Who votes themselves government goodies?

[DamnYankee]

what exactly do we get for subsidizing people having children they cannot afford to raise

The bill.

 

[radcen]

Virtually everyone votes themselves government goodies. The rich, the poor, conservative, liberal, everyone does it.

The vast majority of people vote their self-interests. Not sure why that is shocking to anyone. :shrug:

Even people who seemingly don't, or who can point to some aspect where they might pay more in some tax or another, are expecting to get something out of it, tangible and/or intangible.

 

[Ntharotep]

I looked at the first item. It is not "corporate welfare" and anyone that says it is, has never seriously thought about what costs are and how markets work.

Welfare is probably a strong term for all of it, and for a lot of what people complain about in general.
Unnecessary tax cuts is what I call it. You don't just get to hold back from contributing because you can afford to overpay your CEOs.

Sounds about right.
Bring a flat tax, eliminate deductions. The hyper-rich will pay their fair share then I guess.

Damn straight. Create a flat sales tax, fire most of the IRS, and destroy loopholes. But that wouldn't be overcomplicated enough to be very American.

I'd vote for zero, but that's just me.
Let the people we send to represent us live on the salary we pay them and/or whatever they made before selflessly committing time to a limited term of public service.
in my ideal world, that's how it would be.

Ideal. But...

yeah, not gonna happen.... campaigns cost lots and lots of money... especially presidential campaigns that have to reach a national audience.
not that i disagree, it's just that's just not indicative of any reality we live in.
in fact, i would probably take it much further.. I'd require federal official to divest from any ventures in which they would find themselves legislating over... which is pretty much everything... citing potential and actual conflicts of interest as justification.
far too many legislators miraculously become rich at, coincidentally i'm sure, the most opportune times, simply because they have insider knowledge and the ability to manipulate so very much in whatever favor they prefer.
as for campaigns, i would never limit any legal person ( which included corporations, unions, associations, etc) from contributing any amount they would like to whatever politician they prefer... donate as much as you like, millions, billions , or trillions.
I'd simply limit valid candidates in their expenditures,set caps on specific races... and any money left over in the campaign coffers would go directly into the general fund, never to be seen again by the donor, or the politician.
that's my utopia.... and i have a feeling we will both be sorely disappointed when absolutely none of it becomes reality. :lol:

My "utopia" is ABSOLUTELY NO tax money spent on campaigning at all. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
I researched this in 2008 when I was taking a very close look at the candidates and the campaigns in general. The money we pay the government to then pay to the two party system should be illegal. It is disgusting.
Can you guess how much money from the Government goes to independent or non-partisan campaigning. Give you three guesses and the last two don't count

 

[David_N]

We all do. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Port & Starboard]

According to this, corporate welfare is ten times that for working families. What do you think?

Everyone.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No doubt. That is why we need to start voting these people out of office.

Yes, we need to stage a revolution at the ballot box, and vote out the incumbents regardless of party. Those last three words, however, will stop most voters from carrying out such a revolution.

 

[Dittohead not!]

ACCORDING TO THIS HIGHLY BIASED PROGRESSIVE CLASS WARFARE SITE!!!! BAD THINGS FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES GOOD THINGS FOR RICH PEOPLE!!! RISE UP !!!! FIGHT THE SYSTEM!!! DON'T QUESTION THE HIGHLY BIASED PROGRESSIVE SOURCE!!!


/ffs

That must have hit a nerve. Shouting over the internet, tisk, tisk.

 

[Dittohead not!]

lots of stuff called corporate "welfare" is actually quid pro quo agreements

For example, I own a NFL franchise. IN Say Cleveland Ohio. I pay lots and lots of taxes. Pay lots of rent for the stadium. Columbus comes to me and say-Hey move your team to Columbus and we will let you use the OSU stadium rent free. SO I get "welfare" but Columbus also makes millions from having 75,000 fans 10 times a year in Columbus

what exactly do we get for subsidizing people having children they cannot afford to raise

What you're describing is a business deal that's a win for both parties.
What do we get for letting pharmaceutical companies fix prices on their goods without allowing the government to negotiate those prices?

 

[TurtleDude]

What you're describing is a business deal that's a win for both parties.
What do we get for letting pharmaceutical companies fix prices on their goods without allowing the government to negotiate those prices?

higher drug costs

duh

 

[Dittohead not!]

Welfare is probably a strong term for all of it, and for a lot of what people complain about in general.
Unnecessary tax cuts is what I call it. You don't just get to hold back from contributing because you can afford to overpay your CEOs.


Damn straight. Create a flat sales tax, fire most of the IRS, and destroy loopholes. But that wouldn't be overcomplicated enough to be very American.


Ideal. But...


My "utopia" is ABSOLUTELY NO tax money spent on campaigning at all. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
I researched this in 2008 when I was taking a very close look at the candidates and the campaigns in general. The money we pay the government to then pay to the two party system should be illegal. It is disgusting.
Can you guess how much money from the Government goes to independent or non-partisan campaigning. Give you three guesses and the last two don't count

In my ideal world, which of course will never become the real world, whenever a vacancy occurs in the Senate or the House, the job would be advertised, applicants would submit letters of intent and resumes, they would be paper screened and the top dozen or so interviewed on TV, followed by a primary election. The two top vote getters would then debate, again on TV, followed by a general election. No parties, no fund raisers, and the interviews and debates would be funded the same way everything is funded on TV, by selling air time to hawk cars, pills, and soap. The cost of campaigning would be zero. They could even send their letters and resumes electronically to save the cost of stamps.

 

[Henrin]

We all do. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't. :shrug:

 

[Dittohead not!]

higher drug costs

duh

Exactly. Not much of a business deal for the public, is it? Much like the subsidizing people who can't afford to raise their children example you gave.

 

[TurtleDude]

Exactly. Not much of a business deal for the public, is it? Much like the subsidizing people who can't afford to raise their children example you gave.

the difference is-without GOVERNMENT interference, businesses could agree to set prices among themselves. That is not government action

taking money From US to give to OTHERS is government coercion. big difference even if you claim that in either cases we have to pay more.

 

[Renae]

That must have hit a nerve. Shouting over the internet, tisk, tisk.

Yes, my nerve for tolerating stupid biased sites as having something serious to say. The older I get the less impressed I am with highly biased sites of any stripe. They all sound like Marlboro.com extolling the virtues of smoking.

 

[Dittohead not!]

the difference is-without GOVERNMENT interference, businesses could agree to set prices among themselves. That is not government action

taking money From US to give to OTHERS is government coercion. big difference even if you claim that in either cases we have to pay more.

Yes, when there is competition businesses setting prices works very well. When there is a monopoly, not so much.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, when there is competition businesses setting prices works very well. When there is a monopoly, not so much.

I understand that fact. Unlike businesses, we have no choice as to dealing with the government and its coercion

 

[Moot]

lots of stuff called corporate "welfare" is actually quid pro quo agreements

For example, I own a NFL franchise. IN Say Cleveland Ohio. I pay lots and lots of taxes. Pay lots of rent for the stadium. Columbus comes to me and say-Hey move your team to Columbus and we will let you use the OSU stadium rent free. SO I get "welfare" but Columbus also makes millions from having 75,000 fans 10 times a year in Columbus

what exactly do we get for subsidizing people having children they cannot afford to raise

75,000 football fans.

...or future soldiers.

...future taxpayers.

 

[TurtleDude]

75,000 football fans.

...or future soldiers.

...future taxpayers.

odds are

1) drug addicts

2) criminals

3) those on the dole