Could someone please explain the difference between plain old welfare and corporate welfare?
CanvasShoes, corporate welfare is any sort of transfer payment from the government to a corporation. In many cases, the transfers are fair and reasonable, but in many others they are not. Many social service programs consist of the government paying outside entities to provide services to the target population; such arrangements are a form of corporate welfare and are often perpetuated beyond the point where they are useful, or perverted into forms that are not very useful to the nominal goal, in order to maximize the corporation’s profit. Corporations have more political influence than the poor, as a rule.
wring, you do realize that virtually all student loans are subsidized by the government, right?
Other forms of ‘corporate’ welfare include:
Giving tax concessions to certain industries to encourage them to be more competitive with offshore companies.
Subsidising the primary sector during ‘bad’ years (or ‘good’ years when commodity prices drop).
Govt. bail-outs of failed businesses.
Home-owner tax exemptions/reductions (including negative gearing for investment properties). In Australia, for example, there is a program called the First Homeowners Scheme whereby a grant of $7000 is given to those purchasing their first home…and although it involves a direct handout/cash transfer from the govt to the individual, it is not counted in the Welfare Bill (and those who recieve it do not consider themselves welfare recipients).
These are just a few instances.
Thank you!!
No worries. 
wring I am in fact going to school on a student loan. I will have to start making payments two months after I finish school, whether I have found a job in my field or not. So, if I don’t find work right away, there is a possibility that I will be trying to make payments on that loan while working for $8.00/hr at Wal-Mart, which, here in Las Vegas, is a subsistence level poverty wage.
The trouble with student loans is that you’re starting out your new career in debt. It usually takes being in a field a few years before a person starts making real money. Yes, a person will be making more than poverty wages, but the added load of the loan payments can make things very tough, especially for someone with a family to feed, which, thank God, I don’t have. And, yes, sometimes it does take a while to find a job after you finish school. even sven will tell you all about it.
I really don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with government subsidized post-secondary education for the poor, especially for vo-tech or Associate degrees. The people who receive this subsidized education will end up paying far, far more in tax revenues over their working lives than the short term outlay.
We’ve all heard the Greek saying, “Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish, he will feed himself for a lifetime.” Seems that wring would rather give a man a fish…
Of course, to be fair to wring, most people who are opposed to government-subsidized education are also opposed to welfare in general, so apparently they believe that the poor should starve to death in the streets, the way they do in third-world countries…
Yeah, but then they bitch about those stupid homeless people…why should they be out here-shouldn’t they be working?
It’s so fucked up.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for an hour; light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Well :eek: Golly 
and Sheesh :dubious:
Are you sure you have posted to the right thread here Matt?
Just curious is all…
I haven’t seen anyone actually argue against state subsidized education.No one has said get rid of federal and state grants, student loans (which are a subsidy), or public colleges. I don’t even recall anyone saying that people receiving welfare or food stamps shouldn’t be able to attend colleges or trade schools. At most, I’ve seen disagreement with the idea that education should substitute for requirements that recipients look for work and receive basisc training on how to look for work - an entirely different issue.
yes, of course I understand that student loans are subsidized by the government. There is, of course a major fucking difference in that a student loan is scheduled to be paid back.
what I have said is that it is Not at all surprising that there’s resistence to automatic vocational and secondary training paid for (ie not loaned to) by the government to everyone on public assistance.
and I don’t agree that everyone needs it, wants it and or would benefit by it. (yes, many do, but I’ve met lots that don’t). And I absolutely reject the notion that the government is required to offer every citizen the means by which they can get trained/etc to achieve a middle class or above status.
I also resent the implication (intended or not) that since I’m not in favor of the government spending thousands of dollars per recipient to pay for the vocational/secondary education, so that they may rise above the poverty level, that this somehow is twisted to mean that I deliberately want demand/whatever, that ‘poor folks remain poor’ or that people should die of starvation in the street etc.
I suggest that the idea that all/most of those folks in these programs need/want/should get paid training is absurd on many levels :
-
as the link I provided a ways back demonstrated most are only on public assistance for a short time in the first place. So, all the carping about folks being forced to remain in poverty isn’t supported by actual data. If you disagree, don’t tell me your personal story about how you personally would have been on assistance for 2 months less or would have had it easier, provide substance, not stories.
