[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So the argument is that we should spend more on traditional welfare than corporate welfare. I understand that point of view.

Corporate welfare is keeping our automakers, airplane, oil, and farming businesses afloat. Pretty scary really, but hardly lining the pockets of the 1% of the 1%. Well, probably it does, but that's a drop in the bucket for what it's purpose is. Without those subsidies, those businesses would be decimated. A major contribution of those subsidies is to keep a lot of people employed. One could argue that the labor unions turned the balance of power upside down and has made it incredibly hard for these businesses to stay afloat in the global economy...so now they need assistance. But the government doesn't make that money, the poor aren't making that money. It's coming from the middle and upper classes (or from floated checks).

The benefit of pulling back corporate welfare and giving it to social welfare is that when people start losing their jobs we'll be able to support them with traditional welfare. Well...until the money stops flowing in because the corporations can't fund their own subsidies much less the traditional subsidies. (read: Detroit, MI).

Soo... income redistribution is a bad thing, unless it benefits our corporations? Also an interesting indictment of the free market system you've advanced here .