Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | School Lunch Menus | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Don’t blame Dems: corporations run the US

April 26, 2014

To the editor: The recent letter to the editor blaming Democrats for all the problems in our governance is not true or honest to the record of events over the last five-plus years....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

Petercakes

Apr-30-14 7:31 AM

Hey doc, you really drank the kool-aide didn't you! No one is better at acting and theatrics than the current administration, half expecting seeing them awarded a Tony or Oscar.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Apr-29-14 10:34 PM

This letter and political stance is just another example of modern day politics (both parties!!). When something positive happens, take the credit. When something negative happens or something can't be fixed, blame someone or something else. What a great message to send to the outside world, and our own citizens, young and old.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-29-14 10:15 AM

Aunty,

Your report only points to the narrowest definition of welfare. The fact is that 87% of recipients are "all in" and participate in multiple social programs. When you contrast your narrow definition of social welfare with the "anything goes" definition of corporate welfare you are going to only get skewed numbers.

I'm sure most people aren't interested in having an honest discussion on the topic because too many people are too brainwashed to understand that the "facts" they are dispensing have been so heavily manipulated they are no longer valid.

Time to take Sven's advice. The vacation part that is. I'm not due for a colonoscopy for a couple of years.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Apr-28-14 10:32 PM

I haven't made a post on this thread.

Might have been the comments about enemas that took my breath away.

And, no, I didn't suggest Avoice indulge in a cleansing, although I have a pretty good idea who did suggest that.

I can be surly but, hopefully, not vile.

Maybe we should all enjoy the changing weather and take a "MIT vacation".

We aren't going to fix anything anyway.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-28-14 3:59 PM

2013 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - adjusting for inflation the purchasing power of benefits is less than in 1996. TANF (welfare) benefits for a family of three will only put it at 50% of the federal poverty line in every state, or $9,765 a year. That’s equal to earning $4.69 an hour. Work is better, at least while a minimum wage still exists.

In 32 states and Washington, DC, the benefits put that family at less than 30% of the poverty line, and in 16, benefits are at 20% of the poverty line, or less than $326 a month. More than 80% of families who receive TANF also receive food stamps (SNAP)), but even those families who get both will still fall below 75% of the poverty line in 48 states and DC.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-28-14 2:27 PM

Well that's the first meaningful thing you've typed, agitprop. Corporate welfare is a term coined by the liberal pundits and it is at best quite ambiguous. That's why none of you can really put any hard facts to it because none really exist. I did read somewhere a figure of 92 billion but it broadly defines corporate welfare as any "program" where a company sees a benefit due to government action. So, I guess you could classify widening a road to 4 lanes in each direction as corporate welfare because they will be able to drive more of their trucks and deliver more of their products. To each their own I guess.

I still think you should try the mirror thing I suggested earlier. You'll feel much better afterward.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-28-14 2:14 PM

MCW,

Put dollars to your claim. I cited a congressional report as my source. You don't like it or believe it - that's fine. I didn't make it up.

Show me where we spend more than 750 billion a year in corporate welfare. And just to be clear, loans don't count because they actually get paid back.

Social welfare was defined in the report consisting of direct cash payments and in kind payments such as food stamps, housing subsidies, heating assistance, daycare assistance, and Medicaid.

Look, I'm not defending corporate welfare because it often results as payback for political favors and from pay back on campaign contributions. It is also not a one-sided affair. Both major parties play the same game.

The truth is we spend much more on social welfare if you care to look at the facts.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-28-14 1:54 PM

That's just it agitprop you don't post any statistics - because you don't have any. Go ahead and disagree all you want but as long as you have nothing to back it up it's just as worthless as your insults.

If I'm wrong then prove it. Put up numbers and cite your sources. Name calling does nothing except to prove to the world that you nothing more than an idiot. Show us all that your not one by backing up your arguments with something other than insults.

The ball is in your court.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Apr-28-14 1:52 PM

You are so full of BS JReader I don't even know why I continue to respond.

Corporate welfare far outweighs personal welfare in this country. How many dollars in corporate welfare were used to help foreign automobile manufactures build plants in southern States to compete with and take jobs away from Ford and GM? And to think, you p!ssed and moaned when taxpayer dollars were loaned to GM. The dollars handed to Toyota, Kia, Subaru, etc. aren't ever coming back.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-28-14 12:03 PM

agitprop:

I realize the truth is something you can't bear. If you want to keep up with your childish insults I have a suggestion for you:

Just go stand in front of a mirror and rant all you want. At least you will be in a room with someone who cares what you have to say.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-28-14 11:59 AM

Aunty,

You do realize that it is those evil corporate welfare recipients that fund unemployment insurance so those so-called "turds" can go home and collect a check when they can't work.

Without those evil corporations and the taxes they pay just for the privilege of hiring an American worker we wouldn't have such things as unemployment benefits, social security, and medicare. I realize this doesn't fit your narrative of them being nothing more than "welfare recipients" and doing nothing to contribute to the well being of our society. But just think where we would be without them chipping in "their fair share" to make all these grand social programs stay a float.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-28-14 10:15 AM

Perhaps the real reason that the House has tried to repeal the ACA is because it has always and remains to be opposed by the majority of Americans. Maybe they are speaking on behalf of the people who put them there just like a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Taking lobbyists money is a Washington problem and Obama hasn't been exempt from the big payoffs either. He took nearly 28 million from lobbyists to get himself re-elected in 2012 77% more than Romney took. He also accepted an additional 17 million from special interest groups - 64% more than Romney.

