4 ms·

Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone is ea

by MadManE 11y ago

Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone is easy to confuse.

AngrySkillzz 11y ago
Individual welfare at least supports the more vulnerable and less well-off elements of our society. Large defense contractors have revenues in the billions of dollars, high level managers are likely millionaires, and they employ an entire army of upper-middle class workers. The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and privileged.
- MadManE 11y ago
  Ok, but let's take it to a different industry. Are corporate farmers more or less deserving of government money than individuals? Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.
  - fineman 11y ago
    The "corporate" or the "farmer" part. One is a corporation, the other is a person working for and/or owning the corporation. Once you realize that corporate farmer isn't some magical combination the question is uninteresting. But, for the record - the farmer is an individual and is just as deserving (however much that is) as anyone else regardless of his profession. But we don't owe him that livelihood and aren't under and obligation to support his enterprises in that area. As to "advance in society", it's pretty easy for (most of) us to take a two-day course in some flavor of the week and have a piece of paper that helps to do so. For someone working a subsistence job it's not so trivial. Many people may waste it but it only has to help create a few productive taxpayers to be a net win to all of us.
fineman 11y ago
Entirely. It's a capitalistic no-no to support a failing corporation. Their IP and people will be subsumed under a new umbrella which will hopefully avoid the mistakes of the past (which might just include buying disaster insurance). And, the people who do fall through the cracks of a rough transition can be taken care of by the humanitarian personal welfare service. Corporations are much more to become total crooks - spending the last bailout money to hire lobbyists to bribe you to give them more. Imagine the outcry if welfare recipients were encouraged to tip...

by MadManE 11y ago

Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone is easy to confuse.

AngrySkillzz 11y ago

Individual welfare at least supports the more vulnerable and less well-off elements of our society. Large defense contractors have revenues in the billions of dollars, high level managers are likely millionaires, and they employ an entire army of upper-middle class workers. The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and privileged.

MadManE 11y ago
Ok, but let's take it to a different industry. Are corporate farmers more or less deserving of government money than individuals? Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.
- fineman 11y ago
  The "corporate" or the "farmer" part. One is a corporation, the other is a person working for and/or owning the corporation. Once you realize that corporate farmer isn't some magical combination the question is uninteresting. But, for the record - the farmer is an individual and is just as deserving (however much that is) as anyone else regardless of his profession. But we don't owe him that livelihood and aren't under and obligation to support his enterprises in that area. As to "advance in society", it's pretty easy for (most of) us to take a two-day course in some flavor of the week and have a piece of paper that helps to do so. For someone working a subsistence job it's not so trivial. Many people may waste it but it only has to help create a few productive taxpayers to be a net win to all of us.

fineman 11y ago

Entirely. It's a capitalistic no-no to support a failing corporation. Their IP and people will be subsumed under a new umbrella which will hopefully avoid the mistakes of the past (which might just include buying disaster insurance). And, the people who do fall through the cracks of a rough transition can be taken care of by the humanitarian personal welfare service. Corporations are much more to become total crooks - spending the last bailout money to hire lobbyists to bribe you to give them more. Imagine the outcry if welfare recipients were encouraged to tip...