Welfare

[Flitzerbiest]

No, not that welfare, this welfare:

billmoyers.com/2014/01/16/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-corporations-and-the-ultra-rich/

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 12:50:16 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

No, not that welfare, this welfare:

billmoyers.com/2014/01/16/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-corporations-and-the-ultra-rich/

Hi Flitz:

I'd be in favor of greatly simplifying the tax code.  I really would.

Still, with respect to most of these examples of "welfare" I have to point out that this article is grossly misusing the word welfare merely to incite populist resentment.  It's kind of cheesy.  As far as I can tell, the only one of the things on this list that directly benefits me is the home mortgage interest deduction.   My wife and I pay a ton in federal income tax.  So do you.  Our respective tax burdens are slightly reduced because someone somewhere decided that a deduction for home mortgage interest was a good policy.  No one who respects the English language should call a slight reduction in taxes paid "welfare."  

The lead example in the story concerns state and local payments to provide incentive for businesses to do business in their state.  That is not welfare, it is rational economic development policy.  I want my state to attract businesses and if we put together a juicy tax and real estate package to attract new employers, the state benefits.  This is a win/win for the business and the state and hardly "welfare."  Would we be better off if those jobs went elsewhere?

Most of the other items on that list are a bit more esoteric, but these examples are typically reductions to the taxes businesses or people pay based upon activities that someone somewhere in government thought was a good policy.We could have a very legitimate debate concerning whether such things as a home interest deduction are good policy.  I'd prefer to take the "No" side of that debate actually.    Perhaps the government should get out of the incentive business altogether.  That's another possible debate, and one I'd like to take the "Yes" side of.   These deductions might very well be bad policy and in some cases they might be gross insider deals.  They aren't welfare though.

Jim

p.s.  I see that I have just achieved full membership with this post.   I feel so fulfilled!

[Flitzerbiest]

Jan 24, 2014 15:18:43 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

Jan 24, 2014 12:50:16 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

No, not that welfare, this welfare:

billmoyers.com/2014/01/16/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-corporations-and-the-ultra-rich/

Hi Flitz:

I'd be in favor of greatly simplifying the tax code.  I really would.

Still, with respect to most of these examples of "welfare" I have to point out that this article is grossly misusing the word welfare merely to incite populist resentment.  It's kind of cheesy.

Yeah. No chance at all that the Right uses the word welfare to incite populist resentment. [/quote] 

Trout said:

As far as I can tell, the only one of the things on this list that directly benefits me is the home mortgage interest deduction.   My wife and I pay a ton in federal income tax.  So do you.  Our respective tax burdens are slightly reduced because someone somewhere decided that a deduction for home mortgage interest was a good policy.  No one who respects the English language should call a slight reduction in taxes paid "welfare."  

How about eminent domain?  Here in MN, we had a car dealer with a prime location on I-494.  Best Buy decided that they wanted it, conspired with local government to steal his land for "the public interest", then offered Best Buy the land at a deep discount and with decreased corporate taxes.  

You should have noticed that direct to company subsidies were number 1 and 2 on this list.  Agribusiness receives the bulk of farm subsidies.  I have only given a couple of examples.  There are plenty that are as welfare as AFDC.  But more on that after you step in it a little deeper.

Jan 24, 2014 15:18:43 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

The lead example in the story concerns state and local payments to provide incentive for businesses to do business in their state.  That is not welfare, it is rational economic development policy.  I want my state to attract businesses and if we put together a juicy tax and real estate package to attract new employers, the state benefits.  This is a win/win for the business and the state and hardly "welfare."  Would we be better off if those jobs went elsewhere?

…and there it is. It's sound economic policy to lure Business A from State X to State Y for purposes of enhancing the bottom line of both, but ensuring that tomorrow's workers are kept from starvation, education, vaccinated and given job training is the gravy train. Got it.

Jan 24, 2014 15:18:43 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

p.s.  I see that I have just achieved full membership with this post.   I feel so fulfilled!

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 16:06:36 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

…and there it is. It's sound economic policy to lure Business A from State X to State Y for purposes of enhancing the bottom line of both, but ensuring that tomorrow's workers are kept from starvation, education, vaccinated and given job training is the gravy train. Got it.

Straw man much?

I've not implied or stated that ensuring tomorrow's workers are kept from starvation, education, vaccinated and given job training... "is the gravy train"... Good grief!  Populist rabble rousing is simply irresistible to you.

I'm pointing out that policy-based tax deductions are not welfare. Education, vaccination or job training programs are not welfare either, by the way.

Who, other than you, said that they were?

J

[Flitzerbiest]

Jan 24, 2014 16:24:23 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

Jan 24, 2014 16:06:36 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

…and there it is. It's sound economic policy to lure Business A from State X to State Y for purposes of enhancing the bottom line of both, but ensuring that tomorrow's workers are kept from starvation, education, vaccinated and given job training is the gravy train. Got it.

Straw man much?

I've not implied or stated that ensuring tomorrow's workers are kept from starvation, education, vaccinated and given job training... "is the gravy train"... Good grief!  Populist rabble rousing is simply irresistible to you.

I'm pointing out that policy-based tax deductions are not welfare. Education, vaccination or job training programs are not welfare either, by the way.

Who, other than you, said that they were?

J

All I know is that every time Washington gets the itch to cut the budget, they come after all of the above while asking nothing from corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget.

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 16:40:50 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Jan 24, 2014 16:24:23 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

Straw man much?

