Pics For Sharing & Debating

[Monkeydad]

I can't admit what's not true.


Face it, Government cannot solve every problem. Leaving it up to the private market will always bring better results?


Don't believe me, get an insurance quote right now.



Glad you can still laugh at yourself like a 12-year old girl on Facebook. "lol"

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

I can't admit what's not true.

So I showed you exactly where it wasn't true, yet you still deny it? Apparently you haven't kept up with economics or have the slightest idea about it. You continue to parrot the same exact bullshit I used to because it was drilled into my head from childhood on.

GE made 14 billion in profits and paid 0 taxes the previous year. They still moved jobs overseas and cut jobs.


This was known even back in 1998 and it's gotten worse.

Corporate welfare - November 9, 1998


Can you even bother yourself to do some research?

https://www.creators.com/opinion/dai...n-finland.html

Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs


For fucks sake man, educate yourself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=corp...en-US:official

Stop swallowing your party's bullshit whole. CRITICAL THINKING. Try it sometime.

[That Guy]

walmart is a large employer and they abuse things like food stamp programs for their employees because it saves them money. yay corporate welfare!

[Monkeydad]

Hell hath no fury like a man who has installed the Google Toolbar.


I get it, the education system has done a fine job of instilling views like "big business is evil" into the minds of their future voting block.

This anti-business attitude and people voting on this emotional, not factual viewpoint is what has gotten us to the point we are in this nation, nearing the tipping point of 50% of the population on welfare. Once we reach that point of more people taking from the system than paying in, we're done as a nation and that cliff is fast approaching. This current Administration hasn't even cared about turning the situation around, they've mashed the accelerator to the floor as that cliff is in our sights.

Taking the lesser of two evils, Corporate Welfare and people at least attempting to work and provide for themselves is always better than a nation of people on welfare, who not only can't find work but actually prefer not to.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

So you gave gotten all of your jobs from poor people?

Successful people are exactly the people who are in a position to employ people and penalizing them is only going to hurt the potential people they could employ.


The lack of common sense in this nation astounds me.

Companies and the wealthy are the ones hiring people. They are not the people pumping money into our economy. The middle class and the poor are the folks who pump money into our economy. When they get a pay check they use it to purchase goods and services, they do not have the luxury to tuck away that money. Companies on the other hand are attempting to be as cost efficient as possible, they don't actively look to spend surplus money.

I'm a firm believer that more money being spent by individuals will drive demand for products, thus creating jobs. I don't believe giving a business more money to spend will motivate them to create jobs. If companies are forced to keep up with demand and their services are slipping as a result, they will hire people to handle the demand. Empower the consumers and your economy will be active. Empower businesses and they will look to use the money as efficiently as possible. Efficient use of funds does not equate to a strong economy.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Companies and the wealthy are the ones hiring people. They are not the people pumping money into our economy. The middle class and the poor are the folks who pump money into our economy. When they get a pay check they use it to purchase goods and services, they do not have the luxury to tuck away that money. Companies on the other hand are attempting to be as cost efficient as possible, they don't actively look to spend surplus money.

I'm a firm believer that more money being spent by individuals will drive demand for products, thus creating jobs. I don't believe giving a business more money to spend will motivate them to create jobs. If companies are forced to keep up with demand and their services are slipping as a result, they will hire people to handle the demand. Empower the consumers and your economy will be active. Empower businesses and they will look to use the money as efficiently as possible. Efficient use of funds does not equate to a strong economy.

good post. Your top section was my arguement to my dad a couple weeks ago when explaining the affect of raising the minimum wage. Folks who make a low wage will essentially have more purchasing power and they spend. AND where do they spend it? The top retailers in the country and usually close within their community.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Hell hath no fury like a man who has installed the Google Toolbar.


I get it, the education system has done a fine job of instilling views like "big business is evil" into the minds of their future voting block.

This anti-business attitude and people voting on this emotional, not factual viewpoint is what has gotten us to the point we are in this nation, nearing the tipping point of 50% of the population on welfare. Once we reach that point of more people taking from the system than paying in, we're done as a nation and that cliff is fast approaching. This current Administration hasn't even cared about turning the situation around, they've mashed the accelerator to the floor as that cliff is in our sights.

