Don't Republicans really support welfare?

Question

I've always heard Republicans accuse Democrats of being the 'gimmiecrat' party..or giving government handouts to people.

But what about Republican welfare handouts to companies?

Isn't corporate welfare just as bad as individual welfare?

Okay..the argument is...companies create jobs so that seems to make it okay..but the reality is..if people have to fend for themselves without handouts...why shouldn't corporations have to fend for themselves as well? If a company can't survive without a government handout..let it fold!

Basically, isn't it true Republicans love giving government handouts as much as Democrats?

Answer 1

If their lame arguement that companies create jobs so its okay, wouldn't the fact that welfare recipients consume so its ok be an appropriate rebuttal?

Corporate welfare is wrong

welfare for anyone but the truly needy is wrong

We need to keep the welfare program, BUT we need to get extremely aggressive on welfare and medicare and social security Fraud !!
Including the fraud of the government raiding the social security fund----SEPARATE IT

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 2

It isn't just Republicans who love corporate handouts. The practice of bribing businesses to move from one jurisdiction to another with tax breaks is a bipartisan stupidity.

The immortal corporations will take the short term bribe, moving from one location to another based on who gives them the most to buy the jobs the employers claim to create. The problem is that soon another government is trying to bribe them again.

This practice is incredibly stupid and short sighted, because we as citizens are screwing each other while unprincipled businessmen abandon the workers who built their company and move the work somewhere else. This is because corporations are immortal and think long term, while governments are short lived and think only to the next election.

While it is true that Republicans are more slavish about the practice, and less willing to apply the same standards to actual human beings, the Democrats also get sucked in. The excuse all of them use is that "everyone else is doing it!" They sound like a bunch of fifth graders trying to get their Moms to let tham pierce their ears.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "The merchant has no country." If a private citizen betrayed the national interest the way Halliburton does we would call it treason. Instead, our leaders throw them even more business and pay even higher prices and bribes.

Answer 3

Most company handouts come from state gov. in tax breaks to keep the company or to bring in companies. Many federal relief programs are so companies will build and operate in areas where unemployment is high which in turns help people get off welfare. DEMO like giving money straight to the people so the people become dependent on the Gov.

Answer 4

PRECISELY!!! I've been saying that to people for years but nobody wants to listen. As far as I'm concerned the word subsidy could be replaced by the word welfare. Every time one of those huge companies receives a subsidy, it's getting government money without earning it. That's WELFARE!! All of those farm subsidies that help poor farmers who can't make ends meet, that's welfare too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condeming the system, I just think we should be a little more honest about what susidies are, and stop playing games of semantics.

Answer 5

I think your little avatar explains the whole problem! I guess you meant this as a joke but, I do not like the system because I am tired of working my behind off to make ends meet while a perfectly health person who could be working sits on their behind in a BMW, texting on an Iphone waiting for government funds to show up in their bank account. The welfare system has far too much fraud in it. I am an independent by the way.

Answer 6

Republicans hand out more taxpayers' money in the form of corporate welfare than Democrats do in social welfare. Frankly, I'd much rather see my tax dollars go to help a single mother trying to support three kids by herself than providing money that helps pay a corporate CEO's multi-million-dollar salary. -RKO- 07/26/07

Answer 7

The Iraq war is a tax supported handout to industry.

Corporate welfare is different to republicans. They profit from it. Pure and simple.

Answer 8

No that is so wrong. We need to give handouts to companies to keep them here to provide people with jobs. The jobs are the incentive for the government to help out the company. I would rather a company EARN their handout than the idiots on welfare that I see come into the beer distributer everyday and buy beer with food stamps. WELFARE IS WRONG!! Except for the physically disabled and mentally ill. Laziness is not a disability.

Answer 9

Government handouts don't create jobs, the free market does. And it is actually worse, because it is WAY more money than we hand out to starving children in this country.

Answer 10

It is worse. People don't have their children starve in the street with out corporate welfare.