caring conservative

    I must have overlooked where this obviously bi-partiisan author compared the tax revenues of those dreaded corporations (you know, the ones any of you who have a retirement account are invested in) to the tax revenues from the social welfare recipients…can someboody point it out to me please?

    • I would love to do that as soon as i get time. In the meantime, please feel free to write a post on that. I would be happy to publish it if all the numbers are hyperlinked. thanks!

  • Godipo

    Why aren’t you including the $400 billion that is lost to treasury to the health care industry, every year? Health care is a commodity, a profitable commodity, rendered immune to market forces. $400 billion a year is a huge amount of money, and this is never discussed. Expensed out as labor, and paid in pretax dollars, or deducted, this loss to treasury gives the health care industry the opportunity to raise its rates without oversight or any pressure.

  • Pingback: Why our Country is Going Down The Drain - Page 3 - Forums()

  • AL_Nemesis

    If we were serious about cracking down on fraud, corruption and waste, we’d look first at where most of the money is going as that is likely, proportionately, to have more real dollars that are received by some organization or person through fraud, corruption and/or waste. Not the smaller programs…

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs | Get Money Out Of Politics()

  • Pingback: Raw Dawg Buffalo: GOP Morality is Stuck Between $100 Bills()

  • Pingback: Camp Romeny Gets Around To Blaming Chris Christie For Their Loss - Page 20()

  • Smartuckus

    What crap! Utter nonsense! So far in 2012 our government has spent 1.3 trillion dollars in means tested welfare programs; in other words, that doesn’t even include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Perhaps the term “welfare queen” is imprecise, but to suggest, as this article does, that we spend more on “corporate welfare” (another misleading term) than on social welfare is pure, unadulterated B.S.
    Walmart employees? Hey, if you don’t like your job, find another. I know that the employees at my local Walmart are over paid. I avoid Walmart like the plague, because the service is worse than any business I can remember. Hell, and this is no exaggeration, half the employees at my local Walmart can’t speak English, which is a major contributing factor to their extremely bad service.
    The problem with you Marxist libs is that you want to help the poor by helping them to everyone else’s money. I’m not wealthy, and I could probably benefit from programs created by our socialist leaders, but it would be immoral. The ends do not justify the means: To legalize theft (graduated taxes/higher taxes) does not make lining the pockets of beuracrats and handing out the remaining pittance to their constituents, morally right. It deprives earners of their just earnings and enslaves the entitlement-minded. Need? Gimme a break! Our welfare state stopped being about helping the needy a long time ago. It’s about buying votes now. Obama phones.. Yeah, that’s all about the needy… Puleeeeze!

    • Smartuckus

      Debbie, Social Security and Medicare are indeed entitlement programs. That’s why I specifically stated means tested welfare. However, the average person paying into Social Security over the course of his/her lifetime will have drawn every penny, including interest, in just 4 years. After that, the Social Security check he/she earns is paid by every other tax payer. That makes it, inarguably, welfare. Medicare is also welfare in the same manner. When Social Security was in its infancy, there were 5 people paying into the system for every person drawing. Today those numbers are reversed. Take a look at the yearly IRS expenditure pie chart: welfare, in all its forms, accounts for nearly 60% of our yearly spending.

      Concerning companies who are enticed by “92 billion.” I reject the assertion. Allowing businesses to keep their own earnings is not “spending,” it’s extortion. If an employee doesn’t like his pay, he should go elsewhere. If companies are forced to pay the arbitrary “living wage,” prices will go up meaning that over time that “living wage” will need to be raised, and this inflationary cycle will continue ad nauseum.

      The problem with liberals is that they are so easily duped into the notion that ours is a battle between the poor and the corporations. This is just not the case. Ours is a battle of ideologies, and unfortunately, the weak-minded and ignorant out number those with at least half a brain.

      • Smartuckus

        Debbie, I assure you, I understand the concept of “social contract.” I wholeheartedly disagree with it; I signed no such contract; by virtue of it being a “social” contract, it should have no legal binding – and the evidence illustrates that the concept is a failing one.
        Social Security is indeed broke. Here’s why: the government has nothing in it’s coffers to secure the bonds that are falsely assumed to be securing the trust fund. Assume for a moment that the government was ordered to pay everyone what they are currently owed – they couldn’t, unless of course the printed more money, which would devalue that currency severely.
        “Collectively contributing to the sustainability of the majority of the people” should not be a function of government. I would like to keep more of what I earn now, so that I can invest it and not need to rely on others for my sustainability. And I would like to ex cerise my right to choose… to donate to whom I want.
        There would be no “socializing the losses” if people could understand that it isn’t the government’s job, nor that of taxpayers, to wipe their behinds.
        Diversification is a strategy that works to minimize capital loss; not something widely utilized prior to the Great Recession. Imagine the economic boom that would occur if people were allowed to keep more of what they earn and invest it! BTW, the stock market out performs Social Security consistently – meaning that it is far more efficient.

  • kpal

    Excellent. But why use the phrase “corporate welfare QUEENS.” Since the
    executives at the trough are predominantly men, seems obvious and
    appropriate to use the term WELFARE KINGS. And the Koch Bros are the poster boys, of course.

  • Pingback: Corporate Welfare vs. Social Welfare: Which Benefits The Economy More?()

  • Pingback: Welcome to Obamanation: Land of Redistribution «()

  • Janine

    Mike, Thank you for your time in preparing this wonderful webpage. I appreciate your time and courage to put all your thoughts up for public viewing. I read over some of your pages, and I have a few questions. Please don’t be offended, philosophy can be a wonderful experience when debated. I am neither or party either, if I could say anything I am, it would be a Heinz 57 of philosophy, nor do I believe that one wayof life philosophy can be “the only way”. First let me say, the brain example you brought up, wonderful. I have studied it for the past five years, and I can say, from first experience; my reptilian, mammal, and higher thinking brains-have all got me in messes.I have found that both, the brain and the heart must agree on all things-then we are on the right track. I actually found myself asking the same thing to a legislator the other day, when I asked him, “When is the law and economics actually going to meet?” He could not awnser me. LOL So how many people on the planet do you actually think, have actually moved out of the reptilian brain? I mean, when “intellecuals” talk, reptilian thinkers get offended-how are you going to reach them? I think this same story of philosphical theories has been played for so long and with the same result, and the same survival method is used by the masses-activation of the reptilian brain. Today, as talk of the fiscal cliff was being discussed on public radio, I thought of France’s story of independance. As far as I can tell, humankind has not really “evolved” any, the same situation with survival and class warfare; it is the modern day fuedal system. So here is my questions: 1) Okay, so the feds give the oil companies tax breaks and subsidization. Have you figured in the contract between the feds and the oil companies that has never been signed for ten years. I mean, in the bigger picture, since war is always about labor and pay right? So let’s look at this, the US has over two hundred military bases around the world, (one of the largest is in Germany), how much revenue do you think that brings in the global scope of the world-especially since the US dollar is the standard in which all money is traded against? No,I am not for military bases, war, or a larger military either. I am just saying, that base economies are set up of two things usually: agriculture and manafacturing. We have already established that the US with it’s 50% share of agriculture, (the most), has a Corporate system in place, (Crisis and Oppurtunity), and the manafacturing trade is basically being ran by machines, (The Lexus and the Olive Tree). What do we do with the illiterate and poor people in the US, that do not want to work at, (McDees and Walmart-gee, I wonder why?), we put them in the military. Why? Because they spend money, (in a sense it is called subsidization). Now, the US military, in all the stats that I have ever read, eats fuel like it’s a ten year old with a candy fetish. Consumer gas consumption in this country is down. So this means, while the US is putting out fires of it’s own in the Silk Roads territories and our vested intrest of our allies…and the United Nations, we are doing three things:circulating American money and keeping the whole world economy from collapsing, while keeping the world in the most peaceful time the world has ever seen. Why? Because the world, like everyone is trying to survive and has always relied on its government and leaders to lead it-they do not know how to think on thier own, or survive on thier own-why is that? What “out-of the box” thinking do you have to solve that? In no way am I supporting war, colonization or empirilism, just stating that war is always about the same thing-labor and pay, how much is enough? 2) Ok, welfare numbers. Did you include the cost of state employees and other programs? I am in this debate right now with child support and my legislators. Did you know that child support from the begiinings of 1975 when the time the Federal Child support was set up is showing a minus of 109 billion dollars,( by the way, since ever state is responsible for collection, they also have a right to change the amounts if either party requests, most of the time, it is in favor of the paying party-the father*note:you should read thier mission statement), so this means the actual number to live and the amount that child support changes, is much different) it and this is just from the time they actually started counting it,! Women have paid much more than men in this arena for decades before the institution was set up, and many have never collected. Yet, 54% of elderly women are living in poverty, and women, with the same educational level are still earning less than men. My utereus is even still up for grabs on political debates, 7% of women make up congress, not even 1% of Fortune 500 companies are made up of women, and the judicial/lawyer bodies in this country are still over-all made up of men. Your welcome. I love numbers too, I live with it ever day.Just remember, women give the government future tax payers, and if you look at the current single parenthood stats on the US census, women are giving again for war or welfare recievers,(gotta keep the middle class alive either way), even after they have been kicked down. Looking forward to your replies, Janine

    • Wow! Thank you for your great comments and your interest, Janine. That’s a mouthful!

      Can you put your questions to me again more simply? My brain’s not big enough to handle their currently complex form. :

  • Pingback: Welcome to Obamanation: Land of Redistribution()

  • Pingback: Welcome to Obamanation: Land of Redistribution()

  • No problem, Donna! 😀

  • Interesting points! Thank you for reading and commenting, Debbie! 🙂

  • Pingback: Businesses Love Government Spending | TimmyCo()

  • Pingback: Next Left Notes (NLN)()

  • Janine

    I posted yesterday some questions but, to be fair here, I thought I should also ask: Did you also include war debt the UN will make us pay for damage done to the Middle East countries we have invaded? How about the the retirement accounts and benefits paid to each state employee? My state, Oregon, operates on a 92% federal budget.In the last ten years, I have seen retiremnet accounts for state emplyees from a 22%-28% intrest
    accruing to a GUARANTEED 8%. Who can guarantee the stock market? I guess, what I am saying is, the only way to know the truth about the numbers, is by accounting for everything within a certain program or entity cost verses revenue, (at a certain point). In that way, people can decide if the entity is needed and worth what is being paid for it, or if it can be streamlined to change with the times, so it can be more effecient.
    Thank you so much for your time on this website,

    • Hi, Janine!

      This one’s a little easier. The answers are no and no.

      Sorry I can’t reply in more detail by I have to wake up in about 5 hours to go to work.

      Thanks for all the great insights! 😀

  • Dr. Theo

    The subsidy chart above does not link to a good source. Where can I get a breakdown of the subsidies in question? Those numbers appear similar to depreciation tax deductions for those particular industries. If this is so, the subsidy label is not appropriate.

  • Pingback: Help From Unions on Student Loan Legislation - Airline Pilot Central Forums()

  • Pingback: Christopher A. Haase » Blog Archive » Food stamps to be cut… To pay NFL's taxes?()

  • The strong survive

    Most welfare recipients are so dumbed down and demoralized that they have stopped trying and no longer possess the most basic instinct which is survival , the reality is that there are fourth and fifth generations of welfare, the government could implement better strategies like work for welfare or better educate to break the cycle but the reason they don’t is so they can control the dumb masses motivating them in e direction they want them to go by fear. How is it that government can use technology to listen to a cellphone conversation of an ordinary citizen but claim to not be able to help more to break the cycle of poverty…. The government doesn’t want smart educated people helping themselves, the fact is that welfare is a form of socialism and the people don’t even know it is happening because who would dare confront the hand that feeds them!,,,

  • To a liberal, not taking more of a company’s profits is the same thing as giving that company money. I’m not going to rob you tonight of $1,000,000.00. You’re rich!

  • Pingback: GOP war on the poor: Georgia - Page 11 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: The Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs |()

  • Pingback: Investing - Page 67()

  • Pingback: With a $15 trillion debt, can the US be salvaged? - Forums()

  • Maureen

    I really enjoyed reading this article. I do understand subsidizing the energy market if the end result is a lower price in the market, but I think it is pretty clear that the subsidies that are being doled out are not being used for that purpose!! I do not understand how we, the American people, are so apathetic to the blatant abuse of our tax money by these big corporations. These corporations take a hundred billion dollars in subsidies and turn around and hand it to their CEO’s. While they are blowing billions of dollars, small businesses that are paying most of those taxes don’t get a lick of help and are slowly going out of business one by one. Soon we will be left with only the businesses that are tied up with the politicians and the price of everything will skyrocket, which will result in them getting more money to keep the artificially high price “low.” Small businesses as we know it will be a thing of the past. We can’t help our hungry, sick, and homeless because top-level management needs a 6th vacation home.

  • maingeezer

    Corporations will probably move to another country because of Obama’s policies, but do you think we could get the welfare moms to go with them? One can only hope!

  • Hanna

    I’m making a documentary and would like to use this in it.

    • Hi, Hanna!

      Cool! 😀 What’s your documentary called?


  • Pingback: Who's Behind 'Fix the Debt'? - Jim Hightower, Humor Times()

  • Pingback: A New Year doesn’t change the economic facts: Unemployment & poverty remain core issues. | Seven Bowie()

  • Thanks for the insightful compilation and the relevant links here. I’ve been looking for ways to support this thesis of corporate welfare being way bigger than individual welfare for a long time.

    • thanks for reading, @facebook-679084903:disqus !

  • Pingback: Gotta love our legal system!!!! - Page 4 - Blowout Cards Forums()

  • Shattered

    What a bunch of hogwash this article is. The new non-partisan Congressional Research Service report showed that social welfare spending in the U.S. just shot past 1.03 trillion a year and is climbing rapidly. Not counted in the report were entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, nor veterans programs, nor Obamacare. Just straight welfare = 1.03 trillion a year and rising. The biggest expense in the budget is now welfare.

    • Mike Sinn

      Please provide a link to your source. My numbers are from 2009 and 2006, I think.

