Are the government programs, welfare, affirmative action, housing assistance, no child left behind, good for the people? Or are these programs instilling a sense of entitlement and platform for political power to the media loving anti-white leaders?
2006-12-23 02:00:33 · 6 answers · asked by brian z 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Some of those are just handouts. There are disabled people and other special needs people that deserve welfare or housing assistance. Also, there are some people on welfare that can go out and get jobs but would rather sit at home and collect a check. Affirmative action is absolutely the worst thing ever. Employers give jobs to less qualified people just to have a racially diverse work place. Sounds like racism against white people to me. These programs are definitely bad for the people of this country. One day they're going to milk us dry and it won't be available even for those who really need it.
2006-12-23 02:14:44 · answer #1 · answered by Abu 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Corporate welfare is defined by the Cato Institute as "any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries." Although transfer payments in general (to the extent they redistribute the earned incomes of labor and capital) are morally wrong, corporate welfare is the worst transfer payment of all because it constitutes stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich. Examples of such giveaways can be found online at the Banneker Center's corporate welfare shame page.
The federal government currently spends roughly $93 billion a year on programs that provide subsidies to private businesses. Not only does this give big business an unfair advantage over smaller competitors, it gives politicians an excuse to deny much-needed tax relief to the bottom 75% of taxpayers -- those who, according to the Tax Foundation, make less than $55,226 a year.
Specifically, the bottom 75% (over 96 million people) pay approximately $156.8 billion a year in federal income taxes -- with those who make below $27,682 (the bottom 50%) paying a little over $38.3 billion, and those who make between $27,682 and $55,225 paying the rest.
Thus, if we eliminated corporate welfare, that alone would allow for the income tax to be reduced by nearly 1/2 for those making between $27,682 and $55,225, and abolished entirely for those making below $27,682. This would benefit wage-earners enormously by offsetting the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and would benefit small businesses by eliminating the anticompetitive nature of corporate welfare spending.
2006-12-23 10:15:29 · answer #2 · answered by dstr 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Judging motive is a challenge that we probably shouldn't attempt.
Let me address your first question...hand out or hand up?
I think the intent was to be a hand up. Yet I suspect we could find as many examples of abuse as we could find assistance. Why? For the same reason you asked the other questions...human nature.
Namely, humans WANT and we COMPARE. The friends and neighbors have an SUV, so we want them. People take annual vacation as standard practice, so we think we all deserve them. So on and so on.
This is why these programs begin as pure but soon become corrupt. How to solve this challenge?
I suggest moving the programs to a lower level of government. Studies show that federal dollars end up providing 10 cents to the intended recipients. It goes up to 30 cents for state programs and 70 cents for local.
But there is one better...when an individual assists another individual, the contribution goes up to 100% of the entire dollar.
Do we need to convince Congress to change this? No. We just have to undertake our own obligations with a one-on-one approach. Get that person off government programs with our local and personal assistance...eventually, there would be no need for a government program!
2006-12-23 10:16:42 · answer #3 · answered by dm_dragons 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
A lot of these programs are clearly telling certain people that they are not good enough to make something of themselves on their own.
Also, they need to be kept dependent for certain people's political gain. It bites really.
2006-12-23 10:15:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hmmm, do I detect a hint of racism in that question?
Hubris and rhetoric used to hide racism, stereotyping, and begrudging aid given to those who need it. Typical conservative.
2006-12-23 11:14:38 · answer #5 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There always going to be losers under capitalism. These programs help those people out.
2006-12-23 10:30:38 · answer #6 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