Taking the lesser of two evils, Corporate Welfare and people at least attempting to work and provide for themselves is always better than a nation of people on welfare, who not only can't find work but actually prefer not to.

MD, you say we're quickly approaching the cliff and that more and more people are relying on government handouts to make ends meet. We've been giving huge tax breaks and incentives to companies for years. Why are you against attempting to make the regulations more favorable for consumers?

Those of us in favor of limiting the support of big business don't want more people relying on subsidies. We want more people employeed and keeping more of their money. I want businesses to be succesful and do well. I want entrepreneurs to be rewarded for their risk and hard work. They still will be under a system that favors the consumer. I believe that allowing more money to flow from the people, to businesses, and back is what develops a healthy economy. Allowing these mega corporations to horde massive profits does nothing to reinvest in our economy.

You want to get people off food stamps? Me too. I would love to have entitlement reform. Problem is, you have to give your populace the means to support themselves. Having a class of people who are destitude and unable to feed themselves, find shelter, and purchase the necessities leads to a culture with signficantly more crime and social unrest. That's not good for any country.

We've been propping up big business and giving them benefits for a long time now. We've seen companies make record profits while paying historically low tax rates on that profit. We've also seen the disappearance of the middle class in this country and we're seeing the first generation who isn't off then their parents in perhaps the history of our country. Big business subsidies and tax breaks are not single handedly responsible for these issues, but they are a primary factor.

The difficult part is ensuring small businesses can be competitive with the giant mega corporations we have now. The most critical component in capitalism is the pressence of true competition.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Daseal

MD, you say we're quickly approaching the cliff and that more and more people are relying on government handouts to make ends meet. We've been giving huge tax breaks and incentives to companies for years. Why are you against attempting to make the regulations more favorable for consumers?

Those of us in favor of limiting the support of big business don't want more people relying on subsidies. We want more people employeed and keeping more of their money. I want businesses to be succesful and do well. I want entrepreneurs to be rewarded for their risk and hard work. They still will be under a system that favors the consumer. I believe that allowing more money to flow from the people, to businesses, and back is what develops a healthy economy. Allowing these mega corporations to horde massive profits does nothing to reinvest in our economy.

You want to get people off food stamps? Me too. I would love to have entitlement reform. Problem is, you have to give your populace the means to support themselves. Having a class of people who are destitude and unable to feed themselves, find shelter, and purchase the necessities leads to a culture with signficantly more crime and social unrest. That's not good for any country.

We've been propping up big business and giving them benefits for a long time now. We've seen companies make record profits while paying historically low tax rates on that profit. We've also seen the disappearance of the middle class in this country and we're seeing the first generation who isn't off then their parents in perhaps the history of our country. Big business subsidies and tax breaks are not single handedly responsible for these issues, but they are a primary factor.

The difficult part is ensuring small businesses can be competitive with the giant mega corporations we have now. The most critical component in capitalism is the pressence of true competition.

Agree with most, if not all, of what you said. Bolded part is a +100

Subsidies and corporate tax breaks, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad. When they stop being effective tools for economic stimulus, I would suggest they become bad. Since 1980, corporate executive pay has increased at a rate 40% (I think that was the number feel free to Google), there have been lots of reasons for this (not the least of which is the accounting methods used). To me, this reflects a disconnect between the corporate wealth being created through public funding and it's distribution.

Subsidies at both ends of the wealth spectrum have their purpose. The problem, of course, is that once given to either end they NEVER EVER go away without huge political battles.