      I’d be very grateful if you could provide me with the correct figures and sources so i can fix the article if it is false.

      thanks! 😀

  • AbdunNabee

    I think it is amazing that the US government gives billions of dollars to all these corporations, and for what? They have more money than anyone, they can use it to make more money. Why is the general American public financing these big corporations? Our government officials are making these laws because their pockets are getting lined to make them! And the general public of America is paying for it all! You all wonder why we have such a great divide between rich and poor? All you elected officials in Washington are clearly not doing your job of taking care of the American public. What exactly is the American public getting for their investment into all the corporate welfare they provide these highly profitable corporations? High gas prices, high food prices, high land prices, basically increasing the cost of everything so the divide gets greater and greater. Wow, rich America needs a wake up call, look around people, not all can wonder what they should cook tonight for dinner, many are just trying to find anything to eat. How can giving billions of dollars to large corporations help the American public? This is actually amazing that this is happening, while the poor of the US are dug in deeper and deeper. The government subsidizes the farmers so they can produce a product that is sold for less than what it cost them to produce. Now who is benefiting from this? The large corporations that can buy it very cheap! Duh! We also need to put some kind of welfare program into effect that promotes getting a job, education, or job shadowing that give people opportunity to work for a living. Why do you think you have lots of woman who are unwed with children, the welfare programs are promoting it! Duh! Then when you don’t have to work, because of welfare, your children grow up and see it and don’t work, and you all wonder why we have so much crime? Really? You rich people just can’t see it can you? You don’t have to see it, or experience it, but it is a very big problem and some day you will notice. I just hope it isn’t to late.

    Giving billions of money to corporations also makes them top dog in which no other corporation will be able to compete against which in turns reduces employment. Jobs are then cut and products are sent over seas to get produced. CEO’s don’t care how the money is made and who makes it, as long as the company is profitable, and the shareholders are happy.

    I am amazed at the very large amount of poor people living all over the US, many can’t find jobs that would support their daily living expenses, many have to make money illegally, which in turn restricts any type of life they will have later. Instead of giving billions of aid to other countries, why are not we improving conditions in the US for the American people first? Oh yah, I forgot, you don’t make any money off of poor people helping them. But you will gladly take any taxes, that they may earn and send them to other countries or corporations because the great US government feels that they will improve our lives more than anything else will? No, this is all about money people! And our elected officials need to be pounded day after day about it.

  • FOAD

    For fuck’s sake, you morons, the government is blowing all your money on blowing up brown-skinned people and you have the perfidy to bitch about TANF and how these meth-smokers need a real job…

    I tremble for this country when I reflect that God is just.

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs()

  • Pingback: Why All the Balanced Budget Rhetoric Constantly from the GOP? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 10 - City-Data Forum()

  • God’smyfriend

    Then why don’t you step in and report them? Just because you’re unwilling to do the right thing doesn’t mean that everyone lives that way. After the ’08 crash I knew dozens of people on TANF but every single one of them got work within a couple years after the Stimulus was passed.

  • Pingback: You Want to Drug Test Welfare Recipients? Start with Corporate Executives | Dispatches from the Underclass()


    WalMart, Microsoft, and other corporations have created thousands of jobs. How many jobs does a homeless people create?

    • Charles Hilton

      Yeah, sweatshop jobs. And there were more jobs when there was less corporate welfare.

  • Pingback: Poverty Hunger In US Stirring Documenatary | Ramani's blog()

  • spoilers4me

    I wanted to ask if you knew the dollar amount spent running the welfare programs as opposed to the dollar amount the needy actually receive? I imagine we could double the amount of the “checks” and it would still be cheaper than covering the cost of running the programs.

    Then I was distracted by the graph detailing the cost of the “drug war”. Same thing applies. The government doesn’t care who has a drug problem, the government just needs to keep people working somehow. And those government employees now receive health care we pay for along with a nice retirement.

    Do I now need to spell out the reason we need war?

  • Pingback: America, The Land of Milk and Honey | elcidharth()

  • Pingback: Welfare Recipient:"Why Would Anyone Want To Work in America??" - Page 4 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: Why Crowdsource Utopia? ← My Very Special Internet Website()

  • Pingback: Why are we allowing poor people to procreate? - Page 2 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: Let’s talk about welfare | The Well Armed Democrat()

  • Pingback: NEWS FLASH: US Government Wastes $1.5 Trillion on Devastating Drug War » Think by Numbers()

  • I think so many miss out on the bigger picture. They are all consumed by public debt, which includes local and state as well as federal, but do not look at private debt at all which is so much bigger. There is also this basic is debt. All money. That debt can never be paid back not just because to pay it back means no more money in the system, but because the debt is greater then the initial debt because of interest. So governments around the world are enslaved to teh banks as much as individual people are, and business as well. It isnt over-regulation or taxes that are the basic is that our money system is debt based with banks creating new money by creating more debt. People are forced to work to try to just keep up with teh interest on all that debt which lowers incentives, creativity, ingenuity. It is harder to do things any other way that is more sustainable, sensible, which takes into account the limitation of resources. Tied into that debt focus is teh profit focus of modern capitalism. Truth is bankers and investors make more money faster off of debt, trading and selling of debt then actually creating anything or providing any real service. So you end up with extreme inequality and the poor growing poorer, families needing to rely on government programs to survive. Poverty is propagandized as a personal problem, as being lazy or stupid, as well as teh governmental programs that assist the poor, but in fact it is a societal problem, a problem created by our profit based economy and debt based monetary system.

    Anyone can find some few examples of people who take advantage of the system. You will find that in any system. Those who take the greatest advantage of the systems in place are not the poor who depend on welfare to survive. It is multinational corporations and banks who have corrupted teh system to best benefit them at the expense of everyone else. But few think of that, That those who have the most “wealth” didnt get it from working hard, but from taking advantage of the system, tweeking the system to enable them to gather more and more. No banker or investor works harder then a teacher or police man or janitor or waitress or farmhand. Their wealth isnt an indication of being smarter or working harder. Not at all. Yet that is how it is being portrayed. We are told that some Wall Streeter who sits in front of a computer screen and uses an algorythm to make $1 million an hour is working harder and deserves more that money then the man who picks up trash, or the woman who serves that Wall Streeter his lunch or the teacher who teaches his children. But when these who work so very very hard for little pay need assistance to survive and take care of their families they are called lazy and stupid and greedy, living off of other peoples hard work. That doesnt make any sense does it. Not when you look at the truth.

  • Pingback: The Biggest "Takers" and Societal Parasites Are the Rich, Not the Working Class and P - Defending The Truth Political Forum()

  • Pingback: The hidden welfare state | Think Left()

  • Pingback: The hidden welfare state that the U.K. government dares not speak of | Black Triangle Campaign()

  • Pingback: Anonymous()

  • Pingback: tumblr backups()

  • Pingback: The Truth About Welfare in the United States | TL;DR | The 'Too Long; Didn't Read' Blog()

  • Lawrence

    Yes, there may be people that abuse the aid and that need to be cut. But did you get the point of the blog. Let’s cut the corporate aid also. Why do we need to aid all these corporations that are making all of this profits off the America public.

  • Kevin

    As far as all the arguments presented in the comments here, and insofar as an earner being allowed to keep what is earned…

    Let’s go ahead pull *this* elephant out from under the rug.

  • Pingback: Requiem Of The American Worker | The Tao Of Brother T()

  • Pingback: The Hidden Welfare State | SyesWorldView()

  • Poet Tribble

    #votepoet help stop the stupid crap and get a normal person elected….always worked better in the past

  • Pingback: Obamacare Yes, Please and Thank You DIY Doyenne()

  • AlKz

    If I didn’t know better I’d think this was put together by Fox News.

    I’m not sure when this was posted (if it is dated, I’m missing it), but I’m guessing about a year ago since the initial batch of comments I’m seeing say they’re that old and your link to the 2013 federal budget implies it couldn’t be much older than that unless it has been updated since. So why are you using numbers from different years for different things and not a recent year? It appears as though it is 2002 numbers for corporate welfare, and 2006 or 2009 for social welfare for different programs for the social welfare programs. Already it seems like an apple and oranges comparison already.

    But the BIG issue I see is in your numbers for social welfare. You say, “The common usage definition of social welfare includes welfare checks and food stamps.” I agree. Then you list TANF (the welfare checks in your definition), rental subsidies and public housing, which I agree belong here, at least the first of the two, while not exactly welfare checks, it is close enough. But where are the costs for “food stamps”?

    The SNAP program (“food stamps”) isn’t part of TANF and isn’t included. Doing so brings the total to essentially the same as the corporate welfare total (using 2006 SNAP numbers), well above that, if you decide to use 2009, or maybe you want to use 1984 or some other year to keep the total low. ( ).

    I expect this kind of massaging of the numbers and selective exclusions from the conservative camp. I’ll tell you the same thing I told my Republican Congressman when I took him to task for this same kind of thing. You should be ashamed.

    • MadMaxx63

      You may have expected that to come from the conservatives…but here’s a liberal making up just as many lies, half truths and skewing the numbers just like EVERY other camp and every other. News agency!

      • JakeCake

        Agreed. It seems to be the mentality of modern American’s. So much more to these numbers and this story but people eat this political cake and demand seconds because it’s easy for their simple minds to digest.

        • Truth_Seeking_One

          What does the American own? If you’re going to pretend you are so much smarter, you should check your posts before hitting the submit button.

    • qcubed

      Well, moron, the big difference(even if the number is the same) is that the money going to the poor GETS SPENT. But, whatever, you probably own a bank or something.

      • AlKz

        No moron, the difference is that he says something is true, which isn’t. If the article said, “as much gets spend on corporate welfare as social welfare programs – but the poor need it more and it does more to help the economy” you’d have a point. I’d even agree with you.

        • qcubed

          Companies that receive these special tax breaks and other treatment don’t need them. They are doing fine and making plenty of profits, untaxed for the most part. If they don’t want to help create the jobs, like Pubes claim they are, then that money should go towards public works projects aimed at putting people to work, specifically UNEMPLOYED people and not folks who already have jobs. Like it or not our tax money is going to be used to support the poor, whether it be through direct programs or through subsidizing wages that these companies don’t seem to care to pay.

          • Devils Advocate

            Dear Moron (qcubed),

            You have proved your arrogance as well as your ignorance. Please refrain from posting any more. You are saying it is okay to use old numbers while comparing them to new numbers. Here’s a “fact” for ya then:”The U.S. Posted a Budget Surplus! Corporate taxes not needed!” ( ) apparently it doesn’t matter if the last time this happened was in 2001, I can use whatever year I want according to your logic and publish it as truth. But what are apples to oranges? They’re all the same in the end right SMH

  • MadMaxx63

    Wow is this a load of ignorance…where did you dig up your facts? The obama campaign? First sentence is around 36% and you call it fifty. Then the USDA budget…almost 70% of our budget goes to food stamps, WIC and feeding the children. Try getting your head out of your a-$$ and think…if the govt kept giving you money to sit on your butt and do nothing but breed, wouldn’t you, why not? Then explain third and fourth generation welfare in this country! Explain why we give welfare people more money with every child they have? Explain to me this sixty year war on poverty that has cost us trillions and we’re no closer to solving the problem than before? Maybe you should read more Ted Nugent than where you get your “facts” as they sound like opinion to me!!!

    • Kenneth Browning

      Read Ted Nugent? The draft dodging war monger? You do know 34% of those on welfare are on less that a year right? 19% less than 7 months. 53.5% less than 2 years.

  • Gigi Jacobs

    Hmmm…seems as if some of you are angry at the article. I can only speak from personal experience. As of today, I have started 5 businesses-all successful. I have provided jobs and I don’t pay less than 3 times the minimum wage for I know no one can live off of that. But let’s go back in time…

    I’m in my early 20’s. I was to go to one of the finest schools but the severe abuse at home took my dreams away-one parent was prosecuted and found guilty-documented in court records. We had been locked in rooms for months at a time. At 18 she then throws you out the door. She had taken the $30,000 I received from my real father that died, and that money was supposed to go for college too. I struggle with nightmares and am barely functioning but I manage to maintain my job as a waitress in a dinner house. I’m trying to take classes at Cal State at Long Beach, CA but I am weak and physically sick from a “dual ureter” on my right kidney. We have not enough for rent and food. I apply for food stamps and welfare in the early 80’s..

    It gave me a chance to breath for 5 months (although $187 dollars is not that much even then and it took jumping through hoops to even get). By the sixth month I had my idea for my first business and I use the 6th month check to make some prototypes and they sell all in an hour. I cancel welfare and I’m a small business owner. The important part comes…

    As I was jumping through hoops i got to know and see many who were applying. Most were down and out and barely hanging on-maybe 2 out of 10 were healthy and could find work and shouldn’t have been there. For the rest, there were no “welfare queens”-these people all needed far more help. I am more than happy to pay my taxes even if it goes to 8 out of 10 who need it. MORE THAN HAPPY!

    I was in the “gifted program” MGM in CA as a child and Math was always a breeze. I decide to find out how much the corporations are paying in taxes. So, I go to the IRS pie chart and it’s approximately $250 billion for several years back ..but their profits are record breaking at $6 trillion for the last years. Gee, so I divide 250 billion by 6 trillion and i get 4% in taxes. 4%???? What if they paid the other 26% like everyone else pays in the working class? Well that an additional $1.5 trillion dollars stolen from our revenues in loopholes and tax tricks. I don’t care if his numbers in his article were off by double or triple, for the fact remains that corporations owe us AT LEAST $1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!! And I only calculated at 30% because that’s what we pay on average. So, corporations are getting a break that is OVER 50% of the revenues and what we can spend. Last point…

    Do you think that $1.5 trillion would help out with our budget? Did you know we’d be swimming in surplus? Did all of you hear this? We would be swimming in surplus if corporations were not given tax subsidies and tax loopholes by the conservatives in our government. So I don’t give a d**** about what year vs. what year..or if he is off by half or by double. Where the hell is our $1.5 trillion? You don’t think they need to pay it? They use our roads, bridges, etc for their tankers, trucks, for their employees to drive back and forth to work. They pollute the environment more than any individual is even capable of imagining. They sell their product to the hundreds of millions who live in cities and cities can only exist with infrastructure, police, firemen, etc. 4% doesn’t cover anything! Maybe the parking space that their Mercedes are parked on …just that parking space-not the roads in general. And they shouldn’t pick up the phone for the Fire Department when they have a fire…or some other catastrophe because they want to take the money for maintenance and put it in their pocket.

    There are your numbers!!!!!

    (To all the spelling and grammar police, I had a severe brain injury and re-learned to read and write-and so I don’t give a d***about that kind of critique for I only have the deficits thanks to big business insurance companies who denied to insure me even when I offered them twice as much due to “pre-existing” conditions-what a shame we have to make a law to tell corporations that when they sell a product like insurance, they actually have to provide the service to people!!!)!

    • tecolote1

      Amen, and again, amen. Thank you for taking the time and energy to post much needed perspective.