I've not implied or stated that ensuring tomorrow's workers are kept from starvation, education, vaccinated and given job training... "is the gravy train"... Good grief!  Populist rabble rousing is simply irresistible to you.

I'm pointing out that policy-based tax deductions are not welfare. Education, vaccination or job training programs are not welfare either, by the way.

Who, other than you, said that they were?

J

All I know is that every time Washington gets the itch to cut the budget, they come after all of the above while asking nothing from corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget.

Seriously?  You're mistaking spin for actual policy.  The last "budget cuts" were the mightily unpopular Sequester:




Peruse the following please.  Read the part about low-income programs in particular.  Some got hurt (Head Start), but not as much as defense.  This is Ezra Klein's Wonkblog by the way, not exactly a right leaning outlet.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/

Jim

[Flitzerbiest]

We all know that the sequester is toast.

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 17:51:45 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

We all know that the sequester is toast.

So what?  It is the most recent budget cut we have and it certainly did not look anything like, "All I know is that every time Washington gets the itch to cut the budget, they come after all of the above while asking nothing from corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget."  Are we going to discuss policy or indulge in partisan spin?

[Flitzerbiest]

Jan 24, 2014 21:59:29 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

Jan 24, 2014 17:51:45 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

We all know that the sequester is toast.

So what?  It is the most recent budget cut we have and it certainly did not look anything like, "All I know is that every time Washington gets the itch to cut the budget, they come after all of the above while asking nothing from corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget."  Are we going to discuss policy or indulge in partisan spin?

Apparently spin, since you're content to post a chart that doesn't take into account the fact that the latest budget deal gives the DOD more than half of their cut back and say that this is not relevant to the discussion.

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 16:06:36 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

How about eminent domain?  Here in MN, we had a car dealer with a prime location on I-494.  Best Buy decided that they wanted it, conspired with local government to steal his land for "the public interest", then offered Best Buy the land at a deep discount and with decreased corporate taxes.  

You should have noticed that direct to company subsidies were number 1 and 2 on this list.  Agribusiness receives the bulk of farm subsidies.  I have only given a couple of examples.  There are plenty that are as welfare as AFDC.  But more on that after you step in it a little deeper.

Circling back for a moment, I'm surprised that I have to demonstrate my libertarian bona-fides to you. Your eminent domain example is not welfare, it is theft by the state, graft and corruption. Heads should roll. Direct transfers to agribusiness justify the welfare tag. I'll give you that one. Of course, I would much prefer that the government not manipulate the markets in this fashion.

Jim

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 22:05:52 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Jan 24, 2014 21:59:29 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

So what?  It is the most recent budget cut we have and it certainly did not look anything like, "All I know is that every time Washington gets the itch to cut the budget, they come after all of the above while asking nothing from corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget."  Are we going to discuss policy or indulge in partisan spin?

Apparently spin, since you're content to post a chart that doesn't take into account the fact that the latest budget deal gives the DOD more than half of their cut back and say that this is not relevant to the discussion.

Post your own chart then.  Try to find one that shows deep cuts to domestic programs for citizens while not touching corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget.  

[Flitzerbiest]

I don't think you have to establish your libertarian credentials, nor do I have to defend everything on Moyer's site, but you seem to be objecting rather irrationally to the idea that there is a hell of a lot of money being directed toward subsidizing big business and those with very large incomes. There is.

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 22:10:29 GMT -6 @rainbowtrout said:

Jan 24, 2014 22:05:52 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Apparently spin, since you're content to post a chart that doesn't take into account the fact that the latest budget deal gives the DOD more than half of their cut back and say that this is not relevant to the discussion.

Post your own chart then.  Try to find one that shows deep cuts to domestic programs for citizens while not touching corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget.  

Here you go:

"The deal replaces about half of sequestration's cuts to defense and non-defense discretionary spending in 2014. It replaces about a fourth of them in 2015. That means most of sequestration will go into effect in both years."

Ezra Klein again.  www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/heres-whats-in-paul-ryan-and-patty-murrays-mini-budget-deal/

Have you found any real-world support consistent with your statement, "All I know is that every time Washington gets the itch to cut the budget, they come after all of the above while asking nothing from corporate subsidies or the pentagon budget?"

You won't because that is just spin.  Real conservatives are more pragmatic than your straw men.  

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2014 22:15:03 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

I don't think you have to establish your libertarian credentials, nor do I have to defend everything on Moyer's site, but you seem to be objecting rather irrationally to the idea that there is a hell of a lot of money being directed toward subsidizing big business and those with very large incomes. There is.

Come on Dodger, you're not even trying now.  I started out by stating unequivocally that I would favor simplifying the code.  Maybe that was to opaque?  Simplifying the code means getting rid of loopholes and subsidies.  Also, I think you'll recall that I'm the one  wanted to argue against the interest deductions and other tax rules designed to foster policy goals.  We are on the same page on the merits.  I am calling BS with respect to the characterization of bad tax policy  as "welfare"  I'm also calling BS on your silly statement about the nature of real world budget cuts.

[Flitzerbiest]

You seem to be making a ridiculously long argument out of the fact that I used the word "every" in a post. Apparently it's worth a half-dozen posts for you to come up with an invalidating counterexample. Congratulations. Of course, you could have just recognized hyperbolic speech, looked at the record on cuts in recent years, and realized that I'm not particularly far off the mark.

As for real conservatives being pragmatic, we'll see. One tail-between-the-legs budget agreement doth not a trend make.