Proof of Corporate Welfare?

Question

Nice catch phrase;however I cannot locate a single example of a corporation receiving welfare.Could someone/anyone provide me with a verifiable example?It may help me change my vote.

propaganda links are not a verified example.A link to a corporate web-site/investor relations page that shows the proceeds from welfare ,is.

Interesting,those who chant about corporate welfare have differing views as to what it is.
Subsidies are set and approved by congress.
Ditto for tax breaks.
Private corporations are doing the R&D for emission reductions in an effort to lessen the impact of global warming;awarding them government contracts and tax incentives is a bad thing?
Keep trying folks,I'm not convinced yet.

Flipper,
Do more research,fed LOANED the money to chrysler;and it was re-paid.

common theme is the farm subsidies,OK let's do away with them.Family farm in Iowa now goes bankrupt,is that what you want?
R&D subsidies for defence contractors to expand their customer base? Fine,get rid of them too.Shut down the idle plants.Now all of those HIGH PAID skilled workers are collecting un-employment.Happy now?

Boss H.
Economic incentive packages are negotiatied at the local government level.Displeased with the actions of YOUR local politicians? Vote the bums out.
Keep working folks,all I'm seeing is BS links and a disregard for the true impact of government reinvestment of our money in American industry and agriculture.

Dizz,
Not nitpicking,just pointing out the obvious.
If you want someone(me) to change how I feel,then show me ,with facts,that my conclusions are incorrect.
Personal attacks and name calling(from others) really don't sway me.
Farm subsidies are paid based on production ability.Large corp farms have a greater production ability and receive a larger amount.Duh.
Corporate subsidies are allotted with the idea of greater economic impact in mind.Fortune 500 company with 10,000 employees gets more that a small business with 25,go figure.
Bail out of a failed bank?Small investors will take a proportionally greater hit than a large investor.Should we protect the small investor and tell the large investor to take a hike?What if the large investor is the one investing your 401K.
Sorry,none of the arguments put forth to me hold water.
They stink of ENVY and nothing else.

avail-sk
Nope,money invested in industry and agriculture actually creates wealth.Money invested in "public aid" is strictly an expense that ,in economic terms, has no net gain.
Nice try though.

NOTE TO ALL:
Thanks for playing.I guess what some refer to as "corporate welfare" is actually re-investment of tax dollars in American Industry and Agriculture.
Some(most actually) seem to take offense that the government,through tax incentives,contracts,subsidy payments,and the like is reinvesting in America,apparently in a way that is disagreeable to you.
Simple economic fact,investment in industry and agriculture will create wealth.Redistribution of wealth without regard to realized gain creates a nation of dependants.

Answer 1

Corporate welfare is a myth cloned by liberals so they can denigrate the administration.

Answer 2

Within the last 6 months a large 2 billion dollar company that had to employ 12 more people was awarded 170,000 in state tax credits over the next 5 years. May be just coincidence that this occured after the CEOs/owner's wife was elected as state rep as Republican. This award was not given so the company would increase its workforce by 12 people, because it had to anyway. It was given because it did.
The town expands its borders around the company, so it doesn't have to pay the higher local taxes.

By the way, farm subsidies aren't just being paid to family owned farms, and are usually paid on size of farm. So what do you think it is doing to give millions to one large corporate farm vs several thousand to a family farm?
having lived in a farm community, and knowing many farmers, I'll tell you what it does. It makes the corporate farms more able to wipe the family ones out of business.
This is why most pork these days comes from large corporate hog confinements, because they are heavily subsidized and it made it easier to drive the smaller farmers out of business.

here are some links of interest:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm
http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw422.htm
http://www.ctj.org/html/hidenpr.htm
http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/contents/content.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/11/02/corp.welfare.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
http://www.progress.org/corpw30.htm

Answer 3

I doubt if you are going to find any Corporations advertising that they are accepting welfare in the form of subsidies. Try looking at the actual bills like the Farm Subsidy which gives $16 billion annually to Corporate Farmers. Or how about the oil and resource companies that are making a profit off of leases on public land that the government is losing money on.

