doublegunshop.com - home Forums Difference between the NAACP and the KKK ?

Corporate and public welfare are connected, Marcus: what falls as charity from government hands all comes out of taxpayers' pockets. The point I was making is that where there was once a sense of noblesse oblige in our so-called private enterprise system---privileges of the powerful entail responsibility---now no one complains when billions are given to the powerful corporate welfare bums but save their criticism for those in need, mostly deserving than not. Public welfare rolls are increasing everywhere and will continue to rise from the effects of deregulation, globalization etc but the blame for rust belts, crushing meltdown, sending jobs overseas should not be visited only on those unemployed on the streets. The Big Boys put the world economy in the ditch.

KIing, I'm not sure that is true. Lots of people complained about the bailouts. Lots of people complain about corporate welfare bums. So far, the complaints haven't been loud enough or persistent enough. But it's growing.

Our American friends may better be able to confirm this than I but isn't one of the issues on the agenda of the Tea Party reducing corporate welfare? But why would that matter? To those on the left and in the media, the Tea Party are just a bunch of selfish right wing wack-jobs.

Reminds me of the way Albertans are called rednecks here yet Calgary and Edmonton are among the most accommodating and diverse societies in Canada. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

No King, this is ideological lie. Social program entitlements come directly out of the taxpayers pocket and future. Your mischaracterization of corporate welfare is in truth tax incentive, or a slight decrease in tax rate, to encourage job creation. Your corporate bashing is at odds with your contention that the taxpayer pays. Do the entitlement folks create your revenue to pay themselves.

The GOP held House has also voted numerous times to repeal ObamaCare, but that hasn't happened either. For someone who is so worldly and well travelled, one would think you know we have a system which requires that laws pass our House and Senate, and then, unless there are enough Senate votes to over-ride a presidential veto, go on for signing by the executive branch before becoming law.

There have been no cuts to Food Stamps and you knew that. The program has expanded dramatically under Obama. The program is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse, It is one of a long list of reasons why our unsustainable defecits are ballooning. The Republican proposals, if passed, would not have left children starving. They would have cut fraud and slowed the rate of growth.

King knows all of this, but he would rather tell lies than admit the truth. King says this should all be civil, good-hearted discussion and "opinions without spite or spleen". Opinions are things like felt recoil and whether a 28" barrel swings better than a 30" barrel. When you come here day after day spouting outright lies... and you know they are outright lies... that's not civil discussion anymore. It's just being a liar.

Dishonesty is not civility.

States and provinces compete to get industry. They provide companies with grants, loans, monies for start-ups, marketing, innovation and productivity, training etc. I can't think of an industry that doesn't tap public money, one way or another. It's an incentive for companies to locate, as you say, but subsidization just the same. Mixed economies can't operate without it. Taxpayers now share risk traditionally borne by private enterprise. Canadians paid for every dry well the oil corporations drilled looking for oil off Atlantic Canada. It's hardly corporate bashing when it's public policy to reward corporate begging. Certainly not an "ideological lie."

You're right about not loud enough and persistent enough, as the protests were 50 years ago. All the jibber-jabber about the libtards and the Left gives me a smile because there's no Left left compared to 50 years ago of student movements, strong labour unions, Ralph Nader and consumer protests, Hey hey LBJ how many kids you killed today?

The GOPs problem with the Tea Party is sort of like Harper's when he became our Conservative prime minister, promising to build firewalls against "defeatist" eastern Canadians, and stopping the giveaways to industry. Reality set in with future elections to win; his "small, leaner" government became big government with deficits, as they did with presidents.

The GOP's Old Guard is as leery of the Tea Party as "the libtards." Changing demographics will shape future political platforms; they'll look a lot different from the last one. Even McCain came out today for a review of Stand Your Ground, eyes wide open to electorates of future years.

Does King really think that if Canadian, or American, oil companies never received any government subsidies or incentives, that the cost of dry wells would not be passed along to the customer? Do King and the other Libtards fools really think that if we soaked Exxon-Mobil or General Motors, or General Foods or Coca Cola with high corporate taxes, that the costs of those taxes would not be passed along to the consumer? It is regrettable that often companies take those incentives that were intended to create domestic employment, and use them to either invest in lower wage foreign operations or automation which reduces the need for employees. But it's the politicians who are to blame for not tying those incentives to levels of desired performance. It's both parties fault, but it is mostly the Democrats who have taken the easy path of placating the poor and uneducated masses they've helped to create, by merely transfering wealth from those who still work to those who don't care to work. Since they cannot possibly expect those still working to pay all of those monumental costs, they kick the can down the road and place the burden on our children and guarantee them a lower standard of living in the future. King thinks this is good and represents Hope and Change we can believe in.