As for corporate welfare, it is a fraction of what we spend on social welfare. According to a 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service the Federal Government spent 746 billion on welfare and if you add what states kicked in it reached 1.03 trillion. It is estimated that a single parent with two kids would need a starting wage over $15.00 an hour to make work a better alternative.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-28-14 9:35 AM

R2P - Just curious. Are full time workers who file for unemployment benefits when sent home a few weeks for lack of work become what you call societal turds? If they are suddenly laid off completely do they become societal turds as soon as they file for unemployment and other benefits while they seek new employment or is there some time frame?

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Apr-27-14 10:57 PM

The average American family pays $6,000 a year in corporate welfare. Even Forbes Magazine says we need to cut it to fix the federal budget.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Apr-27-14 10:55 PM

How about bringing back the good manufacturing jobs that provided good jobs to several generations of people. If you find a way to do that, R2P, and yet a man doesn't want to work, then I say cut all their welfare. Of course, those who are physically or mentally disadvantaged are an exception within their limits.

Financially speaking, corporate welfare ***** up much more money than personal welfare.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Apr-27-14 9:30 PM

mnsotn, corporate welfare, of which I am not a proponent, is grants, low interest loans and mostly tax breaks going to companies to incent them to create more jobs, stay in the U.S., build in certain areas, etc. The reason I am not a fan is because once again, those with political connections get the benefits and it pollutes the natural market. However, it is a far cry from individual entitlement programs that have created generations of takers who learn, literally from birth, how to game the system.

If you want to make the two equal, I am all in favor of letting the entitlement class keep more, or even all, of what they MAKE. I will lead the cheer for them to get low interest loans, provided they have the means and intentions to pay them back. And, I am even in favor of grants going to them if they can write a compelling business plan or strategy that benefits those around them or our society as a whole. Offer those opportunities and see how many takers you get.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Apr-27-14 9:10 PM

As far as what you characterize as my insulting comments toward Dr. Kluge, the FACT is that government intervention with the introduction of Medicare in 1966 inflated medical costs in this country, with the help of state run Medicaid and opportunistic insurance executives, at a rate of 8.34% while all other goods and services inflated at an average of 3.03% from 1966-2005. If you check, that would cover the bulk, if not the entirety, of Dr. Kluge's career in medicine. He and his colleagues could not control their business model for 40 years, but don't blame the democrats, or him apparently.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Apr-27-14 9:01 PM

The entire letter is a fool's errand, but I will point out something that even you can follow, agitprop. How can you say the republicans are engaging in theatrics when they try to stop the ACA through legislation, and then in the next paragraph bemoan the dwindling middle class and the spike in temporary jobs? The ACA is the biggest killer of full time jobs in the history of legislation. And, it is also sucking the financial life out of the middle class. You and Dr. Kluge are so focused on the stated intentions of the law that you can't see what is really happening.

Also, my livelihood, the well being of my family and my future rely zero on you. So, bash away buckshot, if it makes you feel better.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Apr-27-14 8:29 PM

agitprop - while Svensota and I have differing opinions, at least we respect the opinion each has to offer. I don't think Svensota has ever said what you posted and you should offer Sevensota an apology. I do believe you have a problem with truth. Having been in the healthcare field, I have seen a lot of single doctor offices close since they can no longer operate under the current reimbursement system and will only get worse in the future. A lot of those single doctor offices were practices in many rural communities which will leave a huge lack of health care for many rural patients. Why do you think Congress has to prop up the doctor's reimbursement rates each year with increased reimbursements? A 1.6% reimbursement payment increase over a 3 year period does not pay for the costs they have to incur - electronic medical records, new diagnostic machines, etc.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Apr-27-14 8:04 PM

Corporate Welfare may be a "made up term" Puke, though I don't believe it to be. A Google search "Corporate Welfare" turned up 52,500,000 results. There must be a lot of people with imaginations.

Or, you're in denial. Or senile.

Its definition is very well defined and its presence is all too real. Corporate welfare costs the American people far more than any other governmental hand out. The money handed out often does not get recirculated in the economy like the form of welfare that you detest so much.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-27-14 4:49 PM

Not everyone has such good employment opportunities and employers. Some take jobs overseas to pay workers pennies on the dollar, some wages do not provide enough for basic needs, some offer no benefits; and so people need unemployment, SNAP, etc. That does not mean they are lazy or greedy. Large corporations taking jobs overseas, making record profits, paying zero taxes and still getting additional gov money is not the same as communities offering incentives to employers.

Capitalism is not the problem. Incentives that result in a fair return are not the problem. Equating money with speech and corporations with people is. The Koch brothers are entitled to all the money they earn, but not more voice in government than the entire populations of New Ulm and Sleepy Eye.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

randiscott

Apr-27-14 3:01 PM

i work for BIC (lighters, shavers, pens etc) They bought out Norwood plants in sleepy eye and Red Wing. They also have a substantial workforce in Clearwater, FL. BIC is a French company but has plants world wide. I have health insurance for a family of five plus dental under $300 a month. I also have free life insurance while i work there and the entire company has received bonuses the past several years. I don't know what if any "corporate welfare" BIC is receiving for keeping thousands of jobs in the US---hundreds right here in SW Minnesota. If getting a break in taxes is what keeps BIC here then I and many employees of this wonderful company thank them.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Apr-27-14 12:12 AM

AuntyDem - if you are discouraged with corporate welfare, then you had better talk with your chief corporate welfare king - Senator Harry Reid. The Senate passes bills giving corporate welfare and the Senate is controlled by Dems at this point. Have you brought up your concerns with Klobuchar and Franken?

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MILFORD77

Apr-26-14 10:51 PM

Shouldn't Heir Doctor be spelled Herr Doctor. Just asking.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MILFORD77

Apr-26-14 10:49 PM

Not yet--would love to watch some of those shows I hear people talking about.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web