And people worry about public welfare when this and other kinds of corporate welfare is so flagrantly abused.

- if we knew white people got it, that we would change our minds?

That's exactly what happened many years ago when, "black Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs" was the Republican meme.

Then when it turned out that most welfare recipients were white working women with children, the smarter ones st_u.

But I see a lot of people these days have re-upped their John Birch Society memberships.

- This is the 'noble poor' ideal that Corky tries to put forth

Most people on traditional public welfare work, and most don't stay on very long.

Your, "Corporations are people, too" friend's however, have paid for the right to write tax law favorable to themselves, yet we rarely hear Republicans complain about them.

The thread is about corporate welfare, in this case in the form of tax laws they have purchased... just so people don't get confused by all the public welfare DEFLECTIONS.

-drive by a housing project.

Still deflecting to public welfare rather then the thread topic. Does Citycorp pay you?

At least we know how you get your info.

The Truth about Welfare

"Most Americans not only drastically overestimate the proportion of welfare recipients who are black, they also tend to believe that welfare makes up a huge proportion of the federal budget, when in fact it accounts for less than 1 percent of federal spending."

Corporate Welfare Vs. Social Welfare: Which Benefits The Economy More?

"The word "welfare" is often synonymous with individuals on the receiving end of government-sponsored programs -- a keyword when debating fiscal responsibility and the role of government in the lives of Americans.

Rarely is it used to describe tax incentives used to lure corporations. Yet it's that type of welfare that takes up a larger piece of the puzzle, with more than $90 billion spent on corporate welfare subsidies in 2007.

That's compared to $59 billion spent on social welfare programs."

Ending corporate welfare

For more than 30 years, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, along with many environmental and consumer advocate groups, have publicized and challenged the abuses of corporate welfare.

Friends of the Earth each year recommends ways to cut wasteful subsidies in its Green Scissors Report. In the past five years, that coalition's efforts have led to elimination of $24 billion in corporate welfare.

Community groups, like Kensington Welfare Rights Union in Philadelphia, Pa., expose the hypocrisy of public officials who promote the welfare of corporations, which are often big campaign donors, while denying the economic rights of poor and working people.

Working together, people can take government back from corporations and ensure that government fulfills its constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.

"Let us start building!" So they committed themselves to the common good". (Nehemiah 2:18).

"Welfare Spending Nearly Half What U.S. Forked Out In Corporate Subsidies In 2006

Welfare queens may actually look more like giant corporations.

The government spent about $59 billion to pay for traditional social welfare programs like food stamps and housing assistance in 2006, while Uncle Sam doled out $92 billion in assistance to corporations during the same year..."

What's hilarious is how much we spend on corporate welfare, including tax cuts, as in the thread topic, which is more than we spend for what is traditionally defined as public welfare... and all we get are DEFLECTIONS about public welfare.

Talk about well trained.

THE FINANCIAL PAGE

CORPORATE WELFARE QUEENS

Corporate welfare isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some of these giveaways arguably do a lot of good. But companies that benefit from these policies are just as dependent on the government as the guy who gets the earned-income tax credit.

And, when Romney concentrates his fire on the latter rather than on the former, it makes you wonder if his problem isn't with government assistance per se, but only with government assistance to poor and working people.

Romney may say that he wants small government, but what he's pushing for is a government that's small when it comes to helping people and big when it comes to helping business.

The Big Page with colorful charts 1975 to 2009

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

Statistic Verification

Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute

Date Verified: 10.15.2012

Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits.

#81 That's a Republican Committee that REDEFINED what has been traditionally used for public welfare numbers.

Which is why, one supposes you did not include the link.

THURSDAY, OCT 18, 2012 05:52 PM EDT

New lie: The government spends more on welfare than everything else!

Senate Republicans redefine "welfare" to make it sound very expensive

So we've learned that when you count everything -- especially Medicaid and CHIP -- as "welfare," it is easy to make it look like "welfare" is very expensive, because healthcare is very expensive. This dumb lie will live forever, and you will hear until the end of your days that "the government spends more on welfare than it does on defense."

Funny how Forbes, Business Week, CNN, ABC, The NY Times and The Business Insider among thousands more use Statistics Brains when they could be using Jock and Eberley's Count by Colors.

-Try adding in percentage of healthcare

Which is what Republicans did see #63.... to make welfare look much bigger by using healthcare, or fastest growing expense.

And made some posters look pretty silly in the process for falling for it.

Statistics Brains uses the government agency numbers and the traditional public welfare programs while Republicans have their own formula.

our fastest growing expense.

I'm going with the numbers and definitions the US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute and major corporations use.

You can use the Republican funny numbers as you like.

Perhaps if you admitted they all used those numbers, not me, then you would be on the road to recovery.

-All you have proof is that Statistic brain claims to have those news outlets of being customers

hahahaha!!

-that particular mis-calculated stat.

Yeah, they make that kind of mistake all the time... which is why some many Fortune 500's use their stats.

Yeah, sent them a mail correcting that figure for them.

They could prolly use a good laugh.

They might even 'splain to you how they and got it directly from the

Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute

and how they verified it

Date Verified: 10.15.2012

The Problem With Flat-Tax Fever

"Yet none will be adopted, for at least two reasons. One is that a flat tax would do nothing to make filing tax returns any simpler. But, more important, it would greatly exacerbate longstanding growth in income inequality.

The contention that a flat tax would be simpler because it involves only a single rate is flatly wrong. The complexity of the current system has nothing to do with its multiple income brackets.

The hard step in figuring your tax bill is to compute your taxable income -- roughly, the amount you earn, less the myriad exemptions, deductions and various other offsets described in the 3.4-million-word code of the Internal Revenue Service.

You'd also have to calculate your adjusted gross income under a flat tax. But once you've completed that step under either system, you consult the tax tables to see how much you owe.

In the current system, the entries have multiple brackets and rates already built into them, so this step is no harder than it would be under the tables for a flat tax.

The much more serious concern is that a flat tax would reinforce the trends toward greater income inequality that have been seen over the last several decades.

As documented by a recent Congressional Budget Office study, the top 1 percent of income recipients in the United States earned 275 percent more in 2007 than they did in 1979, adjusted for inflation, a period when the earnings of middle-income households grew by less than 40 percent.

A flat tax would increase inequality by substantially reducing rates on the most prosperous households, while increasing them on low- and middle-income households."

#102 | When you figure out that the wealth in this country has been redistributed upwards by the wealthy and the corporate writing their own laws.... and that you paid to make up the difference, well, you'll likely feel pretty stoopid.

"As documented by a recent Congressional Budget Office study, the top 1 percent of income recipients in the United States earned 275 percent more in 2007 than they did in 1979, adjusted for inflation, a period when the earnings of middle-income households grew by less than 40 percent."

-redistributed upwards by the wealthy and the corporate writing their own laws...

Ya'll never seem to want to address that part, just pretend it is an even playing field.

It isn't now, hasn't been since upper brackets were 70 to 90 percent, you know, when the country was booming.... and would not be level if there was a sudden flat tax after all the upwards distribution.