[That Guy]

US military families are also large users of food stamps... damn moochers.

here's an example of bad policy/corporations acting in their own interests vs. the public good:

the housing market tanked due to banks giving people bad loans that they knew couldn't be paid and then betting against them or reselling those loans as AAA investments. surprisingly, the house of cards falls down and the banks get scared and stop lending.

in order to encourage banks to lend money to keep the economy going, the gov drops the overnight rate to 0% while explaining that they're doing so so that the banks will be able to continue to lend money for home purchases etc.

the banks basically stop loaning money anyways and instead take that 0% interest rate and use it to invest in 3% government treasury bonds, to the tune of 70 billion dollars in profits straight from taxpayers into their wallets .

it's a shame we reward bad behavior with free money.


there are other examples, like how do you expect people to compete with walmart when walmart gets up to $30million in free benefits when they open a new store (free land, free energy, sometimes the store is built for them for free too).


there's a reason monopolies are bad and that you need fair competition. otherwise the big guy can act badly and get away with it, because there simply isn't a viable replacement in line.

[That Guy]

also on the other side, farm subsidies have been rife with abuse historically. at one point david letterman was making 250k a year off of farm subsidies, cause lord knows he needs it. it's a huge problem in the UK too. the queen is actually the #1 recipient there, despite never actually farming/herding or growing anything ever.

[RedskinRat]

[NC_Skins]

I see MD didn't make it back from that beat down on economic facts. Guess he's consulting Fox News/Glenn Beck for some ammo.




Meanwhile...

[NC_Skins]

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I see MD didn't make it back from that beat down on economic facts. Guess he's consulting Fox News/Glenn Beck for some ammo.




Meanwhile...

No, I do not need search engines to find and explain beliefs like some do...

I just have better things to do than try to debate with the brainwashed who will never be open to learning something in real life. I will always believe in individuals over Governments, which also means the businesses they start and run. I also believe in forcing people to better themselves so they can rise up out of their tough situations and poverty rather than trying to "even the playing field" through redistribution of wealth and making people comfortable in their poverty without any reason to strive to be a better person. If you can't even admit those would be preferable to taxing people until you find some unobtainable economic balance that you like, I can't really say anything else to help you.



By the way, your cartoon needs edited slightly...


$1 Billion: That’s How Much Kerry Just Pledged to Ukraine — and Putin Breaks His Silence | TheBlaze.com

Kerry, in Kiev, pledges $1 billion in U.S. aid - The Washington Post



Meanwhile, more military cuts and that means their families need more assistance. This Administration is running things completely backwards. It's not just bad for the economy and our security (debt IS a national security issue), it's immoral.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

No, I do not need search engines to find and explain beliefs like some do...

Dafuq does that even mean? Nobody is using a search engine to explain beliefs. It's called finding facts. Try it sometime.

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

I just have better things to do than try to debate with the brainwashed who will never be open to learning something in real life. I will always believe in individuals over Governments, which also means the businesses they start and run. I also believe in forcing people to better themselves so they can rise up out of their tough situations and poverty rather than trying to "even the playing field" through redistribution of wealth and making people comfortable in their poverty without any reason to strive to be a better person. If you can't even admit those would be preferable to taxing people until you find some unobtainable economic balance that you like, I can't really say anything else to help you.

So you just sidestep everything JR, Daesel, Chico and That Guy posted for a mere snip at me about being brainwashed? Really? So are they brainwashed too? I imagine that if we took a poll on who they thought was the brainwashed individual, I somehow don't think you would favor well in those polls. Probably worse numbers than Romney did in the election.

How about you actually come up with some concrete numbers on why what has been said to you by MANY MANY people on this thread about corporate welfare.

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

By the way, your cartoon needs edited slightly...
$1 Billion: That’s How Much Kerry Just Pledged to Ukraine — and Putin Breaks His Silence | TheBlaze.com

Kerry, in Kiev, pledges $1 billion in U.S. aid - The Washington Post

Meanwhile, more military cuts and that means their families need more assistance. This Administration is running things completely backwards. It's not just bad for the economy and our security (debt IS a national security issue), it's immoral.

I laugh at your "it's immoral" comment. I guess it's not immoral to take away from the poor and give to the rich. After all, it creates jobs!


You remind me of a guy I grew up with. He's a avid Glenn Beck listener and a "professed" Libertarian. Dude's brain is so full of mush that's it's not even funny. The sad thing is, we both probably agree on a LOT of stances and issues, but they get wrapped up on stupid things or conspiracy theories that it nullifies their whole argument.