      • Gigi Jacobs

        Thank you both to Chad and tecolote1- but no one such as I would ever make it if to run for office for I don’t mince my words, I don’t say things to make those like me-no, I’m mad for all the people who work so damn hard and if some fall on hard times, the one thing that anyone can jump on is the 3% of our budget that goes to help them-most who need far more. Yet, the corporations walk away with 1.5 trillion per year-we only take in between 2.1 trillion and maybe 3 trillion this year-so no matter how one looks at it, it’s at least 50 cents out of every hard earned dollar you paid in taxes. That money is supposed to be for you-for you in times of need, or if you are struggling with children. We are to be a kind race and care for one another-not blame those who are less fortunate for having bad times come upon them. And when it comes to blame, I bet you it’s the right-wing that is first in line (right after giving away $1.5 trillion dollars to their corporate buddies.) What a sad race we have become.

        • Chad

          Ah. I was dreaming people where you live were ready for exactly that….someone who doesn’t mince words. Well, we can always be the change we want to see in the world and enjoy this life by pure design. 🙂

        • Devils Advocate

          Sounds like you are blaming the right-wing for blaming people… hmm is that a infinite loop? Truth tables seem to say so…. Good jaaaaab (sarcastic). Did those corporations not manufacture and sell those products at a price that was deemed appropriate by the consumer (research how capitalism works then answer please)? And do or do not workers also have the right to claim tax breaks on buying the necessary supplies to preform work much like a company can claim tax breaks to conform to government laws such as emission standards, OSHA safety regulations, workers compensation, etc.? So next time you receive that tax refund from the government take that away from the taxes you pay and figure out exactly how much you pay in taxes and compare to how much the corporations are paying. (Simple math here folks, it doesn’t take my Engineering degree to figure out this entire website’s logic and its readers’ logic is flawed here) So I on average pay 23% in taxes per month and with my tax refund as a single male living on his own, who worked and payed his way through college coming from a family without “means” as most would say, can figure in the end of the fiscal year to pay around 20% in taxes.
          Granted 20% is still far from 4% but lets take another aspect into consideration. These corporations produce JOBS, which then produce workers who pay taxes. Lets say, just for sake of argument, we tax corporations at 20%, we reduce the proportional amount in their budget for expanding facilities, which by the way increases jobs which by the way increases the amount of people who pay into the system. By increasing the corporations amount of taxes we are essentially going for the quick and easy cash while not thinking long term as to how it affects the job market, economy and realistically our country as a whole.
          Those of you who are still reading this stick with me it gets better, and if you are on this website it probably won’t be to your liking. Social security is running out and those who are 30-50 you will be at risk of not collecting social security as there are not enough workers supporting the system and we are not collecting enough PAYROLL TAX to account for those already in the system, this obviously is not a sustainable path. So please tell me in all your liberal knowledge (as I assume you are being you bashed the right wing, not saying I am right wing but you played into the idea) how will taxing a corporation who does not pay the Social Security Tax (the workers do) help our countries current financial situation when taking into account the points brought up above?

          Most do not have a well-defined answer for this because most do not think about this issue in a holistic manner. They only see the numbers and think about the monetary difference without thinking about the social, which translates into economical, impact which would result by taxing corporations by 20%. Also please next time cite your references so we all may look at your data that you use to state your argument. I would cite mine but it is known as COMMON KNOWLEDGE for those who have an idea of how capitalism works, which should be everyone considering Americans live in a capitalist society.


          • Gigi Jacobs

            What was it that you claim to know? You know of Social Security? Really? Then why do you speak of the current uptrend in retirees and the low number of people bring in taxes like social security taxes. For if you did, you’d know that overall, Social Security is ahead over 3 trillion dollars (In fact it was borrowed by the US government). And if you know about the baby boomer affect, you’d know that it’s is not fixed but temporary and when the remainder retire, we will likely have more paying into taxes that those receiving Social Security. For you see, trickle down went down the drain a long time ago. That’s not capitalism in the least. That’s theft.

            In fact, if only you knew just a little bit more, you’d know that the more money given in tax breaks, the more that goes into the pockets of the people who are loaded with so much cash on hand that they don’t invest it in anything that has to do with hiring more employees. In fact, our biggest job reducer is the corporations. For they just play with speculation with the 2 trillion sitting on the sidelines that they don’t know what to do with (surely that’s not investing in jobs for the American people is it? ).

            And since I happen to be a capitalist,I know that the tax deductions for he corporations are already so high that we don’t need to give them more deductions so they can speculate the gas prices our of range of the average person. Where did you buy all this: From Reagan? I guess you didn’t hear he wasn’t so good at his job after all.

            Where as, I will continue to push for more small local businesses who will pay their taxes and can’t afford to offshore the counter lady for it takes her too long to drive in from China every morning.

            Figures, it’s Devils again. All with the Devils information.

          • pgrove

            No money is “given” in tax breaks. There is just less money taken from the person that earned the money. The government has no “right” to any of our money. We have loaned the government power specified in the constitution and they only have the power we allow them to have. BTW, despite your claims, you are no capitalist, you are a statist/socialist. You believe the state has a right to every cent we make, in fact, the state already owns what we have and just allows us to keep some. That is not capitalism.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            So you are a mind reader too? I think that they government is allowed every penny I make? Where did I say that please? I believe that the government can take approximately 30% of what my company makes because I use the roads and the bridges and many other government made infrastructure and so do my employees so why should I be so special and let every one else pay for my usage. And here’s another one and a no brainer. Do you know that to have people live in large numbers all together costs money for it takes infrastructure and many other things to allow us not to trample over one another. You must be confused with the wilderness where one doesn’t need government services. But I doubt you live in the wilderness or some un traversed territory. It always cracks me up when people think that…well, they don’t think that it costs to live in cities that are civilized and where we can have roads and services for our needs like fire, etc.

          • pgrove

            You had not stated a 30% limit before so it was easy to interpret other amounts. If you want to give 30% you have every right to but you do not have the right to obligate others to pay that amount.
            No, I do not live in wilderness but I also do not live in a major city. City infrastructure has nothing to do with federal revenues because that is paid for out of local taxes, i.e. real estate, sales, etc. Roads and bridges, other than post roads, are out of the federal governments purview, as well.
            Federal income taxes have no place in local needs as they are not among the 18 items in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Those are the only things the federal government has authority.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Genius, go tell your Federal government to stop using 57 cents out of every federal tax dollar you pay to stop going to defense. Then call me in the morning and I’ll send you the bill.

          • Doug Washeck

            Yet Mitch McConnell hyjacks Billions from the Fed for his home state of Kentucky (stated it would be used for bridges), in order to agree to put an end to the latest Government shut down

          • bptr

            This is also classic. The hillbilly mentality hates and fears federal government and thinks everything with local and state government is just fine. You are completely deluded if you think that the federal government doesn’t pay for your infrastructure. Ever drive on Interstate 80??? DUH

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Exactly! I always tell them they and Mitt Romney should get out of town, find a spot in the wilderness and maybe they can hack away in the dirt to make a stretch of dirt that they can drive back and forth on all day long-going no where of course for they are not entitled to use the roads.

            There is some very interesting neuroscience discoveries that explains why they fear government and get the facts all so wrong-but that’s another long story. If you google the “conservative brain” along with “enlarged amygdala” and/or “anterior cingulate cortex” you’ll find a mountain of peer review studies that will explain the “why” of their thinking and behavior.

            Thank you for adding some sense to the conversation. To all those who have been present, aware, and factual, I thank you all!

          • david schwartz

            The federal government can spend money on whatever it wants as long as it promotes the general welfare. City infrastructure helps support commerce which affects government revenues. These expenses are small compared to the amount spent on the military and health care. Corporate welfare is another major expense that has it’s ugly tentacles in government expenses and egregious tax breaks and subsidies.

          • bptr

            These morons who call themselves “Conservatives” seem to have no basic understanding of the purpose of government at all.
            It is a holdover from the hillbilly stance of “government get off my back and my land”. They will NEVER blame the scammer corporations for anything. Of course, the corporations and venal lying Republican politicians laugh at them and fully exploit their stupidity.

          • MadMaxx63

            Yeah…only the Conservatives do this right? And there lies the problem with society today…the blame game. Considering the number of rich liberals in office compared to conservatives…that would tell me you lie, cheat and steal more than the conservatives. So I won’t say that…I will say the blame game accomplishes nothing and usually a long tongue attached to an empty head says such things!

          • bptr

            Ok, stay DELUSIONAL then.

            Corporations- who care nothing about people and everything about PROFITS – and also buy off Republican politicians (the sole purpose of that political Party of liars) are CLEARLY the problem – along with delusional brainwashed people like you who can’t see what is right in front of your face.

            Not the “blame game”. It’s THE TRUTH GAME

          • MadMaxx63

            Lmao… I am SHOCKED how anyone could be so blind and stupid. So you’re saying there are no liberals that own fully or in part, any major corporations? Would you at least be smart enough to include media outlets as big business/corporations?

            Wow, you’re dumber than I thought possible. You should try taking some college courses…it would do you some good. I just hope you haven’t pro created yet…that would be a true shame!

          • Doug Washeck

            To pgrove……
            Just another attempt to twist word and meanings out of context to fit your idealogical arguments…..Wake up …..Critical thinkers are not beguiled by your diatribe…..

          • bptr

            Good, then LOWER the taxes that ordinary people pay!!
            Why is this far greater than what corporations and the rich pay???

            By the way, the word “LOAN” used to be strictly a noun until you illiterates start abusing it as a verb. You “LEND” money.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            If we just set a minimum 30% of total profits to be paid by all corporations, then we could lower the taxes for the average person. I don’t even mean to say “average” for if not for those who actually do the hard work of making products, etc. we would have nothing.

          • david schwartz

            It is even easier than this. A 1% fee on all stock, bond, and commodity exchanges through NASDAQ and NYSE would gross nearly 2 trillion dollars. End the capital gains tax and we’d still net over 1.4 trillion. That is enough to close the annual deficit and start paying down the debt. As the economy improves, the revenue will increase.

          • david schwartz

            Tax breaks are kick backs on money you already owe. If you owe 25% and get a tax break, that tax break is a kickback or expense on money you owe. Don’t think so? Then why whine about tax credits on health insurance? Suddenly, to “capitalists” that tax break becomes “socialism”. Corporate welfare is destroying the nation. The problem is not that the poor and middle class (what is left of it) is too well off. The problem is the millionaires and billionaires are taking too much in profits and not leaving enough money in the economic base. I saw someone put it pretty well. A rising tide lifts all ships. The lack of demand, the lack of money in the economic base, is depressing the economy.

            Taxes, as a percentage of income, are at a near 50 year low. Half the country isn’t paying any federal income taxes because they are no longer making enough money to pay any taxes. More people are falling into poverty while executive compensation and corporate profits are climbing. That isn’t capitalism it is corporatism.

          • Dee Marie

            This owner of two businesses couldn’t agree more! You are right! “A rising tide lifts all ships!” We are strong when the middle class is strong. Trickle Down economics doesn’t work and we need not look further than the 80’s to figure this out!

          • John Fisch

            During the ’80s, after tax disposable income rose in ALL quartiles, including the lowest.

            You’re right about one thing, though. A rising tide does lift all ships. But you can’t rise the tide by tearing down those who produce and giving it to those who don’t. That just brings everyone down to the same low level.

          • Guest

            Iceland now research that and then we can talk

          • Hall Shelly

            Please do research Iceland

          • bptr

            You are trying to defend the indefensible. Social Security is NOT running out and has NOTHING to do with this.
            In fact, if the income cap in SS were removed, it would be fully funded ad infinitum.

            For the life of me, I can’t understand how right-wingers do not see the giant corporate scam that this country is now.

            By the way, those trucks all over the highway using OUR roadways and paying nothing for them, are also trashing the roads and KILLING millions by causing traffic accidents.

            You have an Engineering degree??? WOW WEEE!!! So do I. You are just another completely delusional “Conservative” (ME ME ME ME people who believe in huge waste and conserving nothing).

          • Gigi Jacobs

            If you check out my YouTube page, I will go into the neuroscience of why right-wingers can’t see what is happening, and why they have no concern for anyone but themselves. I have resources from medical journals, articles posted in Psychology Today and the Discovery Magazine that will explain why 80% of conservatives cannot process logic or facts and why they possess 3 to 11 psychopathic traits.

            Rather interesting-but also a problem we must resolve before they destroy us all-and then ultimately themselves as the planet will not be able to sustain life as they keep destroying the planet and it’s atmosphere. If we are to find an answer to their greed, we need to understand the “why” they act like this. Best to all the good people on this thread!

          • bptr

            Thank you for your intelligence and sanity Gigi.
            Thankfully, the dumb people of this country are still under 50% (about 40% now). Eliminating the Fake “News” Channel and all the rubbish propaganda cult shows on AM radio (who censor out all callers with brains) would help a lot .

          • Gigi Jacobs

            And thank you for your intelligence and insight also. I estimated between 35% to 40% also of them exist which is gladly still the minority. Looks like we are on the same page. If we can get the 60%+ on the same page and unite, we stand a chance of having our country back. Lets keep trying for the day we stop, is day they will win-and I can’t bare to see the workers who made this country not have their home given back to them-and be able to live and work in peace again. Lets make this happen! Best to you bptr! Gigi

          • Marc P

            Well Facebook didnt pay anything 2012. Neither did GM, GE, AOL, and many others I can name. So in the grand scheme of what I make and what they make…..

          • david schwartz

            Why do corporations pay so little in taxes? It is because corporation get away with paying their top executives an unlimited amount of money that can be deducted from the company’s taxable income. If a company made a trillion dollars in net profits (I know I am using an unrealistic number) and paid it’s CEO 999,999,900,000 dollars. The company would only have to pay taxes on 100,000 dollars. The CEO would have gotten their money in the form of stocks, so they’d only pay the reduced capital gains rate and not the full marginal rate. Taxpayers get ripped off 2x while the CEO makes out like a bandit. This is compounded by the probability a good portion of the income is from government subsidies, loan discounts, breaks on fees, and from subsidizing low paid workers so that the company doesn’t have to pay a living wage.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            There were so many mistakes in your comments so I couldn’t address all, but here’s another one: If you had knowledge of tax laws and corporations, you wouldn’t have said that “workers can claim the same tax breaks”. No, workers cannot even come close to claiming the tax breaks as a corporation. That’s common knowledge and why so many file corporations-to take advantage of the abundant tax breaks not offered to the “workers” or filing as an individual.

            And here’s some third grade math (I guess that Engineering degree hasn’t done much for you): when one calculates how much they pay in taxes it already must include the tax refund. In fact, your statement was so “off” for the tax refund is based upon the calculated taxes that one figures out on their tax form. One doesn’t figure the taxes to be paid by looking at what is taken out of their check-but, rather backwards-we calculate the amount owned in taxes and that dictates how much the tax refund will be if there is to be one.