-
The expense of such a program would be financially devesating to the public and, IMHO, would lead to further deliberate abuses of the system - for example, why would the middle class/upper class family bother to pay for the secondary education of their children when they can merely have them establish a seperate residence and thereby force the government to foot the bill totally?
-
Bottom line is: not everyone needs/ wants or is suitable for training. and all three criteria should be met. And to routinely offer it/demand that it be available for all would again open up the door for deliberate abuses. Not all jobs require voc/tech training or advanced degrees. Again note, the government does not owe everyone a certain standard of living, and the fact that I point this out does not mean that I want people being forced to live in poverty etc.
I do not disagree that in many individual cases, it would be very good, etc. And actually, from working in the system, many of the cases I see where some one’s training is paid for it does make sense (where some one was one credit shy of getting a nursing degree for example). But routinely offering it up as a first best alternative is not a financially (nor progammatically) sound proposition.
wring, I don’t mind if they expect people to fund training programs with student loans or other forms of subsidy other than welfare. Right now, however, if you use any training program other than one specifically approved by the welfare office, you will be considered noncompliant with the “work for welfare” regimen and your benefits will be reduced or terminated. I think people who are engaged in a reasonable course towards self-sufficiency should not have obstacles hurled in their path, forcing them to choose a course that is less likely to lead to long-term self-sufficiency. This is what forcing people out of college and into minimum wage jobs does. As far as I can tell, one of the design goals of our welfare system is to restrict access to higher education.
again, I’m not sure that what we want to say is that the government will support you all during a 4 year college degree program. Yes, it’s a laudeble goal. the issue is who should foot the bill for the person while they’re seeking that education and who should foot the bill for the education itself.
It is my position that the government does not owe all of it’s citizens the ability to not support themselves while they seek long term education. Yes, it takes longer if you aren’t a full time student.
but ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ does not guarentee that some one else will support you totally while you pursue your life’s goals.
wring, typical student aid packages are sufficient to “foot the bill” for a single student. It’s individuals who have children and want to do more with their lives than flip burgers that are prevented from doing so by the current welfare rules.
doesn’t change or even address my point.
the US government does not owe all of it’s citizens a free education post high school.
It’s not your dime, it’s the government’s. The moment you pay it in taxes, that money ceases to be yours, and you have no claim on it.
You’re an incredible asshole, and everyone whose ever encountered you on this board knows this. But this is just about the most condescending and hateful thing you’ve said yet.
You may be richer than other people, but that does not make you better than them.
wring, I never said it did. I just think it’s in the government’s interest to enable people who are able to improve their income potential (except for a lack of resources) to do so. Higher incomes mean higher tax revenue, not to mention fewer disgruntled people to turn to crime.
Depends. It’s in their best interest that more people work as much as possible, and yes, at higher wages.
But once again - not everyone wants or needs or is capable of an advanced degree. An advanced degree is not the same as a job offer (as thousands of brand new college grads have discovered). an advanced degree is not a guarentee of an increased income etc. etc etc.
and the issue to me is the level of subsidy. It’s one thing to occasionally offer up/pay for one class that will greatly enhance some one ability to secure gainful employment and it’s quite another to pay for a 4 year degree while you’re also paying their living expenses.
The bottom line is that if the person is interested and driven enough to secure an education, they (in most cases ) can, even if it takes longer or they have to take out loans and so on.
to expect that the government should automatically foot the entire bill is what I’m disputing.
It’s one o’clock, it’s work tomorrow. Blessed are the few that pull the strings and push the levers so they don’t have to work.
Blessed is Randy Newman for saying:
in his song Roll With The Punches
Damn! Work tomorrow…
I’m really not sure how people are being forced out of college and into minimum wage jobs by the welfare to work programs. They are perhaps being forced into working (or attending one of the approved training programs) while attending college, but that’s a different issue. Plenty of people work full-time, and attend college. Some of them even have children.For example, at the City University of New York, 27% of of the undergraduate students work full time (an additional 32% work part-time), and 29% support children.