🚀 go-pugleaf

zombie2_19_98@yahoo.com wrote in article
<6lv36c$koj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bd9572$f41e9fe0$38adcacc@default>,
>   "Dick Winningstad" <lemans3@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> 
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
> From the CATO institutes web page
> 
> ----------------
> What Is Corporate Welfare?
> 
> ...includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs
that
> provide research and other services for industries, and programs that
provide
> subsidized loans or insurance to companies.
> 
> 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.

And you think $75 billion will solve the poor problem given Washington D.C.
spending efficiency? $75x10e9 / 34x10e6 people = ~$2,20.00 per poor person.
Deducting the usual overhead costs for administering such programs, around
an additional $1,000.00 would make it to the poor, maybe. You've got to
reduce middle class entitlements under your proposal if you do not want to
change the way government conducts business but want to get more money to
the poor.
You, again, still need to include all welfare spending for the poor, not
just AFDC spending. 
Here is my (imperfect) solution: A negative income tax. Set an income level
point, such as $24,000.00, and levy an income tax rate of 17-20% on all
income over that amount (capital gains, paycheck, etc., and businesses
too). People making anything less will get half the difference and
businesses will not pay tax, but will not get a payment either. So, if I do
not make any money at all, the government will give me $12,000.00
($24k/2=$12k). If I make $10,000, the government will give me $7,000.00
($24k - $10k = $14k / 2 = $7k) which will bump my total income to $17,000. 
We could pare back the bloated entitlement system to almost nothing,
encourage able people to work, and direct the government's resources to the
real problem of helping the truly needy that are flat on their back due to
accident or whatever, or are mentally handicapped etc.
 
> > If you like big government, you better like big business.
> 
> I happen to believe in democracy. 

So do I (I replied pompously).

> Government can be democratic and as long as
> the people control the reigns of government, it will generally work to
the
> public's favor. Large moneyed interests, on the other hand, may or may
not
> have the public's interest in mind, and are not democratic (they are
> oligarchic.)

The big money interests are the people too. Big money is not some
impersonal force that exists just beyond our atmosphere. You need to get
off this marxist class thing. People do control the reins of government.
Over half the federal budget is spent directly on the middle class which is
the biggest interest group of all.

> > If you look at the federal budget, you will see the vast majority of
> > Federal payments goes to the middle class in the form of SS, Medicare,
> > school loans, mortgage help, etc. This spending dwarfs defense,
interest on
> > the debt, and both corporate and poverty welfare spending. Why? Because
the
> > middle class is the biggest special interest group of all.
> > If you really want to help the poor, start diverting middle class
benefits
> > to the poor. That is where the big money is. Of course good luck if you
> > should try to do this.
> 
> Why divert middle class benefits at all? Why not just stop all corporate
> welfare? You said your self that corporate welfare costs are more than
that
> for the poor. We could feed, house, and clothe our destitute and cut
taxes at
> the same time!
> 
> What a bargain!

Your numbers are wrong. That is why your proposal will not work.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad  lemans3@teleport.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------