            My stepfather was an Engineer. I was always in the top 1% in the nation on SATs and all tests so in Chemistry Class I figured out the answer to a problem and the Chemistry teacher had it wrong-and I was only 15 years old (that’s what you get in a private charter school or in my case, a Catholic school i was forced to go to for one year-teachers without the education to even teach the subject they teach.). Since I could not even show the teacher his error, I had to ask my step father to do the problem so I could bring it in and get the A’s I always got on tests. As I looked over his shoulder, I watched him go off on all tangents and it took him 3 pages to get to the final answer-which indeed matched mine, only it took me only 3/4 of one page because I had a greater grasp of the problem than he, an Engineer had. So, when I hire employees, I tell them to please not bring in any resumes-if they do, I set it off to the side and talk to the person for 5 to 10 minutes to access the ability to comprehend and to think using logic and facts.

            Waving your “Engineering degree” makes your comment seem even more ridiculous for one would think you would have benefited from having an Engineering background. Apparently not!

          • Francis Fritz

            One question for all you economic/ free market professionals: These big corporations are owned by whom? You keep screaming about it, you may want to research: stock ownership/ shareholders. The “wealthy” are not the majority owners, people who save for their retirement in 401Ks, IRAs, and just plain everyday people. Not a bunch or rich people.

          • david schwartz

            The wealthy are in fact the majority owners. 90% of stock is owned by 1% of the population. The rest of the population doesn’t make enough money to invest much. Over 50% of the working population owns no stocks at all. To be somewhat fair, that percentage doesn’t include mutual funds. Then again, people who “own” mutual funds have no voting rights in any of the corporations they own a piece of. Actually the fund manager owns those stocks. He just pays out a portion of the profits to investors. By any stretch of the imagination the fund manager is usually rich. The top 400 wealthiest people have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the total working population. A very few extremely wealthy people own the majority of stocks. CEO’s get paid 10 of millions of dollars in their company’s stocks each year. Since the median pay for an individual was about 34K last year, it is nearly impossible for the average person to own much stock. In addition, there is little incentive for the average person to buy stock as the wealthiest as they don’t get any discount/tax break for buying stocks.

          • Francis Fritz

            Such idiocy, after 25 years in the investment industry your numbers are wrong, and just plain foolish! The majority of individuals OWN stock, I guess the wall street journal has only 400 subscribers, and all those public pension plans only cover everyone except the fireman, policeman, and other public servants. I guess all those individuals that own their companies stocks in DRIPS and ESOPS are just rich people. Please don’t reply, you ignorance I can stand no longer.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Lastly (as I cannot waste time on people so unable to think), if any serious people want answers regarding the economy, to dispel lies put out by the right, or to know why they are even incapable of understanding economics, climate change, etc. just google my name: Gigi Jacobs. As of mid February, 2014, I will have up my “Dynamic Liberal” YouTube page filled with informational videos. In the meantime, you can always go there and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Warning: to all those who only want to cause controversy, I will not allow you to interrupt the dissemination of important information and your comments if rude, demeaning, or if I detect someone with devious desires, your comment will be moderated and will be removed before you even finish your lies. I’m here to help those struggling who have worked so hard to try and get ahead for it hurts me inside to see this happening when it all has been created by the greedy minority. I will help you if you want and I do it gladly and from the bottom of my heart. To those who bring good to our people, I applaud you all and want to be of help to get rid of those without a conscience or a concern for anyone but themselves. Lets get together and turn this country around and give it back to the people who have worked so hard to create a better world!

    • Chad

      Please run for office and never forget where you came from. Thanks for sharing your story!

      • Gigi Jacobs

        Chad, it’s ben months since I wrote this and you posted, but I wanted to thank and assure you, I will NEVER FOR GET WHERE I CAME FROM and I will always put all my effort in bringing the truth forward. Thank You!

    • Mj

      God will and I pray he continues to richly bless YOU, but is walmart doing that? Are GET and VZ doing that. Worker salary should be commensurate to the company wellbeing, dont stall worker pay for decades while ceo pay increases 25% every single year. a verizon tech makes 6ok a year and they should for what they go thru, but a ceo who make sin 1 DAY what that worker makes in a 365 days should NOT be arrogant enough to drop edicts of no overtime or no money tool budgets or driving old trucks till they run in the ground. NONSENSE! These mega corps are nothing lie you, Ma’am.

      • Gigi Jacobs

        I know they are not. I’m not here to support corporations. I’m here to support the fact that very little money goes out to people who don’t have money to eat or enough to live. That’s such a small part of our budget. And we don’t have deficits because of “welfare queens” ..but because of “welfare corporations”. We would actually have a 700 billion dollar a year surplus, if the corporations just paid 30% in taxes and not a penny more.

        • John

          sorry to say but these numbers are bogus “In fiscal year 2013, the federal government spent about $82.5 billion on SNAP” from the center of budget and policy

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Your statement is “bogus”-it does not go to put people to work. They still strip as many employees as possible, pay the ones that are working too little to eat of put a roof over their head. They don’t even pay the shareholders out of the profit anymore for there are hardly any companies that pay dividends anymore. If I have a choice between giving someone $300 in food stamps or some greedy business owner millions or billion in welfare- I chose to give it to the people who need to eat and not some greedy corporate owner. Besides, the $600 billion we give to the corporations is far and above the amount of money that you listed for the SNAP program or HUD put together. Any smart person would go after the expense that is the largest steal of our tax payers money. You go ahead and fret over a total of $136.5 billion (and who knows if your numbers are even correct)…while I go after a much large amount of $600 billion thrown away at greedy corporations.

            John is very poor at math….

      • Gigi Jacobs

        Mj-Because you have been so accurate in the way MOST operate businesses, we must tweak capitalism so that people with greed in their hearts will be forced to follow guidelines to keep them from stealing. I have always been a fair, honest person-but most who pursue business are those with greed in their heart and they won’t change. Thank you for noticing that I am nothing like them! I am proud to hold that title! We must find a way to keep greed in check for the rest of them will not voluntarily do the right thing. Capitalism has such loose guidelines that the way a business if run is reflective of the values of the owner. Most of them do not have any values, empathy, or concern for anyone but themselves. This is a huge problem and will destroy the middle class, put more in poverty and keep funneling money to the rich-without any warrant.

        I want so bad for this to stop that I will have a YouTube channel up within weeks where I will inform the general public of the prevalent greed that is perpetuated in business and is bringing down hard working people. The people who eventually started doing the production for me, worked hard and deserved to be paid well-I would have it no other way. Can’t say that about maybe but one other company I know of!

        Thank you Mj!

        Gigi Jacobs

        Thank you Mj!

    • qcubed

      You are a rare exception to the rule, sir.

      • qcubed’am..forgive me.

        • Gigi Jacobs

          No problem. The sad part is that yes, I am a rare exception. I can’t tell you of maybe a couple of other businesses that didn’t take advantage of both workers and customers to make more money. That’s what is so sad. And corporations are still not satisfied with all they take from the tax paying public. That’s how the “welfare queen” propaganda even got spread around-big business pays money to have this propaganda go out to the public so people blame the wrong one’s for our money problems–while the corporations are raking in the money hand over fist and not doing much for it to say the least. And Chad, it would be nice if we lived in a world where people were more concerned about being honest that manipulating others to give them more money.

          As I see, I don’t see corporations doing the right things, unless there are enough rules and regulations to make them behave like decent people and provide a good product. When you hear them complain about “rules and regulations”, you know you have a company that wants to get away without providing a safe work environment, or make a safe product and clean up and not pollute after they are done. That’s all rules and regulations are. Just simple rules that one should do on their own if they were decent and didn’t want to cut corners to make more money….

          I’m working on a project to help to start 200 small business for people in their local community and for little charge-maybe if we take the sales away from the big corporations and give it to the middle class and to those who are not rich, they will take better care and be a good business and do a better job of being responsible for making a good product and taking care of their employees. That’s my goal and my hope. Corporations have become uncontrollable and don’t take responsibility and care so I hope this will help to bring back more local small businesses who will work with their communities and be more responsible and considerate of others.

    • donaldogomez

      Dear GIgi….thanks for the post. You are a truly remarkable woman and human being with a heart of infinite compassion. Your ability to take truly complicated statistics and transfigure them into easily understandable scenarios is fascinating and unique. I am a professional writer/film maker with a lot of credentials and awards but I tip my hat and bow deeply to salute your wisdom and moral courage. I am a true admirer

      • Gigi Jacobs

        Without the writers/film makers, the dreams of those who fight for them, never get heard. Without your beacon, we have no light to be seen in the night or along the path. So that we may gather more as we march in unison-it is I who admire you! Truly and honestly, Gigi

    • Cynthia_Janak

      I love your story. I also have an idea and it is drawn out on paper, etc. but I lack the funding to make it happen. If I could pay the engineers for the drawings and to create the prototype I could have an energy system that could lower if not almost eliminate the electric costs to the homeowner. I would so love to see more people go back to work and provide for their families again. My goal is to put especially our vets back to work and help people save money. I have been at this for 2 years but in the midwest the money is just not there. But I am going to keep trying until I can make it happen. That is what it is all about. Never give up on your dream.

      • Gigi Jacobs

        It’s true, it’s a hard battle, especially when people of money would have your story never come to fruition. I can only tell you you must get the word out. Write to news up desks and send them your story for now is the time to get out a cleaner less expensive fuel source before we have no time left. You need not tell me what it is, but if you want to write: and I will come up with a list of things you can do to see if you can garnish attention. It only takes just one investor who sees your dream to make it come true. And you can’t give up because this is what’s needed as much as jobs-in fact, it can produce both. And we have vets who have given their limbs and their lives and those came back only to be treated as if they didn’t have enough incentive to work that we should not put food in their mouths. You have hit a very important group of people. My partner is working with vets for just this kind of job and appreciation which means just the chance at the ability to work. (By the way the SNAP program is scheduled to be cut by 39 Billion dollars over the next ten years by whom “Devils”?)

        My Partner Lloyd will have many contact numbers and we are not interested in taking your dream so please just know we will only give you leads to follow and names and numbers to call for it’s your dream and your right to want to make it a better place for all.


        Gigi Jacobs

      • Kerry

        Try a kickstarter or fundme campaign.

    • averagejoeusername .

      Absolute nonsense. Keeping your own money isn’t a “subsidy”. This is Liberal-speak here. A tax break is NOT a subsidy-the govt assumes all OUR money is THEIRS and if they “let” us “keep” some of our OWN money its a “subsidy”? NO IT IS NOT!

      • Sanford2Porter .

        The idea that cutting taxes is just letting people keep their own money only makes sense if we have a balanced budget. Currently we are borrowing huge sums from our children to pay the government’s bills. When we cut taxes and then borrow to pay for government, we are we are doing it with our children’s money. Sounds like the current generation helping themselves to welfare checks from the next generation. A true conservative believes in paying his bills. Taxes should only be cut *after* expenses are cut.

        • Gigi Jacobs

          The average Joe who makes an average wage pays his taxes through his pay check. But the average corporation paid 250 billion on $1.7 trillion in profits which is 14%. So, if they would at least pay what the average person pays at just 30%, we’d have an extra 300 billion right there-doesn’t include corporate welfare of over 1 trillion dollars a year.

      • Gigi Jacobs

        If you knew 5th grade math, you’d realize your paying for the corporations to build their own infrastructure and I prefer that each pay for his own. I don’t know what you have going on with the idea of a corporation but you know “people are corporations” so perhaps you like the quiet dinner talk.

        • pgrove

          Corporations do not pay taxes, ever. The only taxes paid are paid in the higher cost of their goods by us. WE pay ALL taxes whether you like it or not.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            So, according to your math, we should just not charge them taxes at all and maybe we should give them huge sums of money (more than the huge sums we are already giving them) and then the prices of goods would be cheaper? If this were true, then why are corporations fighting so hard for taxes cuts? Because they want your prices of goods to be lower? The CEOs you must be thinking of are saints, aren’t they?

          • pgrove

            Corporations were not charged taxes until 1913 when the income tax was ratified. We do not give them huge sums of money now. What are these huge sums that you think we give them? Corporate taxes are the epitome of taxation without representation. Who represents the corporation? They have no vote. They are fighting taxes because they are unduly burdened by them. They would like to lower prices, they are in competition so any additional cost is to their disadvantage. CEOs are not saints, nor is anyone, that is a ridiculous statement.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            It is a ridiculous statement, and I want you to think of that every time you think CEOs are fighting for lower taxes to give you greater discounts. How old are you-I’m serious. Are you even an adult? It not you need to get off this thread for your age is showing through. And corporations have the best representation-better than you- they are called lobbyists. Do you own a corporations and that’s why you find them so endearing? Or is your father telling you night time stories?

          • pgrove

            63 years old and a business owner who hasn’t fallen prey to the lies you libs are telling.

          • Floridatexan

            63? Me, too. But my expertise is business. You should stick to engineering, because you don’t know a blankin’ thing about economics.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Thank you!

          • Jason D

            Taxes are paid on profits.Anything that is income generating is tax deductible. Even reinvesting in the company is tax deductible. Companies only pay taxes on money declared as profit. Our small business does what all the big boys do – we try to keep the companies profits as low as possible, as low profits means less taxes. If your company is making so much money that you can’t hide it all in income generating projects and investments, then the only people hurt by high corporate taxes are people benefiting from corporate profits.

            For those who do not know, dividends are paid out of profits and the recipients (shareholders) are taxed at a vastly lower tax rate (often 0%, at worse half of income tax). It is a fallacy that corporate taxes hurt consumers. They hurt the shareholders who receive millions in dividends.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Yes, any money invested in the business is a tax right off so if one wants a corporation to re-invest, it’s more likely to happen if we tax the more! One thing: hardly any public companies pay dividends any more. Just a small handful. Well, at least not on public stock for sale on the market (I was also a market maker before i couldn’t take the greed I saw anymore). Maybe the A stockholders you are speaking of. Thank you Jason!

          • Jason D

            I wish more people would realise that corporate taxes are a good thing because they have a positive effect on the economy either by forcing reinvestment or injecting the money back into the economy.

            And the “poor company owner” can take his cash out whenever he wants to without being touched by corporate taxes.

            As to the dividends, I just checked dividend histories on the NYSE and the Nasdaq, and found that many of the listed companies pay dividends. In fact, ~400 of the S&P 500 pay dividends.

            There are a few big names that don’t, but the majority do. And higher corporate taxes on declared profits will mean that companies will start doing something with their money rather than sitting on it collecting as much as they can (which ultimately hurts the economy).

