What do you object to more and why:?

Question

Welfare for families or Welfare for Corporations?

Answer 1

I object to welfare for some corporations. Some of the corporations that receive government funds are filthy rich, making huge profits and don’t need the money. Many small businesses that actually could use help have to apply for secured loans.

I have no objection to the government helping people in need. That money is well spent in assisting human beings and fellow Americans who are having difficulties with obtaining the basic necessities for life.

Answer 2

Darn good question… I have to say I object to welfare for corporations if the welfare consists of special favors not necessary for the growth of the corp. If they are just to fill the pockets of the politicians they can shove it up their butts.

I stand firm in my belief that this is the freest nation on the face of the earth with the most realistic opportunities for everyone. If you can’t stay out of trouble and acquire an education (MOVE to a better area if you have to) then why should I have to pay for them?

Answer 3

Welfare for Corporations. When corporations can show that they care about something more than the bottom line, I just might change my mind. But it'll be a cold day in July when that happens...

Answer 4

Corporations. Why on earth do we give huge, international companies like McDonalds or Coke (or Pepsi!) millions of dollars every year? It's total insanity. They make more in a day than most of us make in a year.

I fully support welfare for families *if* they are really in need. I have *no* problem supplementing the income of the working poor - in fact, I think we need to do a lot more of it. But supporting some moron who sits home and pops out kids like puppies? No way. I think she should be spayed like a dog. But I also think that deadbeat dads should have a giant tattoo on their face, announcing to the world what losers they are....

Answer 5

Welfare for Corporations. Small businesses don't get pulled out of bankruptcy.

Answer 6

Both are objectionable to me .

You should have to do something if you are able .

If you can go to the grocery store and spend your food stamps you should also have to do some kind of work for it .

With each food stamp allotment you should also get a 5 gallon bucket of white paint to spread Or be forced to turn in a garbage bag of litter you collect from the streets .

Answer 7

It is insane, and really unsound business policy, to give tax dollars to Corporations posting record profits.

Answer 8

Welfare for Corporation is a bullshit meaningless term. If you cut subsidies to corporations they will raise the price of the product they sell or reduce their workforce. If you raise taxes on corporation they will increase the price of the product they sell or reduce their workforce. The point is...corporations are in business to make a profit. This is called capitalism. If costs go up they pass them on to the consumer or they cut costs buy firing employees. Either way, it's people that pay the price. It's scary to me how ignorant you liberals are of basic capitalism and economics. Jeez! Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Answer 9

I object to both equally as well as international welfare.

Welfare in wrong, sink or swim people.

If a person will not or cannot support himself he can get his welfare from a church or from his family not my paycheck.

If I company cannot or will not support themselves they will go out of business and will be replaced with another company that is more fiscally responsible.

What is even worse is when a company is making record profits and are still receiving welfare.

Answer 10

Unchecked? Both. Funds for families that are truly in need and unable to support themselves doesn't bother me and inventing business to create jobs isn't an issue for me either as long as it doesn't get out of hand........