The war on poverty was a failure.

Nonsense. I would expect my opinion to be taken with a grain of salt if I spouted off about another country's politics. Clean up your own mess before claiming to be an expert on mine.

Treated as equals means not pitying. Poor doesnt mean unhappy... quit trying to 'fix' people.

 

I have posted these graphs repeatedly. Please don't dodge

When I history did companies not all act in their own self interest? When have humans acted that way? (As opposed to now, or compared to now etc...)

- - - Updated - - -

How much have enviros and regulations cost them?

 

Good idea say 10 poor families bought three plots and set up camp sites, or trailers with latrines and no connections to power or water as in what most could afford say with $10,000 to spend so you would want that. What do you think people have lots of money if they are earning a bit over the poverty line and own land there are limits on using it.

An option would be they buy the land and the government puts up the housing, up for that?

 

Why is it so difficult to convince the right to be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws regarding employment at will and ensure that form of equality before law?

 

Yes, the $85 billion to subsidize the private corporate interests is striking, and I didn't think you'd like it. The USA has more private sector participation in the production of civilian nuclear power than any other nation.

The libertarian CATO Institute offers many other examples. Somewhat dated now, there is this study from back in the Bush era:

And, the huge corporate welfare outlays continue:

Whilst you are availing yourself of such enlightenment, I trust that you have checked and now accept that Calvin Coolidge was not a "European socialist"?

 

to just say there was 92 billion in "corporate welfare" is not giving an example of one. Just name a specific thing.

 

Whilst it may cause denizens of either ideological extreme to snivel, the extant reality is that the formula for success that first-world nations have settled upon is a fusion of capitalism and socialism - whether you consider the prosperpous European nations, those of the Americas, or others: Israel, for instance. Although it does not have the Christian ethical basis that motivates so many, it is a financially-successful social welfare state by any estimation.

What works, works. And when patriotism and morality coincide, so much the better!

 

I have cited examples and sources that should enhance your understanding of corporate welfare if you wish to pursue them, as handily as you have been able to familiarize yourself with America's presidents.

 

You gave no examples. Lefties are calling normal business write offs "corporate welfare". I you do not like a business write off please state which one you do not like.

 

And no one's more likely to be impartial in their opinions.

Few of them even know what it would mean to be treated as equals. They are as deaf and blind to the treadmill they are running on as the people in the Matrix.

Smart mouth, yes; opinions, not so much.

 

You know, I don't follow you around the board making notes on all your posts. You say you've put it up repeatedly. Did you put up exactly the same data from exactly the same source each time? If I went searching, how would I know I'd found the exact data you want to discuss now?

It really would simplify things if you put up at least a link. That should be simple for you, as you've posted it repeatedly....

How people behave, in their own interest, depends on what actions are possible to them, and how they view their interests. These will vary depending on the social and economic structure. This is terribly obvious, seems to me.

 

Did you even look at the Cato Institute study he pointed you to?

 

sure I saw a blanket statement so what. Name one write off that you call corporate welfare.

 

Just like the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism the "War on Poverty" was a misnomer.

All that the federal government has ever attempted to do is to mitigate the effects of poverty and in that regard it's been highly successful. It has never initiated any action or policy that would fundamentally take the poor and make them better off financially. There are ways to do that but our government has not taken any pragmatic steps in that direction.

So "welfare" assistance is highly successful in mitigating the effects of poverty but does nothing really to reduce poverty. It is not a "redistribution of wealth" as many "conservatives" claim because it builds no wealth for those in poverty. Redistribution of wealth requires the taking of financial assets from one source and increasing the financial assets of the receiving entity but that doesn't happen with welfare as the poor have no financial assets being built based upon welfare assistance. They start with "nothing" and end up with "nothing" based upon welfare assistance.

 

Yes, of course it is. The private utility companies involved have received massive government subsidies. You have merely decided not to know that fact, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

Which somehow does not prevent private corporations from profiting in it...

Farm subsidies, which go almost entirely to agribusiness corporations:

http://farm.ewg.org/

Start reading.

- - - Updated - - -

DID YOU LOOK AT THE STUDY?

I have already done so. You need to start reading the posts you purport to be responding to.

 

If, in order to maintain your fiction, you must categorize the libertarian CATO Institute as "leftie" for their condemning rampant corporate welfare, you are every bit as askew as in your casting President Coolidge as a "European socialist."

 

I get it. You cannot name a specific. I knew you wouldn't.

 

bad example all the way around. Its all so heavily regulated and price controlled it has little left to it to resemble free enterprise.

Name something about say the oil industry. That is your favorite whipping boy industry isn't it? If you cannot name one aspect of this so called corporate welfare then you cannot name it about anything.

 

Opinions of the uninformed are worth less than nothing. They merely take up space.

 

You made the statement about "back then" and "now" lets hear the times. Look up Reagan presidency and the Gingrich era for the answer.

 

That is not how it was sold at all. You can't claim something is a misnomer when it fails to achieve its goals.

And how is life in the projects? In inner city schools? We're people dying on the streets of starvation before? If you want to see life in central planning vs a choice system like vouchers, youtube "Dallas + voucher + stampede"

 

Solyndra. Corporate welfare specific. Back to the topic of the war on poverty programs getting scrapped with corporate welfare. Millions of other specific welfare regulations, rules, and handouts. Obama administration has been blatant about it. Go to recovery.gov for a decent list

 

Why is being poor a bad thing many of my rural relatives live on below poverty line incomes and have small farms and do other work and may be on paper poor but don't want for anything and have strong communities and are tough? Most didn't consider themselves poor until the government came in and complained about it. In fact its the ones that leave to say join the armed forces that can't settle down when they come back home.

 

So, now all you need to do is explain why only someone with a stake in the game can be informed. Which you will not be doing.

 

No, it's a good example all the way around, because it proves you wrong. Just like all the other examples you asked for, have been given, and now pretend not to have seen.

Who said anything about free enterprise? You asked for examples of corporate welfare, which BY DEFINITION are not going to resemble free enterprise. You have been given examples. You have chosen not to know the facts identified for you, because you know that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. Simple.

Deferral of taxes on offshore profits. Military support for their ownership of fossil fuel resources in other countries. The list is not a short one.

No. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

I and others have named several aspects. You just pretend we haven't, because you know that you have been proved objectively wrong. Simple. The only mystery here is whom you erroneously imagine yourself to be fooling, other than yourself.