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Dear Jason,

            Thank you! I only traded the smaller stocks (mostly small tech stocks) and not those on the S&P-and since your logic follows, I will take your word for it. I try and pride myself by using facts but if I have made an error, I am always thankful that someone will point it out to me so that I can incorporate true facts in the future, and not repeat a mistake. Thank you for taking the time to research and I will make the adjustment in all future comments I make.

            Sincerely grateful,

            Gigi Jacobs

          • sequoiaqueneaux

            Yep, there is is. You’re just a cranky, culty Teahole. You people are so embarrassing.

          • Michael

            Not true. We subsidize corporations such as WalMart to feed their employess. They need to increase pay.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Thank you! I paid with no experience but just for doing the hard work of production, a beginning pay off the street, 15 YEARS AGO: $15 to $20 an hour-at that time I could not pay someone less than they could even eat or pay their phone bill with. But these people have no conscience and they don’t care if their employees die or not. Studies show that the head of most corporations score high on psychopathic traits.

            Thank you Michael!.

          • gininitaly

            You would choose not to pay taxes and yet rake in our tax monies to subsidize your plots for World Debt Domination by using the IMF, World Bank, CFR, and yes our own handy dandy PRIVATE central ‘money printing’ bank, the FED, while using the Pentagon and the MIC war vampires as your personal global storm troopers in the quest for the ownership of ALL the planets resources… and now even everyday Americans have become criminals whether they protest their abuse or not, because our REBELLION is the one and only terrorist threat against your selfish greed that really exists. Be afraid, you’ve gone too far.

            In the process buying off our government representatives for your financial interests and selling the majority of ‘The People’ down the river…. but who cares right? After all at this point you’ve reduced them to superfluous open mouthes with no jobs so you can stuff more money into your overloaded Cayman et al accounts (something to the tune of $23 trillion last I heard)… so handy when you need a little spare cash to buy off ours or someone elses government.

            The ‘personhood’ of corporations is an oxymoron… they are monopoly slave owners, rapists and plunderers, they no longer have a country as they have decamped without a thought for the other 90% of those places that we used to call Home. They’ve been working on this since 1913 when we allowed the private central bank called the FED and their brotherhood, to own us.

          • gininitaly
          • Denise

            thats why ge paid no taxes after all their exemptions? This is fair to those working or is it biased in favor of the 1%?

          • WhyUh8 .

            Um…. the people who work for the corporation are all Americans correct? They can vote in any election and therefore have all the representation anyone else in America has.

      • bobloblaw

        The article clearly states that while tax breaks may be considered a form of subsidy this article would focus only on federal revenue (the taxes that you and I pay) being given directly to businesses exactly the same way money would be given to an individual in the form of an unemployment check. Tax breaks for corporations did not factor into the equation for this article

      • Yedmundi II

        If you don’t pay your taxes, you are stealing from the rest of us. You don’t have to believe it, but you are. Money doesn’t exist until it is created by the government that we create as a society. The government used to prop up the value of currency that was loosely based on the value of gold, but contrary to popular belief, it was not backed by gold, it was backed only by the government, which we created as people. It takes a lot of implied power collectively trusted to the government to make society work, including a capitalist society that we clearly are. Sure, I wish taxes cost less, but they don’t. I pay my fair share, actually I pay MORE than my fair share because some people steal by not paying taxes on their hidden income (you tea party “tax patriots” know who you are) and because many big companies (who are NOT people and have NO rights as people) get subsidies which include tax breaks. Taxes that are real dollars they should otherwise be paying. I pay all of my taxes, do you? If you don’t believe in taxes, then I guess you don’t believe in roads, or police, or fire departments, etc… And don’t be fooled, these things are NOT all paid for by local taxes. Oh, wait, there is that word again, taxes… so even of they atre paid for locally, they are still taxes.

        As for the local vs federal powers, those issues were legally and resolutely resolved a long time ago. Every once in a while some anti-government wackos come along and make up some foolish theory why IRS doesn’t have the right to exist, or a mortgage isn’t valid, or a court isn’t valid… Most of those people end up in jail. Are you one of those people?

        • nathan bedford

          i’ll glady not pay taxes, and if i could, i’d even kill you for your money to steal it. i actually have a right to murder statist liberals like you via the oath of enlistment. fuck you and your government that “we” as a society created. have you seen what’s happening to our economy you servile, stupid punk? there’s nothing “functioning” about “our” society. the money you have is worthless.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Listen to the words of this psychopath! He needs to be in “lock down” before he kills probably more people. This one shouldn’t even be released to the wilderness. Ball and chains are the appropriate answer here….and a straight jacket! Call a 51/50 on him before he harms more people.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Don’t like the Republican government we have in place right now? Neither do we. Obama is president, but if you watched a bit of news, you’d know that all the jobs bills and other bills reflective of a Democratic society have been shelved by the Republicans in the house and the Senate. 365 bills just in the first two years alone, lay on the shelf in the Senate, filibustered by the Republicans. Our economy sucks now, right? Thank your republican representative, you stupid punk!

            I’ve always know Republicans were psychopaths-thanks for making it so obvious! Your post is going viral on Facebook and now all know what is behind the thoughts of conservatives. Hope we get lucky and they pick up your psychopathic murdering ass~

          • WhyUh8 .

            Is that why I’m still buying “stuff” with it?

        • Gigi Jacobs

          Thank you so much for being a decent human and your understanding of how things must work in a civilized country. I say we kick out all the right-wingers and let them live in the wilderness. No taxes-no infrastructure.

      • Krotch ScroteGuzzle

        Special tax breaks are absolutely subsidies because they create a non-level playing field where other businesses are paying them.

        Small businesses and Individuals don’t get special tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, etc.

      • sequoiaqueneaux

        Well paying taxes is part of living in a functioning society. If you don’t like it, leave. I hear Somalia has very low taxes and “small government.” You’ll love it.

        • Gigi Jacobs

          Good one. And the corporate CEOs can all move to the Caymans where they park their money! (Although I find Somalia more fitting for them!)

        • Well said, paying tax is paying for a civil society.

    • JakeCake

      Great success story but you seem to be missing a very important part of this policy (as well as the author of the article). We are a nation competing in a global economy struggling to stay on top. Our mom and pop businesses are not the one in this country leading in terms of innovation by any means and without these shitty corporations our countries economy would collapse at a rate you wouldn’t believe. Do I like paying for these corporate subsidies- no- fuck no. Are they all fair and equal- hell no. Is there a reason they exist- yes, certainly so. We as the little shitty entitled Americans of the present do not seem to know the importance of our big industries. Did you know that the top %10 of earners in this country (almost all exclusively CEO’s and business owners) pay more total $ taxes than the rest of the 90%? I bet you didn’t. Did you know that that “measly 4% real corporate tax rate we have in the U.S. is the highest corporate tax rate in the world, responsible for paying more taxes to the U.S. government in 1% of industry dollar for dollar than all the 99% mom and pop operations? WOW bet I just blew your small little brain. Don’t believe- me research it for yourself and find the real numbers! And stop acting like life is so unfair you little turd.

      • Gigi Jacobs

        Your such a waste that there’s nothing to talk to. Capitalism is a failure created by the greedy at the top and they will take all your money for as long as you allow them. That’s as much as you can handle for now.

        • pgrove

          They don’t “take” anyone’s money. You may spend it on their product, but the aren’t taking it. Only the government does that.

          • TRussert

            And who, exactly, runs the government? Special interests. The 1% who benefits 95% to 5% from all the economic gains of this nation, and whose failures get bailed out by that same 99% on the short end of the stick? The same 1%.
            Look, the believable BS era is over. Just because conservatives say it doesn’t make it true anymore. Special interests have backed the majority into a corner, and that’s a dangerous situation.
            Ever hear of the American Revolution? The 2.0 version is on the horizon

          • david schwartz

            The wealthiest .0038% of Americans are running the US. The last 2 decisions of the Supreme Court on campaign finance just opened the floodgate for the wealthy to donate unlimited sums of money to political campaigns. We will soon become a nation owned and controlled by corporations. The time to act is short. As long as Republicans hold a significant portion of the House or Senate, there will be no way to overturn Citizens United or the even more dangerous McCutcheon decision. The GOP backs both these rulings.

          • TRussert

            Hi David,

            You are 100% correct, but there’s a new game in town. I and thousands like us are making this a reality.

            Check it out and join us if you see the viability of this


          • Don Davis

            I case you haven’t noticed it’s the top 1% that have benefited most from the current administration. But keep your blinders on and by all means find some way for everyone to end up with the same wealth no matter that some work very hard and some seem to be allergic to work.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            No, they fire more employees, keep their wages staggering, rob the employees’ retirement accounts and they should pay more than 90% of the taxes for they make more than 90% of the money-therefore using up more than 90% of government services.

          • Gigi Jacobs

            Yes, they DO TAKE it. If they offered a quality product in exchange then one is spending it on that product. When they cheat in the making of that product and make a piece of crap just to get your money-that’s called stealing.

          • dtsinidaho

            fraud… not stealing.

          • david schwartz

            Stealing is taking more of the profits the employees earn without the employees having any say in the matter. Employees have been getting a shrinking share of the profits. Corporate profits are up while employee pay has remained steady. Executive pay has skyrocketed. If corporations were viewed as privately owned governments, then executive pay would be considered a tax. The method employed by executives to collect their huge paychecks would be taxation without representation.

          • George R. T. Hewes

            They do “take” money from everyone! I pay my taxes only to have companies like Wal-Mart that i choose not to shop at, not pay a living wage that in turn forces their employees to live on the “gubment dole” that we all pay for. Companies like McDonald’s & Wal-Mart promote this among it’s workers. It’s part of their business model. It’s obvious you didn’t read the article. Hell, it’s even in the damn title of the article. Wal-Mart forcing me to “subsidize” their workforce is theft as well as the wage theft they have been caught doing to their own workers. Government is “We the People”. Corporations won a major battle with Citizen’s United that in essence gave them legitimacy as so called “people”. “Corporations are people, my friend. (Romney).” That’s one part of the bigger problem. Further more it’s a “privilege” to do business in the U.S.A. NOT a right.

          • david schwartz

            There are a couple of states seeking a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. I’d like to see an amendment defining corporations as privately owned governments. That would subject corporations to obeying the Constitution. It would mean Executive pay would be viewed as a tax on employees.

          • Don Davis

            Our government doesn’t obey the constitution. Start your own company and pay everyone as much as you want. Why always expect someone else to do the hard work, if it’s so damned easy show us how it’s done.

          • david schwartz

            CEO’s are taking taxpayer money to help line their pockets. They are taking a higher percentage of profits that their employees are earning for them. The government is taking the same percentage of income as “normal”. The government has not been raking in much more than 18% of GDP in decades. The only group that has seen an increase in pay is the top 1%. Everyone else, including the government has seen revenue stagnanate or decline. when accounting for inflation.

        • John Penn

          Would you rather live in Cuba or Venezuela-capitalism created the counry with the most abundance and is doing the same for India and China now

        • Capitalism built the largest and wealthiest middle class in human history within two hundred years. No, other economic system can claim that.

          • david schwartz

            The middle class was built through unions. Great things can be accomplished when Corporations have the people’s best interests in mind. When corporations team up with government the people lose.

          • Don Davis

            David, If all things” business opportunity ” and ” Competition” were equal at all times then you could do that comparison. I often hear people talk about how great things were, well the United States was alone at the top, we did then what China is doing today, we were not afraid to get our hands dirty back then, we rebuilt the world after the wars and at home we had no rivals American cars and unskilled guys making $30. an hour to hang a chrome strip, now we have real competition from the rest of the world, competition for business and natural resources.

        • chewinmule

          Banks, banks, banks! The Fed, IMF, etc, etc, ……….

          In 1865, during the time Lincoln was attempting (and thereafter succeeded) in creating a debt-free currency for the People; this editorial was printed in the London Times.
          “If this mischievous financial policy [of creating a debt-free currency], which has its origin in the American Republic, shall become permanent, then that government will furnish its own money without cost! It will pay off its debts and be without debt.
          It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe!”

          The English money lenders have co-operated with the money lenders of our country and in 1862 an agent, quietly and under a confidential seal, distributed among the aristocrats and the wealthy class a circular. It was called the Hazard Circular and related to the Civil War.

          It read:

          “Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that the capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. IT WILL NOT DO TO ALLOW THE GREENBACK, as it is called, TO CIRCULATE AS MONEY any length of time, as WE CAN NOT CONTROL THAT. But we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues.”

          Capitalism has not failed us ……. the banks and “greed” have killed it!

      • Gigi Jacobs

        I’m going to give you a more complete reply. I am NOT missing any part of this equation -but your attempt to demean another has been duly noted. Here is what you don’t know, but should have researched before you made a comment full of mistakes. The top CEOs are not in any way responsible for “innovation”-in fact, innovation can come from a single individual working in his garage on a project. Here’s what the CEOs are responsible for and it does not contribute to our country in the least. They find these patents and discoveries by individuals or small groups of people, then they buy up all the rights to that technology or whatever they have discovered. They do this for two reasons: either they want exclusive use of the innovation so that others cannot benefit and even improve upon it…..or they have their own techniques which are inferior to the new ideas and by buying up the rights, they can keep this innovation from the public or anyone else and therefore keep it hidden so than can sell their inferior products. In fact, things YOU HAVE NO AWARENESS OF is that their is growing concern about the innovations being bought up and hidden so that no one can access them and this is being done by your psychopathic CEOs.

        Here’s another thing you think I don’t know…when in reality you are not even aware of: They pay 7% to 10% of all the revenues collected (see any IRS pie chart). Now, at one time, 40 years ago, they paid more that half (50%) than any other sector of the country-but that is not true now. Total taxes paid by corporations is $250 billion dollars (maybe projected $300 billion dollars this last year). Now if you understood math, you’d know that $250 billion dollars is not 90% of the 2.1 trillion dollars we collect in revenues is it? No! It’s just over 10% of what is paid in taxes.

        And you apparently don’t understand the “marginal tax rate schedule” for it you did, you would know that when they CLAIM to be paying the highest tax rate, they are basing it on the “marginal tax rate” of 35%-on paper only. 4% is the effectual rate and that is the lowest in the world…sometimes maybe second from the lowest as it fluctuates each year.

        Don’t worry-I won’t believe you because you haven’t stated one thing that is true. You aren’t capable of “blowing away” anyone because your small little brain missed all the facts. You only tried to be demeaning and you aren’t even good at that,, because without facts it makes you sound like a “little turd” who is not just acting, but intentionally lying.