Answer 4

how about the massive tax breaks for the people who control the corperations, the 10% of people in this country who hold 90% of the wealth? How bout the fact that Bush is not IMMEDIATLY STOPPING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, because these scum are willing to do a job for 5 bucks and hour that an American would receive 20 bucks an hour for? In my husband's field, construction, wealthy contractors save billions of dollars every year by hiring illegals (and even regular immigrants who work for peanuts). Nowadays, a working class American person cannot make it without a second job and selling drugs or something, because CEOs are allowed to hire people who will work for dirt pay. Fifty years ago, a construction worker could support their entire family. You tell me, who does illegal immigration benefit? CEO's bottom lines. You tell me, who has the power to stop illegals from crawling across our borders? Our Commander-IN-Chief. You tell me, who are some of Bush's major supporters? The wealthy businessmen. So why might Bush not crack down like an avenging angel on illegals? Is this not corperate welfare, as well as a glaring national security risk? How long before terrorists start employing "coyotes" and "snakeheads" to get them into this country, if they aren't doing this already!

Answer 5

The term "corporate welfare" is a figure of speech. It refers to government spending that benefits corporations, not just to money handed to corporations so they can sit at home and watch TV and have babies. (In case that is your view of personal welfare.) We hope that spending money to benefit corporations will eventually benefit all of us, but it usually benefits some of us more than others.

For example, how about the Farm Bill:

http://www.advancingrenewableenergy.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1UH?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/01/0019.xml

Lots of money for corporate agriculture in there. Even some for the medical-industrial complex.

This is just the "Farm" bill, I refer to that because it's been in the news recently. You could look closely at energy bills, trade bills, communications regulations, just about anything that comes out of Congress.

Obviously, you're not going to find many corporations announcing how much "corporate welfare" they receive, any more than the family down the street is going to post a sign announcing how many food stamps they got.

As for your vote, there are two candidates who speak out against this coddling of corporations: Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Paul's government wouldn't give anybody money unless the constitution expressly allows it. Gravel wants the people to take back their country. I'm with Gravel.

Answer 6

There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. Terminating those programs could save taxpayers more than $400 billion over the next five years.

$700 million to the federal Technology Reinvestment Project to develop "commercially viable technologies" for post Cold War defense industries. The needy corporations who received your tax dollars? Hughes Aircraft, IBM and Honeywell to name just a few.

$1.3 billion to Cargill, an ethanol producer, even though Cargill was a vocal critic of the very program it then bathed happily in.

Untold billions to ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) for federal subsidies to produce ethanol and federal exemptions on excise taxes of 54 cents a gallon.

At a time of high prices and robust earnings for producers of corn, soybeans and other crops, taxpayers will continue to obligated to make wasteful, automatic payments to the tune of $26 billion over the next five years.

Answer 7

If you mean like food stamps or commodities, or a benefit check from Welfare services, then it ain't gonna happen.

If you mean like interestr free loans, try Chrysler corp. under Lee Iacoca.

If you mean open ended contracts with little or no oversight try general dynamics or any of the myriad "defense"contractors in DC

If you mean huf ge bailouts to prevent banking crises, there's citibank, Chase Manhattan.

if you mean just outright purchase of bad mortgage loans to keep liquidity in the NYSE and prevent a potential stock market crash, just read the papers of a couple of months ago.

Opinion: mom and pop can go belly up, but the government will bail out the fortune 500 every time because "they're too big to be allowed to fail"

Answer 8

This is from a number of years ago, but didn't the government "bail out" Chrysler? We "gave" them taxpayer money so they could become profitable again.
I'd call that corporate welfare...they go broke, we pay for it.
Same thing for the Savings and Loan scandal.

Those are some examples...can I have my 10 points now?

EDIT: Wow, you're so full of it! First you pose the question about proof, then you accept the proof and say, "Now they're unemployed and broke, happy?"
I guess you're just a typical retardican...even when faced with overwhelming proof, you still deny or triangulate! LMAO!

Answer 9

Here is a definition of corporate welfare from the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute.

"The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities — expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" — in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries."

The rest of the study is at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

Answer 10

<>
same thing can be said about Public Aid to poor families, considering they use the money they get to purchase the products of those industries, therfore creating demand, more revenue for producers, and a more stable economy, regardless of what they do with the rets of their time.

Answer 11

The latest example is the rate cut gifts the federal reserve has given the savings and loan industry. Next time you are in the food store you will know who to thank for the higher prices