As noted, King is a Socialist or a Communist, so his lies are meant to propagate his vision, which is a proven failure. If you look at what's happening in Chicago and other inner cities in the "hood", it's apparent that L.B.J. is still killing kids. And the NAACP is helping by worrying more about registering our guns than changing the culture of Nanny State Blacks... just to get back to the topic that King wished to steer us away from.

Notice that King keeps going back to the loser John McCain as a guiding light on the Second Amendment. McCain stabbed his constituents in the back in the recent failed Senate vote on Universal Backround Checks (which King initially advised us to accept rather than banding together with the NRA to fight). So it's no surprise that McCain would once again roll with the anti-gunners position. We're still waiting for the Great King Brown to tell us exactly what he contributed to the repeal of the Canadian Long Gun Registry, and what he's now doing to get Quebec to comply with the law. I'd be very surprised if any effort King made was anthing but concessionary to the anti-gunners. King was very critical of the NRA in the aftermath of Newtown, and it seems apparent that he'd like to see restrictions on our Second Amendment even though it should be no concern of his.

Buried in the middle, you make my case and propogate the ideological misleading falsehood. Maybe check your definitions. One is motivation, the other is taken out of the taxpayers' pocket and future.

All that 'hardly' corporate bashing does is make you feel good, but it doesn't offer any solution to income tax revenue. The only way to pay for your feel good entitlements, which you have not shown betters lives other than that of lib elite philosophers, is to collect taxes, borrow, or print money. Of the three, which source of revenue should be used, and can a lib elite manage their personal finances in a similar way to the current admin.

You really might thank the big bad corporations that stand quietly and politely to criticism like dubya does. Maybe you could swap in union for every time you use the word corporation. Do you think your bottom fifty-one percent designates a percentage of their entitlements to the secular liberal social engineers. Or, would a teflon pc rock star still be obliged to smooze with big ticket supporters.

HaHa, "no Left left"? All that's happened since is the Left got smart!

The protests from the sixties have their modern day equivalent in the Occupy movement.

Much more importantly the Left learned from their early ineffectiveness and have infiltrated the government bureaucracy. They became the professors at universities across North America, the teachers in every school. They man the payrolls of every government supported NGO, of which there are over 1.5 million in the US alone, pushing their agenda on the taxpayer's dime. How is that for welfare?

Regardless of what the GOP's problem with the Tea Party is, the Tea Party is a significant movement that is against corporate welfare.

And frankly, I am surprised at your oblique defense of it, as the region you come from in Canada, along with Quebec and Manitoba, are the poster children for welfare of every sort, corporate, personal and intergovernmental. And if you took any rational, evidence based look at it, you would know that the forty years of equalization payments and other taxpayer largess that has underpinned the economies of the Maritimes, Quebec and Manitoba, have been an abject failure. It has perpetuated bloated government and unsustainable industries while dis-incentivising people from taking needed step to create growth and opportunity.

The fact that GOP and Conservative led governments have continued this pattern speaks to the effectiveness of the left in lying to the general public about how welfare of any kind works....it's effectiveness and value. That's all.

Any way you cut it, Craig, our taxes are used as bait to attract, motivate, keep industries in communities and when the US, Canada, Mexico or China offers something better they often pack up and leave. Dozens of examples around here.

We live in an ostensibly private enterprise capitalist system---a myth commonly believed---although most of voting age know it's a mixed economy close to socialism without the discredited ownership of means of production.

Capitalists use their own money. Under our systems, they thrive or blow it through bad judgement or bad luck and, on the current evidence, taxpayers ante up to put them back in business again. State-managed economy.

I don't know how a "liberal elite" handles it financial affairs but if you're referring to individuals, liberals or conservative, it seems they do much better than governments, keeping in mind that, like Detroit, bad things happen.

The financial sector is "quiet and polite" under criticism, as you say. Who wouldn't? It can't get the grin off its face. It suckered regulators and government into fraudulent manipulation and stiffed taxpayers again.