        So the best idea is that you seek treatment for your mixed up mind and even more so, for your own sociopathic tendencies-although since I’m also a neuroscience researcher, science now knows that your delusions and poor attempts to demean are a result of the inability to access your anterior cingulate cortes in the pre-frontal cortex region-while your mean spirited hate and resulting lies come from an enlarged amygdala-also found in reptiles and snakes. It might behoove you to take care of your “reptilian brain” that has now been documented on fMRIs and SPEC SCAN.

        I don’t always have the time to put a demented mind in its place, but thought it might be of benefit for others who read this thread. And the funny part about it all, is that in your mind, you believe to be so superior in thought when you are not even capable of using logic, deduction, and facts. So, this is for any other who may be following this thread.

        • This is partially true. Big corporation are responsible for a good proportion of creativity and innovation, though. For example, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Cisco,, IBM.

          • proy8

            They take *credit* for innovation that does not actually mean the big guys on top have much to do with it.

          • xnerd

            That is simply not true. I have worked in Biotech for 25 years. Most innovations come from grunts that work in labs or in the repair shops of industries.

            CEOS simply know how to rub elbows and get capital to acquire intellectual property. WalL Street capitalism is the downfall of civilization not the boon. They changed the rules to allow CEO’s to acquire,strip,and sell assets to give the appearance of profit. That drives shares up and corporate execs, family and friends sell off shares, make millions and walk away.

            I have been watching this behavior closely for more years than i care to admit.

            its disgusting and in my line of work, it kills medical discoveries. They simply do not care for anything other than their wallets. its a sickness.

          • Joshua Day

            This is also only partly true, these were innovators when they were working out of the parents’ garage and trying to compete with the existing standards in the industry. Large industries that have become the standard in their fields are at odds, in terms of pressures, to innovation. There is a large body of peer-reviewed literature on the subject of innovation that is quite interesting! 😀

          • My point is that Capitalism drives innovation, not the crony government regulations.

        • Sparafucile

          Know what you need before you can “buy up” anything? A willing seller. That is called labor. Get over it.

      • Pattielaine

        I guess that explains why BoA paid $0 in taxes last year and tons of corporations form subsidiaries overseas to avoid paying any taxes. So much for your idea of the 1% paying the most taxes.

        • Reynard Vulpes

          You’ll get a kick out of the Forbes list, and come to understand how very right you are. Look at the places with the lowest corporate tax rates, all notorious for their game of setting up corporations that do not actually really business in their countries.

          It’s to laugh, and gnash teeth of the taxes being stolen from the rest of us by these criminal thugs.

      • Shaco

        You can’t just drop a ton of numbers on people and walk away without at least providing a single source.

        Page 7 of this CBO gov report says the highest 20% income earners pay about 69.3% of federal taxes. State and local taxes are more regressive than federal taxes and are not included here (, so your claim that the top 10% pay more taxes than the other 90% of the population combined does not seem likely. The highest 20% doesn’t even pay 70% of the federal taxes.

        It should also be noted that significant numbers of the bottom 20% of income earners are made up of seniors/retirees who used to work and pay taxes.

        Also check out:

        According to the Tax Foundation, the top 20% of income earners pays for 94% of federal personal income tax. This is the closest I’ve gotten so far to finding some kind of source backing up your claim that the top 10% pay more than the other 90%. But even here, it’s top 20% = 94% of just federal income tax.


        ” The federal personal income tax only made up 28% of all U.S. government
        tax collections in 2012. Federal, state and local governments collected
        $4 trillion in taxes last year; just $1.1 trillion of that was federal
        personal income tax.”

        • Spencer Brown

          What he might mean is that the top 10% owns over 90% of all the stuff. In fact the top 1% owns 90% of all the wealth. The top 10% owns about 99% of all the wealth. The bottom half of the country has no wealth at all. So it wouldn’t be an incredible surprise if they paid little or no taxes. But states often have a very regressive tax structure called sales tax that isn’t being considered here. It’s harder to break down but the poor pay a large share of it.

      • David Barker

        Most tax rules go into place with the help of very profitable businesses directing the tax policy. The farm bill gives money to some of the richest people in the U.S., and not the small farmer who needs the assistance. Very good documentary about it and the small farmers will tell you the farm bill makes it almost impossible to compete against large corporate farms. Subsidies for oil exploration are paid to 3 of the 5 most wealthy corporations in the Fortune 500.

        Fracking was developed by a person and small company that I don’t think was getting ANY subsidy. Of course now that big companies have gotten involved they are getting subsidies.

        These companies have such large markets in the U.S. that bringing in the “GLOBAL COMPETITION” thing is a little far fetched. Someone in Russia is going to ship natural gas to the U.S. and compete with our big companies? Not a chance in hell. Fracking uses huge amounts of water, that can cause serious water problems in an area, that then leaves the people in a position to where they have to pay to develop new water sources; a very expensive endeavor. Meanwhile these companies, such as Chesapeake make large profits and their management and CEO, and stockholders, probably none of which live in that specific area, pay very little tax. So really, you need to sacrifice the livelihoods of thousands to millions of people so that our companies, who make large profits, can compete in a global market? The facts don’t show that to be the case, but it’s an excuse I’ve seen given all the time. Even on thee news I constantly hear about how much money our corporations are sitting on.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        I’m a little late responding but you might get notice. One, you are lying. Two, I have done the research. Three, how do I know you are lying and what tipped me off?

        I know because I have researched, but more important is the ploy of claim making and then refusing yourself to actually provide sources for your claim, shifting the responsibility for proof or disproof to your “opponent.”

        So then, ducky, provide your sources, with link, as it the protocol in web based debate.

        Thank you for your attempt to educate.

        Take for instance, our northern neighbor, Canada, as proof I researched and YOU did not, and are a bloviating troll:


        Canada’s corporate income tax rate is 36%, but the deductions
        bring the median effective tax rate down to just 21% for MNCs, and a
        median of 14% for domestic only firms.”

        See, ducky? You are a liar. Unless you can figure out how 4% is more than 14%, or 21%, or 36%. Can you? LOL Yer a caution boy.

        Truth is we are second highest (way over 4%) but then YOU look it up. My list is from Forbes.

      • The question here is, why do we have to have such a big government which requires so much taxation?

        • david schwartz

          Government isn’t all that big. We have a huge expensive military. That is 25% of the federal budget. That is paid for almost exclusively through income tax. Welfare represents about 11% of the budget. Corporate welfare makes up close to 20% of federal expenses. Medicare and Medicaid are another big part of the budget. Health care costs have driven up the costs of health care to about 50% of the budget. Neither of these is paid for through income taxes. Foreign aid is under 1% of the budget. The federal budget has a historical average of eating up about 20% of GDP. That has not changed significantly in several decades. We need to reign in health care costs to reign in spending. The rhetoric is government is too big. The reality is we have a government as big as at needs to be in order to reign in corruption in the private sector and to ensure citizens basic needs are covered because the private sector, for the most part, only cares about profits versus people.

          • Don Davis

            If that were so it would be working, it sure isn’t working.

      • david schwartz

        The top 1% get 90% of the income (before taxes). They pay about 45% of the taxes. It’s a high percentage, but if they make 90% of the income they should be paying closer to 90% of the taxes. The top 400 richest people in the US have more income than the bottom 50% of working age adults. Corporations’ revenue share is just 10% of the total revenue the government takes in. It used to be 30%. Guess who is picking up the tab. The corporate marginal rate is 40%. That is among the top tax rates in the world. That 4% rate you mentioned (typo?) would be among the lowest rates in the world. The thing is corporations don’t pay anything close to 40% of real profits. Corporate execs often get more money in compensation than the corporation pays in taxes. This is because the corporation can, and does, deduct the entire amount from taxable income. The CEO gets paid and the entire amount is written off as a business expense. On top of this, the exec pays only a capital gains rate for taxes on the bulk of their income. That amounts to a massive public subsidy for corporations and CEO’s. Big corporations get public subsidies in other ways. Those lower paid workers qualify for government subsidies even though they are working. If the CEO’s paid their workers a living wage, taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for paying the rest of their worker’s salaries. This amounts to paying the CEO a heap load of taxpayer money that they don’t pay to employees. On top of this… corporations like WalMart rely on people with food stamps for a good portion of their business. WalMart wrote a public letter stating the reduction in food stamp aid hurt their bottom line. They are feeding off taxpayers while paying less, as a percentage of income, than those making between 50K and 100K and have the audacity to while about paying taxes. I’ll bet I just blew your little brain.

        • John Fisch

          Completely false. The fact is that the top 1% make about 20% of the AGI. They pay approximately 38% of the income taxes. You may still argue that this is not enough, but first be at least factual.

          If you extend that to the top 10%, you’re looking at 46% of the income paying 70% of the taxes.

      • JWrenn

        Actually the US has a below average effective corporate tax rates ie after write offs.,_2000-2005_Average.jpg
        So the real issue comes down to what those write offs actually are. I vote we take away all the write offs to moving money offshore and instead give huge write offs for worker pay. You want to get people working, make it a more effective investment.

      • david schwartz

        The Top 10% are making more than 90% of the gross income. The fact remains they pay less as a percentage of their income than most in the middle class. We are not the highest corporate rate in the world. That honor goes to Japan. That 4% isn’t exactly a proper number but would be one of the lowest tax rates. We have close to the top marginal rate. We are average when it comes to the effective tax rate for corporations. That 4% is on gross profits. Only net profits are taxed. Corporate taxes represent a measly 30% of total income tax revenue. Some billion dollar corporations paid 0 income taxes. Many corporations paid their top executives more than they paid in taxes. Taxpayer dollars are helping line the pockets of top executives.

    • gininitaly


      • Gigi Jacobs

        Thank you! Lets get our country back from these thieves who have ruined the American dream. Lets take care of those who came home from war without help or even a roof over their head. Lets help all those who have suffered as a result of this overwhelming greed and psychopathic behavior.

        I have written here over the last few months because every time I see someone struggling or in pain, I feel a sharp pain in my heart and it brings me such deep sadness that I can do nothing other than drop my own projects to somehow get out the word.

        I have thrown people out of my house for belittling the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, those without medical attention, etc. I will continue to fight on till I die. Any and all who would cause harm unto another, pray you don’t cross my path-for I will do what it takes to cease the ugly, greedy, lying, thieving behavior.

        To those who get it and have imparted with good and kind factual information, I thank you for standing up and being heard!


        Gigi Jacobs

    • falling321

      I find it interesting that you claim to have started five businesses and claim to pay all of your employees at least three times the minimum wage and yet you do not seem to realize how worthless that statement actually is! Let’s say you started five fast food franchises and are paying $21 an hour, when the going rate is $8.50 in you area…why would you do that? It makes absolutely no sense! That would ensure that your employers have no reason to work hard, learn more and move up to a better job! And you are handing out money that could be spent opening more franchises and providing more entry level employees with work! And in Obama’s economy there is a desperate need for jobs among entry level workers! Or perhaps your businesses were such that the majority of workers in that industry are making $36 an hour…that would make you are terrible employer and ensure that you were able to hire nothing but the worthless cast off’s of businesses who were paying the average wage for that job!
      In general, you post screams LIE. In fact, it says to me that you have read a few articles and looked at a few charts and now consider yourself an expert. As a business owner, I can tell you now that paying three times the going pay scale for any job will put an employer out of business faster than almost any other mistake they could make! Paying a bit more than the local going rate for a particular job will get you the best choice of employees, but any employer paying three times the going rate for a job will soon find themselves out of business, because there is a very good reason that employers pay what they do…it is called a profit and loss statement. EVERY job, even those big CEO positions, have a finite worth to a company and paying more than that job is worth is a recipe for disaster. You soon find yourself laying awake at night and wondering how you are going to order next months supplies when your profit and loss sheets are full of red ink. Your competitors are laughing at you! An entry level job is worth an entry level salary for a reason…and it gives entry level workers motivation to work hard, learn and move up and on.

    • fiwik

      The national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century, but the deficit is simply a point of contention in a bigger contest, ENLARGING THE GOVERNMENT AND REALLOCATING RESOURCES, ” SPREADING THE WEALTH.” The problem is that the very group that professes to want to “spread the wealth “are exactly the ones guaranteed to keep the middle class in the crapper. The U.S. transferred some $2.2 trillion last year from one individual to another in the form of entitlements, even before you include things like payment of government salaries, etc. Taxes raised in order to “keep down the deficit”, only
      result in a higher norm for government spending. Deficits will again mount and the process will be repeated. The left doesn’t care about the deficit. Their interest is only in the ability to take the taxpayer. DEFICITS AREN’T CAUSED BY REDUCING TAXES, THEY ARE CAUSED BY SPENDING.

      PUBLIC CORPORATE INCOME IS TAXED FIRST WHEN A CORPORATION EARNS IT AND AGAIN WHEN PROFITS ARE DISTRIBUTED TO SHAREHOLDERS AS DIVIDENDS. ( I challenge you to show me where money earned by corporations isn’t eventually taxed, as salaries, bonuses, capital improvements, ect. ) , and unlike the Federal Government which creates no net increase in jobs, companies are the backbone of the country. Even companies that outsource jobs increases jobs over here. These jobs increase the profits of Companies from 25 to 40% depending on there success, and are jobs that help the country grow and actually increase the number of jobs available in the U.S., as the company expands. Many companies would find themselves going out of business, from global competition, without his growth opportunity of outsourcing. This would obviously reduce U.S. jobs even further.

    • OK..gifted child guest…..who pays ALL taxes in this country?? HINT: the end consumer. Let that sink in until you understand it. Now EVERY tax INCREASE you place on BIG BUSINESS (as you so loving think of them) is a TAX INCREASE on the end CONSUMER….NOT ON THE CORP. GET IT????? SO the Marxist who apparently, easily convinced you, that big business Is EVIL and destroying this NATION because they don’t pay their fair share….is LYING to you…YES LYING TO YOU and you bought it hook line and sinker…back up and think for yourself for just a minute now……tell me what business doesn’t pass along EVERY cost of doing business INCLUDING TAXES”” to the endconsumer?? tell me….come on…..tell me which business does not include all their costs in determining their sales price???? WHO???? now tell me who you learned the BIG LIE from??? and what is their motive?? the Marxist who want to control you and me, hook, line and sinker…..there is no need for individual income tax (another lie)……that is only implemented to CONTROL the masses (middle class). you want simple answer that would provide tremendous benefits to the individual, business and govt all at the same time? Watch in amazement…..a 5% tax on the gross sales of ALL business (which we consumers pay) the business would act as the IRS (thereby eliminating them), DO deductions, exemptions, costs reductions, etc. That would be the total tax burden on the American people, period. BUt it would be out in the open, we (the people) would know exactly what we are paying through our purchases, no more politics in tax collections, AND no other taxes….no state income taxes, sales tax, property taxes (see my booklet it lists over 200 taxes we pay). From this booty, the govt could pay all tuitition costs, all health care coverage, rebuild all infrastructure,(prosperity like this nation has never experienced before) and still have excess of funds left over. This would encourage corp from around the world to flock to USA to do business here because the truth will be known, (that corps don’t pay the taxes ONLY the consumers do)((p.s. can you tell me how to tax corps without the end consumer paying it????)), it would encourage bringing offshore money to come back into the nation without the individual income to pay, paycheck would automatically go up without the unnecessary taxes that are currently taken out…and the lists of benefits goes on and on. BUt with all the bene’s it won’t cure your anger and hatred of Big Business for you…that is something you will have to do for yourself…if you really want an equitable result for all concerned. But if you want to continue with conflict and hatred…so be it…keep listening to the genius’s that you have been. “Know the truth and it will make you free”

    • Deborah

      LOVE your comments!!!!

