4430 wrote:
Well woody if you were as smart as you think you are and if you had researched the farm bill you would have known who received the biggest slice of it all !
So woody somewhere along the line you seems to have a problem with math so can you please explain to me and to the rest of OPP members how farmers got $600 B in farm subsidies ?
BTW woody what has Food Stamps got to do with farmers ?
In case this question stumps you it's a fact that Food Stamps has absolutely nothing to do with farmers !
Well woody if you were as smart as you think you a... (
show quote)
——————-
“Food stamps has absolutely nothing to do with farmers.”
Let me see ... . Farmers grow food. Food stamp recipients use their food stamps to buy food. It may seem far-fetched, but, I think I can see a correlation, there.
It’s the governments way to help insure the farmers have a market for their crops and to help insure poor people have access to food. It’s the government subsidizing farmers and poor people.
You’re okay with subsidizing farmers and major, highly profitable, multi-national corporations with all sorts of tax breaks and actual monetary subsidies, but you get heartburn over food stamps and how they’re funded?
From “MoneyMatters:”
How Exactly Does Corporate Welfare Effects Us As Americans
By Candice Elliott
Last Updated on September 11, 2018
Welfare is a dirty word in America. Corporate welfare is the real dirty word though, X rated in fact. See just who gets the real welfare in America.
There is much nasty rhetoric and foaming at the mouth over welfare. The very word conjures up a certain image in the minds of some people. Lazy single mothers with a parcel of kids from different fathers pulling up to the supermarket in a Cadillac and paying for steak and lobster with food stamps.
I go to work every day and I don’t live that well. Why should they?
The image even had it’s own meme, if there can be such a thing in the pre-internet days. The Welfare Queen. The term took hold during Ronald Reagan’s 1976 p**********l campaign when he made reference to a South Side Chicago woman who had committed welfare fraud along with a litany of other crimes.
I get it. I go to work every day and I don’t eat steak and lobster at every meal. But is it an accurate portrayal? And should social welfare be the focus of so much ire or is there a bigger, much bigger, source of welfare that seems to get a pass in this country?
Social Welfare
Social welfare includes things like Medicaid, SNAP (what used to be called food stamps), housing assistance, and home energy assistance. But it also includes things like unemployment and veteran’s benefits.
It’s really difficult to get a hard number on what the US spends on social welfare programs because different reports include and exclude different programs. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama released a report that included 83 different programs and clocked in the spending at $1.03 trillion in 2011. The CATO Institute published similar numbers for 2012.
But both of those numbers include things like The Earned Income Tax Credit which you have to work to earn. The clue is in the name for cripe’s sake, earned.
They also include funding for Head Start programs. I know some programs can be abused but I’m pretty sure Head Start is something we can all agree is a good thing. Education for little kids from low income families is pretty hard to demonize.
If we separate out those kind of programs from things like SNAP and housing voucher’s, the kind that some people really seem to resent, the spending comes in at about $212 billion per year. That’s a lot but it’s a lot less than $1 trillion.
Corporate Welfare
The dictionary definition of corporate welfare is “government support or subsidy of private business, such as by tax incentives.” Seems pretty innocuous until you start poking around a bit.
A report from the General Accounting Office found that in 2011 the US spent a nearly identical amount on corporate tax expenditures as it collected in corporate taxes, $181 billion. Again, it’s hard to get the numbers to add up. Each report seems to categorize subsidies, tax credits, tax incentives differently.
Some separate federal from state and state from local. But wh**ever metric you use, it is billions of dollars, maybe hundreds of billions that profitable corporations are siphoning out of your pocket. Siphoning probably isn’t even the right term. More like they are reaching right into your wallet and daring you to do something about it.
The Real Welfare Queens
So where are those billions going? Let’s look at some of the biggest and most grotesque beneficiaries.
-State and local subsidies account for about $80 billion. GM was gifted $1.7 billion in subsidies. Amazon, Boeing, and Microsoft each got over $200 million.
-Hedge fund managers receive a special tax break that allows them to pay a 20% rate, the people they make money for pay 35%. That has been estimated to cost $6 billion.
-Wal-Mart. The odious Walton family could have a whole list dev**ed to how much welfare they suck up and the list would run several chapters. Here are a few highlights.
Wal-Mart gets $7.8 billion dollars a year in corporate welfare. $6.2 billion of that are in the form of social welfare their employees get via things like Section 8, SNAP, and Medicaid because Wal-Mart doesn’t offer a living wage for most employees. They are America’s biggest private employer.
-But don’t think Wal-Mart is completely heartless! In 2013 a store in Canton, Ohio held a food drive for EMPLOYEES who would otherwise have not had anything to eat for Thanksgiving. Those Waltons, is there no beginning to their generosity? I don’t know. There is certainly no beginning to their shame.
-Another $1 billion is saved using tax breaks and loop holes to write off capital investment costs.
-$607 million in federal taxes are avoided through lowered tax rates on capital gains.
-Double dipping! Not only does Wal-Mart pay their low wage employees so little that they require SNAP benefits, but Wal-Mart captured 18% of the SNAP market in 2013. Henry Ford paid his workers well enough so they could afford to buy his cars. The Waltons pay so little that their employees can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart. And food pantries I guess. Genius!
-Remember this article about getting money out of politics and how lobbyists spend big money buying Congress? Wal-Mart spends $6-8 million a year lobbying. And it’s working if the numbers above are what we judge by. A better return on investment than the measly 6% us plebs are getting in the stock market.
-In 2013 the state of Washington gave an extension on tax breaks to Boeing that will total $8.7 billion. That is the single biggest state tax subsidy ever granted to an American company. That little deal, along with “worker concessions” that will move them away from pension plans, secured production of the 777X aircraft will remain in Washington.
Boeing lobbyists were understandably delighted with this outcome. Such was their gratitude, they threw a party for Washington state lawmakers. I wonder if the goody bags were big suitcases full of unmarked bills.
All things considered, Boeing is not the worst company to subsidize. They pay their workers pretty well so they aren’t on the breadline like Wal-Mart’s employees. But it continues the dangerous precedent of big companies blackmailing state and local government with the threat of job losses to wring ever bigger subsidies out of the treasury. Which we all pay for, whether you work for Boeing or not.
The Bottom Line
So just what is all this government largess as your expense costing you? About $6000 a year for each American family. Would some of us just blow that money on dinners out and updated tech gadgets? Yes, of course.
But some of us would put that money into a retirement account, save it for a child’s college fund, pay down our own college loans. I can tell you what I would never do, hand it over to any member of the Walton family.
But, that’s okay. You just keep on crabbing about food stamps and whose elegant whose not while the biggest, most profitable corporations continue to get far more in subsidies than all of the welfare recipients combined.