Raise Debt Limit or TEOTWAWKI - Geithner

[MikeB]

How do you on the welfare recipient is the one who paid for the truck?  There's no welfare program in the country that hands out enough cash to buy an escalade outright; hard to see how thud get financing.

Maybe you only suspect that welfare money bought those cars?

You are aware that considering the source of income is often illegal when deciding to deliver a loan aren't you? Someone on welfare with the otherwise additional unreported income and credit rating can easily get a loan on most anything. Fairly easily to do when other people are paying your bills.

[De Selby]

Yeah mike, but that misses the point - welfare doesn't pay enough to give people an escalade.  It's the other money that supplies the goods in those cases.

I have to say, I was never able to tell welfare recipients by sight when I lived in the US.

What's the trick to that?

[birdman]

How is getting money or benefits directly from the government any less welfare when a corporation does it??

It's not.  My point is that unless given the opportunity to enhance profits through direct or indirect government activity, a free market acting corporation would not be "for" a welfare state.  It is only the government enabling a competitive advantage or high profits indirectly or directly that encourages a company to be "for" a welfare state.  In my ideal world, we would have zero corporate tax (why tax income twice or three times), zero capital gains task (again, why tax income twice), a flat tax with a progressive exemption to allow for the truly destitute, and minimal government for-purpose competitive bid grants/funding, and zero subsidies.  With that limited governmental interference, there would be zero interest in a profit-making enterprise to encourage, lobby, or want a welfare state.

[De Selby]

How does the profit motive in lobbying for welfare abate with lower subsidies?  Surely the corporations don't lose interest in money just because taxes go lower.

The only way to prevent welfare statism is to be vigilant against the forces that drive it.  Corporate lobbying is currently the most powerful backer of welfare, and that's where individualists and libertarians should be directing their energy. 

[birdman]

How does the profit motive in lobbying for welfare abate with lower subsidies?  Surely the corporations don't lose interest in money just because taxes go lower.

The only way to prevent welfare statism is to be vigilant against the forces that drive it.  Corporate lobbying is currently the most powerful backer of welfare, and that's where individualists and libertarians should be directing their energy. 

Incorrect, the most powerful encouragement currently for government spending is not "corporate lobbying", it is direct voter encouragement.  While corporate "lobbying" (also, please define exactly what you mean by this term, as I don't think you are using it correctly), may have had it's place in the rise of certain programs, given what is required for government officials to remain (majority votes), governmental transfer and benefit statistics (47% of voters pay zero income tax, and for more than 50%, the net benefit they receive from government in direct, in kind, or other monetary or subsistence transfers, exceeds their liabilities, and the levels of government spending in various categories (monetary or indirect spending on individuals is a signficant majority of government spending at all levels, especially federal), the primary motivator for elected officials is not to appease corporate "lobbying" but rather maximize the benefit to individuals in the form of direct or indirect transfers...even the portrayal of non-individual "corporate welfare" has become a derided political term that pols prefer to distance themselves.  As such, I think that you are incorrect, the bulk of legislation, regulation, and pure spending is targeted at an individual dependency state, not a corporate one.

Lower subsidies abate the need for "lobbying" only if the ability of government to apply preferential treatment is eliminated (the tax aspects I included), as when combined, it eliminates the competitive advantage of encouraging specific director indirect government influence.  Why do you suggest anything that I stated was about corporations losing interest?  I would expect corporations to always be interested in maximizing profits, but since we shouldn't (and I wouldn't want to) take that away, the way toprevent encouragement of a welfare state is to not change our fundamental capitalist philosophy, but rather eliminate the government influence on it that leads to statism. 

You suggest liberarians and individualized should direct their energy against corporate welfare, how do you suggest we do that?  By punishing profit motivated companies who take advantage of the competiive advantage politicians create for their own gains?  Why punish capitalism, when we could direct our energies at the politicians where we not only have more influence, but we could direct our anger at those perverting the system, rather than those merely making the best of it.

In the same fashion as I would expect anyone to accept a condition free gift, no questions asked, of a million dollars, I expect both individuals and corporations to maximize their success, if an equivalent advantage is "offered" (though with hidden terms and conditions, that are unfortunately unrealized at the time).  We need to prevent the advantage from being there, that is the heart of the libertarian philosophy--eliminating the interference aspects of government, and thus allow liberty (choice, responsibility, etc), targeting those making choices to maximize their success is neither individualistic nor libertarian.

[RoadKingLarry]

I have to say, I was never able to tell welfare recipients by sight when I lived in the US.

What's the trick to that?

They drive better cars than most of us working stiffs but live in crappy, low rent dwellings.