    • Sparafucile

      Ok … you can do arithmatic. But you clearly cannot do accounting. Go learn what profit is, before you start trying to claim it by the trillions for your own wishes.

    • Andrew Bennett

      I read you loud and clear! AMAN! The federal and States Governments allow Corporate welfare Frauds by Corporation, Companies, Factories, big oil and gas and Coal Mines, and Tobacco and Auto industry and Military Contractors !

  • Pingback: The War Profiteers | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG()

  • Pingback: Helping the Poor or Funding War? | Strangely Progressive()

  • Pingback: Welfare should be eliminated. - Page 3()

  • Taylor

    For a list of federal expendetures on welfare of all sorts please see the following link. The list is at the end of the article and fully cited.

  • Pingback: Lebanon web design company()

  • Chad

    tell it like it is

  • Pingback: america-wakiewakie: At a time when half of Americans are near…()

  • Pingback: Deep cuts to country's food stamp program - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 18 - City-Data Forum()

  • Pingback: asics running shoes sale()

  • Pingback: firma reklamowa lubin()

  • Pingback: The Myth of Americans Living Beyond Their Means - Page 23()

  • Pingback: Obamacare/wealth redistribution explained with tasty pie - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 8 - City-Data Forum()

  • Pingback: Amazon Charges Tax Now?()

  • Pingback: Corporate America: "Have you no sense of decency?" | Political Ration()

  • Pingback: Corporate America: ‘Have You No Sense of Decency?’()

  • Pingback: Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare | Ben Swann Truth In Media()

  • Pingback: Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare »

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs | feedondemons()

  • Devils Advocate

    My God, how is this an .org website? Please tell me what actual CEO said that about telling his daughter “I couldn’t afford to both buy her a dollar sign shaped island and hire someone to chew her food from now on, too.” This is just appauling reporting or in all honestly I would call it, fucking lying and making a story up. I could have a website too, all I need to do is call it, and just say whatever the hell I wanted and have some other website quote it such as the website that quoted this rediculous article, Seriously get off your hipster bean bag chair and lay off the pot and do something productive for society. Honestly do you think for one second CEOs just slept their way to the top of a company? That they did no work at all to deserve the compensation and the responsibility that they receive by said position? Stop being jealous for one second and figure out what they did to get there and do the same if you want to be at the top. Then once you’re there, give all your money to those “less fortunate” because you seem like the person who would do that (yeah right you would do the same as they would and buy yourself that Bently and gloat to those who weren’t able to figure it out). This country is full of people who are “self righteous” and never would do that, and those who know better and accept that to keep this country running need to keep investing the money they make into companies to keep this economy moving. Just because they make 8 mil a year and are worth a billion doesn’t mean they actually, and physically, have that much money. Most of what a CEO makes and is worth is a result of stock options so that they must strive for performance to increase their worth. The bonus is probably more “cash-in-hand’ than they make all year, the rest is tied to the market and they can only receive once they retire and/or receive once they leave the company.

    Now I know some people are going to say “well how can they afford those houses and cars and whatever have you, without having the cash-in-hand?”. That is because they can borrow against what they have in stock options to extend a personal line of credit which works just the same way any of our credit cards work but just a bigger scale, because they have more than a 1998 Ford Escort to borrow against.
    Before you go bashing CEOs and other managers of companies, because that is all a CEO is is a manager, understand how they got there, what they had to do to get there, what they are ACTUALLY making and what OPTIONS that is made up of, and what their responsibilities are. If everyone could run a multi-million/billion dollar company profitably then everyone would be a CEO of their own company. Truth is not everyone can and very few will. Don’t be jealous just own up to the fact you don’t have that skill set yet and work on it. Until then TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE.


    • shmaesh

      You seem mad.

      • RichardOwens

        He wishes everyone had been born to security opportunity and a good stash of coin.

  • Devils Advocate

    Ok, now after I read some of the comments on this page am I truly pissed at StumbleUpon for bringing me to the article that brought me here. Most of you will see my posts and probably hate me, no worries, I have lost all hope in humanity off of this website and article that I will surely not be returning. YOU PEOPLE, yes, you people are what is wrong with this society. You expect everyone else to give more when I ask this, how about YOU give more. Work longer days, work harder, work more efficiently, work to improve your skills (schooling, reading a book on skills that might help you improve your work) and rise to the top. Stop expecting everyone to do everything for your but you yourselves pay more in taxes (the more you work the more you pay in taxes so hey that is also another way out of our budget problem and will probably account for the 1.5 trillion or whatever made up number Gigi had)

    This is some of the most unproductive conversation I have ever saw in my day that resulted in no clear solution (but really there was no clear problem to begin with other than laziness on all parties’s part) and just a bunch of sob stories that blames someone else for everything that happened. America has becomes too entitled and too stubborn to realize that they are lazy. Come to work at my factory for a day and I guarantee none of you would have a job by the end of it because you would be blaming me for too much work and not enough pay (you want to make what I make, show me you can work hard enough to do what I do otherwise shut your damn mouth). Good bye or whatever fake bullshit this website is.

    • Andrew Jones

      You’re right, there’s not way the most profitable companies in history have more influence over policy than the poorest Americans in living memory. They just need to work harder! I also have some incredible Magic Reagan Beans I can sell you- special price.

      • MJangles

        I think DA makes a persuasive argument. I plan on spending the next week motivating myself to get off my lazy ass and borrow some literature on obtaining the skills I need to become a productive member of society! Of course if no one hires me based solely on the fact that I’ve read a few books, then I’ll know exactly who to blame.

  • Matthew DeCarlo

    Dear idiots with the correct conclusion, you do realize that TANF is only one of many programs designed to help the poor, right? Medicaid? Housing Assistance? SNAP? Look, I agree that corporate welfare should be stopped. But fuck man, your numbers aren’t even close.

  • Joe Economist

    Is it just me? The link to “traditional social welfare programs” does not mention 59 billion, and only discusses housing. It is either a bad link or a misleading statement.

  • Pingback: It is time to get serious about reducing corporate welfare, including farm subsidies | SoDakLiberty()

  • As always, shut the whole thing down. There’s no need for government.

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs « Attack the System()

  • Pingback: america-wakiewakie: At a time when half of Americans are near… | | Die Silent |()

  • Pingback: 20 things the poor really do every day « Ben Irwin()

  • Pingback: Three reasons you haven't considered why we need to raise the minimum wage | Free Thinker News()

  • Pingback: 20 Things the Poor Do Everyday That the Rich Never Have to Worry About | Guillotine mediocrity in all its forms!()

  • Pingback: 20 Things the Poor Do Everyday That the Rich Never Have to Worry About | ΕΝΙΑΙΟ ΜΕΤΩΠΟ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΣ()

  • Pingback: Yes, welfare is going to bankrupt the US Government - Christian Forums()

  • Pingback: Are you sure you're mad at the wrong people? - Page 4()

  • Pingback: The hidden welfare state that the U.K. government dares not speak of | Beyond the Mainstream()

  • Pingback: The hidden welfare state that the U.K. government dares not speak of | ΕΝΙΑΙΟ ΜΕΤΩΠΟ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΣ()

  • Pingback: Things the Poor Do()

  • Pingback: Uncle Santa | PakistanPeoples.Com()

  • Pingback: How the GOP (et al) Sticks It To the Poor - Page 2()

  • Pingback: 20 Things the Poor Really Do Every Day | We Report()

  • Pingback: 20 Things that You Need to Know About the Poor and What We Do Daily | People's Advocacy Council()

  • Pingback: Acceptance of Individual Welfare ≠ Lazy and Undeserving | Progressive Mormon Mom()

  • Pingback: Most New Obamacare Enrollees Get Subsidies - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 4 - City-Data Forum()

  • Pingback: ERRORS OF THE POOR | kobby007()

  • Pingback: System Moochiers. - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: Washington Liberals » Cost of food stamps versus corporate subsidies: fact checking()

  • e2mamafrog

    Gigi, your logic is extremely flawed. If you decrease the amount a company takes and increase their government taxes what do you think they will do? Make it more machine and less employee oriented, pay the employees they have less, raise the cost of goods (pass along the rate increases) and if all else fails shut their doors in our nation and outsource. They probably have the option to shut down fully as well.
    So, are we better with jobs in this nation and the already over inflated prices we pay or with nothing at all in this country that benefits.
    The tax breaks are to keep them here and keep them following guidelines. The tax benefits to them are to hire 5 employees for 2 jobs. Is it great? Nope. Is it really a good solution? Nope. Is it necessary? Probably. They now have to pay for insurance for everyone, high risk or not. They can’t fire people who suck at their job, thanks unions. They have to pay many fees and follow many standards set (many are good, but still imposing). What are your businesses by the way?

  • Pingback: Red State, Blue State: Which States Have Received the Most Federal Funds Since 2000? - Page 2 - Political Wrinkles()

  • Pingback: The Fall of Rome, and Why America Can Avoid the Same Fate | jameschristophergolden()

  • I work for my money

    End the so called corporate welfare. Prices will go up and that would take the burden off of the taxpayers and let the people that complain most about it pay their share.

  • American Kafir

    Only a moron equates money being spent from our treasuries with tax breaks (money NOT being spent from the treasury.)

  • Jonathan

    I’m confused exactly how the 2 are comparable? Subsidies to corporations that pay taxes on earnings, and whose employees pay income tax on earnings versus subsidies to individuals who pay marginal if any income tax(usually not). I’d wager to say that although the 92 billion dollars in subsidy is considerable more the gain from that “investment” is far more substantial than the hand-outs going as federal welfare.

    • mj58

      Like Exxon? They paid ZERO tax! Most pay lower taxes than the middle class

      • Jonathan

        Just for argument sake, take a 20,000 employee corporation(which Exxon is about 4 times larger than) with each employee having an average salary of 50,000. That’s approximately 1 Billion dollars in taxable income, or at a 20% tax bracket(which is probably appropriate) roughly 250 million dollars, and that’s 1 company. Suddenly that 92 billion dollars doesn’t seem like that much of an investment when you think that Exxon’s employees alone probably paid almost 1 billion of that 92 billion dollars “subsidy” back in taxes. And that’s “if” said company pays, zero dollars in actual Tax on Earnings. Nevermind the products they make, which earn sales tax for local economies which could never be accurately calculated, but will be way greater than the sum of 92 billion dollars(aggregately ofcourse). Nevermind the fact that those employees will have to have places to live, to eat, to enjoy life all of which are additionally taxed activities, and they are capable of doing so because of their better jobs.

      • pgrove

        ExxonMobil made their money in foreign countries. In the US they had a loss. That is the reason they didn’t pay any taxes here…they didn’t make any money here. Tax Deductions that they get are not subsidies.

  • Jos America

    Less socialism/communism would be better for this country, period. When one recognizes that the supposed ‘farm bill’ is 80% food stamp subsidies, you will begin to get a clue. The federal government should be defending our borders and negotiating fair inter- and intra-state trade … that’s it! Now I will give them some room to “invest” in big things like space exploration or projects that benefit the whole country but since the 1960s, they have not been that successful at that either.

  • Pingback: What American Taxpayers Should Really Be Outraged About()

  • RJ

    Not including medicaid in the numbers is extremely misleading. No, putting it in there doesn’t mean you have to include roads. One is a direct payment to an individual (or on an individual’s behalf) in exchange for something that benefits that particular individual. The other is someone that is available for the public good. Medicaid isn’t the same as roads. It would be the same as the government paying to maintain my driveway, which last time I checked, they don’t do.

    If you want to argue that better health benefits everyone…ok….but the amount of medicaid spending used to treat non-STD communicable disease is negligible. Long story short, medicaid money is spent to promote the health of the individual, not the health of society at large.

    • alwaysthink

      Measles, flu and polio are just a few of the disease we prevent when everyone is vaccinated against them. And this public health program only works when almost everyone has gotten the medicine. TB is another very contagious disease that we have pretty much wiped out. The US is also without Malaria thanks to vector districts in most places. This is all stuff that benefits society at large.

      I pay taxes to live in a civilized society with road and good health for all.

  • MJangles

    I wish those of you arguing would add citations to go along with all of these facts you’re so vehemently asserting.

  • Pingback: Changing the rules of the game to help build new local economies : REconomy()

  • Pingback: Changing the Rules Of The Game To Help Build New Local Economies : Conscious Life News()

  • Pingback: Why expats are ditching their U.S. passports - Page 3 - Political Wrinkles()


  • Pingback: Understanding the wealthy who are robbing the rest of us and why we have to fight back | Lloyd Lofthouse()

  • disqus_9WB669bU8M

    Spending on means base welfare to individuals is about $1 trillion/year. The link referred to in the $59 billion number is only for housing assistance. The biggest items in means-based welfare are Medicaid, Food Assistance (Food Stamps, etc), and direct cash benefits. I agree that corporate welfare should be reduced gigantically but misrepresenting the size of means-based welfare to individuals by a factor of 16 undermines your case See: More

  • Pingback: What is the American Dream? | Occupy the American Dream()

  • Pingback: Tehran now owns a 777? - Page 3 - Shooting Sports Forum()

  • Pingback: Tom Perkins Is Willing to Say What the Rest of the Ultrarich Are Secretly Thinking - Page 9 - Political Wrinkles()

  • Bob

    Wait… you describe social welfare as financial aid provided by the government to individuals and then dont include in social security in your total social welfare numbers? Come on man.

  • DT

    You’re definition of social welfare is too simplistic. The number that most matters, per the senate, is more like 1 trillion. See link. Not withstanding, corporate welfare can by the way side as well if you ask me.

  • Pingback: EBT cards are working again.. | HORROR REPORT()

  • hargen

    You list billions that go to oil and gas companies as subsidies. True, but the subsidies are to cover wind, solar, and bio-fuel. Energy sources that DIRECTLY compete with the “corporate welfare queens” business. Oil and Gas companies don’t want wind and solar (can we agree?). So why would you include government payments to make them produce a competing product welfare to the oil and gas company? A local county that lowers its tax rate to attract a business isn’t welfare, it is negotiating. The local county will get its money back x 10 in other taxes when the company relocates or expands. You call this welfare? When a company has a 2 for 1 special on shampoo are you receiving welfare from the company?

    • this is simplistic at best, dishonest … giving a company like walmart tax breaks in negotiation … to supposedly ‘lure’ them to build their monstrosity, is suicide for any town . it undermines small businesses, and walmart receives extra, indirect, subsidies in the form of food stamps and other assistance to their two million underpaid employees . according to economists, the cost of living is $22/hr full time …

      the county/town does not end up getting it’s money back, but ends up dealing with more and more poverty over time, thanks to low wage employers taking over

      • hargen

        And your post is just plain incorrect.

        • do tell … and prove while you’re at it . before bothering, watch ‘walmart’ … the movie :::

          and please bother to think about reality : people working full time at minimum wage, or even at $10/hr, gross $400/week, $1600/month, $19,200/year . after taxes, a person is earning below poverty wages, making them eligible for government benefits including food stamps, housing assistance, ssi, tanf, medicaid …

          here are the 2014 poverty guidelines, used to determine eligibility :::

          your post is devoid of information, and devoid of reason

  • Pingback: Hold the Clives, Please | Left of Center()

  • Pingback: REPUBLICANS “WAGE WAR” ON WORKING AMERICANS | Speak for Yourself()

  • pbr90

    In the great right-left debate, it seems common sense to socialize health, education, welfare, and security, not the business of capitalism.

    Using government for capitalist perks and subsidies is very slippery slope where citizens may end up subsidizing business rather than their own needs.

  • General Consults

    If you need a genuine and reliable loan help,and don’t want to be a scam victim,I think this is for you.This is a testimony on how,I was ripped off by some idiot that calls themselves lenders,and how I finally got my financial freedom through a God sent helper that finally gave my life a meaning,with the least cheapest rates as to 5% interest and little TOKEN other requirements and they don’t give a damn to your credit score…For more info on how to reach this link,email me via “ “

  • Pingback: Beach bum eats lobster tails funded by foodstamps & owns a Cadillac refuses 2 work - Page 2()

  • Pingback: Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality - Page 238 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: for beginners()

  • Charles Ray

    There is a simple solution to this entire argument and that is the Fair Tax. And all the people that are commenting saying that the GOP is to blame and that they are in collusion with big business you would be partly correct. Democrats receive more in donations from big business than the GOP, both parties are a different side of the same coin. We need a third party option like the Libertarians to gain enough power to help make a change.

    • The Fair Tax would indeed more equally distribute the tax burden by eliminating special interest tax breaks given to those wealthy enough to buy Washington influence.

    • EdG1955

      Europe’s version of the Fair Tax, called the Value Added Tax, has proved a miserable failure.

      • Charles Ray

        The problem is that the Value Added Tax and the Fair Tax are two completely different systems. The VAT is a tax added on to the price of merchandise, where as the Fair Tax is not a tax added to the price. The Fair Tax would do away with the current complex progressive tax system that we have in place.
        Everything that you purchase right now has about a 23 – 25% tax built into the price that the company passed on to the consumer, under the Fair Tax that percentage would not be passed on by the company because they would no longer be paying it when they make the product. That percentage would stay in the price but it would be collected and sent to the govt for what they collect for operations. There would be no sales tax at point of purchase. So if you bought a tv that was priced at 1000.00, when you pay you pay 1000.00. 23 – 25% of that 1000.00 would be the tax that the govt collects. There would be no payroll tax, so if you make 10 per hour and work 40 hours your check for the week would be 400.00.
        If you read or someone told you that the Fair Tax would raise the cost of goods then they do not know what they are talking about. If you need anymore info on what the Fair Tax is go to and any questions you have they have answers and they have been studying this system and it’s feasibility for more than 20 years now.

        • EdG1955

          Sounds nearly identical to VAT. The tax is added to the price of merchandise at some point. Where that point lies is immaterial really. And the Fair Tax requires a convoluted accounting system to reduce its regressiveness.

          • Charles Ray

            Again No! The Fair Tax is simplifying a convoluted system (current system is like 70k something pages of regulations) and is simply replacing a tax that is already built into the price of goods, You pay that tax now when you shop, you’d still pay that amount but no more than that. They are similar in that they are both considered a consumption tax.

            Our present tax system is one of the reasons that people are finding it so difficult to get ahead these days. It is one of the reasons the next generation may not have a standard of living as high as this generation. Cars replaced the horse and buggy, the telephone replaced the telegraph, and the FairTax replaces the income tax. The income tax is holding us back and making it more difficult than it needs to be to improve our families’ standard of living. It makes it needlessly difficult for our businesses to compete in international markets. It wastes vast resources on complying with needless paperwork. We can do better and we must.

  • David Taylor

    Having scanned through the article, there seems to be one huge difference between corporate welfare and people welfare: The government is courting the Walmarts to build their businesses somewhere that will benefit the government. They are rewarding these companies for their success that they want a piece of. The people welfare is the exact opposite. Those that fail are given money without any benefit to the government, but a real benefit to specific politicians that court these welfare recipients’ votes. I’m all for cutting as much welfare out of the system as possible, but one appears to me to be promoting enterprise and success, and the other promoting failure and dependency.

    • EdG1955

      Have you ever met a welfare recipient that would rather receive welfare than be employed at a fulfilling, well-paid job?

      • David Taylor

        The welfare recipients I have known had no interest in finding a job, but seemed constantly waiting for something miraculous to happen.

        • EdG1955

          That’s a different problem altogether. They’ve heard of the American dream but don’t know how to go about getting it. When you see people like Kim Kardashian getting rich just for having big boobs and a big butt, and when you see young men becoming millionaires for shooting hoops or rapping, it’s easy to understand that people want a miracle.

      • Scot Conway

        I have met man welfare recipients who would rather receive welfare than take an entry level position that doesn’t pay more or very much more than the welfare, even if that entry level position could lead to being well-paid.

        And I’m not sure what percentage of the population considers their jobs fulfilling. I’ve heard less than 30%. So I’m not sure how much we can rightly include that as part of the standard.

  • markshlitz

    So lets add another dynamic and see if your numbers add up. How much TAX did these Corp. Welfare Queens pay? How much TAX did the sales generated by these Corp. Welfare Queens generate? How much TAX did the employees these Corp. Welfare Queens hire, pay? Now lets take away all the jobs these companies created. How much money does the Gov’t lose and then have to reduce Gov’t jobs. I would say it’s the Gov’t who is the Welfare Queen here. A parasite on the back of the worker.

    Now do the same for the people who got welfare.
    Something tells me your story falls apart at this point.

  • Basher04

    Wow, this is disgusting. We spend that much on food stamps and unemployment. And people are fussing about helping business trying to grow.

  • RickHarley

    Oooppsss…seems your numbers are horribly wrong.

    • @RickHarley:disqus Actually, the year is just wrong. My numbers are for 2007 spending and your link has 2014 statistics on social welfare. It wouldn’t be an apples to apples comparison if I used different years.

      If you can find me the corporate welfare numbers for 2014 as well, I’d love to update the article with your recent figures.

  • Pingback: Welfare Queens: Fact and Fiction | Plutocracy Ascendant()

  • dharmeshjpatel1972

    UNBELIEVABLE have you heard your parents,brothers,neighbours,realtive donot wish that you donot earn even one penny?,have you heard your neighbours,relative keep watch on you by 24 by 7 ? and for more UNBELIEVABLE PLEASE VISIT


  • Pingback:

  • fog643

    Tax deductibles expenditures allowed to businesses are NOT the same thing as checks written by the government for social programs. I’m not trying to make a case for one or the other, but they are not the same things, This is an apples & oranges debate.

    • Thanks for the comment. I think you missed this part of the article.

      What is NOT considered corporate welfare?
      1. Government Contracts
      2. Tax Breaks

      What IS considered corporate welfare?

  • ron

    Report: U.S. Spent $3.7 Trillion on Welfare Over Last 5 Years . the number they quote may be only what the federal gov pays but you are not including all payments . Quit using part numbers

  • Dusty Royer

    These numbers are wonky. If you include corporate tax breaks, you need to also include individual tax breaks, like EIC, and child care credit, dependent deduction, etc.

    • What is NOT considered corporate welfare?
      1. Government Contracts – To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud, I suppose the primary service they provide could be considered to be repeatedly violating the American taxpayer.
      2. Tax Breaks – Tax breaks targeted to benefit specific corporations could also be considered a form of welfare. Tax loopholes force other businesses and individual taxpayers without the same political clout to pick up the slack and sacrifice a greater share of their hard-earned money to decrease the financial burden on these corporations. However, to simplify matters, we’ve only included financial handouts to companies in our working definition of corporate welfare.

      What IS considered corporate welfare?
      Subsidies – On the other hand, the $15 billion in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures.

  • Pingback: Why I'm A Bitcoiner | GoldSilverBitcoin()

  • ZincKidd

    “the government? Which government?. Let’s see some comparisons by country. This US-centric evaluation is out of context.

  • Pingback: Who Spends Most of Your Tax Money? - Page 3()


  • Pingback: Growing Poverty in America | So Sue me()

  • Pingback: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs | Citizen()

  • Pingback: USA! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! USA!!! WOOOHOOO!!! | MrMaxPics()

  • Hello, I would like to subscribe for this weblog to take most up-to-date updates, thus where can i do
    it please assist.

  • Nadzwyczaj interesujący wpis, polecam ludziom

  • First of all I would like to say great blog! I had a quick question which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.
    I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear your mind prior to writing.
    I have had a tough time clearing my mind in getting my thoughts out there.
    I do enjoy writing however it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are usually
    lost just trying to figure out how to begin. Any recommendations or tips?

  • Aw, this was an extremely good post. Finding the time and actual effort to create a really good
    article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a whole lot and
    never seem to get anything done.

  • Good article! We will be linking to this particularly great post on our site.
    Keep up the good writing.

  • Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your
    blog and wished to mention that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts.
    After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!

  • I alway spent my half an hour to rwad this website’s posts daikly along with
    a mug of coffee.

  • Your style is unique in comparison to other people I’ve read stuff from.
    Thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this blog.

  • This website was… how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something that helped me.
    Thank you!,

  • When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox annd now each time a comment is added I get four e-mails with the same
    comment. Is there any way you can remove me from
    that service? Many thanks!

  • It’s appropriate time to make some plans for the longer
    term and it is time to be happy. I’ve learn this put up and if I may just I want to suggest you
    some fascinating issues or tips. Maybe you can write next
    articles referring to this article. I wish to read more things approximately it!

  • Hello, i think that i noticed you visited my weblog so i gott here to go back
    the prefer?.I am attempting too to finnd things to enhance my
    web site!I assume its goo enoujgh to make use of some of
    your ideas!!

  • Pingback: The “Welfare State” in Theory and Practice | damiansacademia()

  • Pingback: adjustable dumbbell()

  • Pingback: commercial roofing quote()

  • Pingback: best DUI lawyer Milwaukee()

  • Pingback: buffet bbq()

  • Pingback: Then They Fight You: Plutocrats on the Defensive Against Social Justice Movements -()

  • Pingback: Then They Fight You: Plutocrats on the Defensive Against Social Justice Movements –… | the interpretOr()

  • Pingback: welfare is not charity - Page 5 - Defending The Truth Political Forum()

  • Pingback: The Real Reason for the Season. | Roll to Disbelieve()

  • Pingback: Why We Need to Optimize Societal Resource Allocation | My Very Special Internet Website()

  • Pingback: CBO: Deficits To Explode As Obama Leaves Office - Page 7()

  • Pingback: PHAWKER.COM – Curated News, Gossip, Concert Reviews, Fearless Political Commentary, Interviews….Plus, the Usual Sex, Drugs and Rock n' Roll » Blog Archive » COMMENT: The Class War Is Over If You Want It()

  • hunt macleod

    My colleagues needed IRS 1040 – Schedule EIC earlier today and were made aware of a great service with lots of form templates . If people want IRS 1040 – Schedule EIC too , here’s

  • 48574

    You know you start by saying tax breaks aren’t part of corporate welfare then your first graphic includes tax breaks to the energy industry.

    This is important as most of the so called oil/gas subsidies are tax breaks that are in fact fully justified. The big one is depletion. This is nothing but a form of depreciation expense we give every other company but for some reason it is a subsidy when applied to oil/gas. That represents just an anti-oil/gas bias not sound public policy.

    As a side not to the degree there are direct subsidies and tax deductions that could be called subsidies what most people don’t realize is by law the large oil companies can’t access them. Or put another way no Exxon is not getting these. It is the small independents.

  • Rachel Rhodes

    you undermine your (excellent) point by the numbers- sorry but 59 is not 50% of 92

    • Thanks, Rachael! Actually, 50% more doesn’t mean 50% of $92 in this context. 50% more means 50% of $59 billion + $59 billion. ($92 – $59)/$59 = 55% more spent on corporate welfare. I just rounded to 50%. 😀

      • Rachel Rhodes

        hey, thanks for communication! gettin out my pencil, but I get your point!

  • Andrew Bennett

    In one year the USA Federal and State Government spent $11.9 Trillion dollars that equal to a 175 years of surplus funds, to save; Corporate banks, State Banks, Federal Banks, The Auto Industry, and The Wall Street Stock and New York stock Exchange all so that they could give BONUS to the top 1%. The 99% aka Middle-Class workers was laid-off to pay for the bonuses and whom didn’t receive any bonus for a job well done! A $15.99-$20.00 Minimum wage would take Thousand of people off of welfare and government assistance. On the job training would help as well.

  • Cindy

    I have one. I’ve sent a letter to Dems, Republicans and even Obama when he was in office and the ONLY PERSON to answer me back was Bernie Sanders. I asked why are the taxpayers pay for “temporary employees?” Hiring a temporary employee is a “tax write off and expense.” Frankly, I don’t understand why the taxpayers are paying for free labor to successful companies!!!!! It STINKS OF CORRUPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Barry Straight

    corporations pay taxes, welfare is payed with those corporate taxes. so corporate welfare is really just them paying less taxes, while welfare generates no income.and is payed for by corporations and the rest of us tax payers


Send me an email and I'll get back to you, asap.


©2017 Mike P. Sinn

Log in with your credentials


Forgot your details?

Create Account