USA: are corporations or the lower class the bigger welfare queens?

[Juxtapose]

I think we all know who the real welfare queens and enemies of humanity are..

Updates

+1 y

The image about the world economic forum was actually a misattributed quote. My baaaad I will do more research next time ☺️👍

[nightdrot]

This is sort of the fallacy of the false alternative. At least in a democracy, you don't get one without the other.

The modern welfare state in the United States was born in the wake of the Great Depression. It was designed both - according to Keynesian economic theory - both the spur economic growth and to aid the poor. Doing this by expanding the size, scope and role of government. Taking it from "neutral arbiter of the law" so to speak to "manager of the economy."

The net effect of this was to create a massive bureaucracy and this in turn had - and has - two impacts. The first is that it made government, in effect, an autonomous and in some ways unaccountable force in the national life. Literally thousands of decisions are made each day by bureaucrats and bureaucracies that are accountable to no elected officials.

To be sure, the officials pass the laws. However, the bureaucrats write the regulations made pursuant to the implementation of those laws and then the bureaucracy interprets the regulations that it wrote. There being no way for laws to be written with enough case specificity to apply them abstractly in every real world case.

Thus, for example, environmental laws set standards and then bureaucrats determine how those standards will be met. Ditto banking laws and all the rest.

In this sense, then, government empowered the powerful. Business - and some organized public interest groups - alone have the money to hire the lawyers and the lobbyists to influence politicians in what laws are made. However, from that point forward, the bureaucracy takes over - with one quirk. Bureaucrats are often not trained experts in the industries they regulate, so they publish regulations and open them up for a time for comments. The industries then "comment" and the bureaucrats then adjust them in the light of those "comments."

However, in that connection, it is best to recall, that in a democracy, the people do not decide. Rather, they decide which elites decide. The elites alone have the expertise, competence, education and skills necessary to run a modern administrative state. Such education, knowledge and skill does not exist in the population at large and where the masses, so to speak, take control, historically speaking, the results are usually chaos and ultimately the tyranny of unaccountable elites.

As far as the lower class, they pay no taxes, and they have an extensive network of social services administered by the elites. Indeed, it is interesting that some of the most socially conservative views are to be found among the lower classes. They have a stake in things as they are as the poor endure best in stable circumstances.

Not for nothing were the most famous Marxists in the West to be found not among the poor, but among the comfortable college educated upper middle class. For the poor, turmoil is a gritty reality. For the college educated, it was mere abstraction. Not for nothing now is support for modern populism - see Donald Trump - to be found in the lower middle class.

Thus the question is fallacious. Insofar as it is a question of wealth, things are about where they have been since at least the New Deal. Insofar as it is a question of power, the elites and the middle and lower classes of struck a deal that makes each happy - even as the middle class gripes about it. Their actions - and votes - speak louder than their words.

[Juxtapose]

What you describe sounds like a nice balance that does not align with reality. The elites have too much power, civil asset forfeiture, NSA wiretapping, arresting whistleblowers, experimenting on black people using syphilis without their knowledge, etc etc.

The elites are employed by we the people and it is us they are ultimately accountable, not their bottom line. I think if a few heads roll they will remember that :)

[Juxtapose]

[Juxtapose]

[Juxtapose]

William is a former CIA director.

[nightdrot]

Yes, I am familiar with Mr. Casey. Actually, I have worked in Washington, DC since 1988.

By the way, just to clarify, I was describing things AS THEY ARE. The elites DO respond to the public. Not always perfectly or correctly, but as often as not, the public does not know what it wants and subscribes to the illusion that the elites are somehow oppressing them.

Here are some fun facts:

1 in 6 who work are employed by the government.

1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient - and that number will only go up as the population ages and as the workforce shrinks relative to the overall population. (Currently, Social Security has $21 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and yet if a politician so much as whispers the suggestion of any changes to the program or its benefits, the public howls as if someone had just set out to touch up the Mona Lisa with a paint gun.)

1/3 of all families, this year, will receive some form of transfer payment. (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). Plus, during the pandemic year of 2021, 92% of ALL families received some form of transfer payment.

10% of the richest Americans pay 82% of all Federal income taxes.

The result is a HUGE middle class constituency for the government and government programs we currently have.

The public talk a ferocious game against the elites, but as their voting and spending habits illustrate, when it comes down to brass tacks they like things just as they are. Indeed, although I was not a fan of President Trump, the reason why he never managed better than a 47% approval rating was because his populism against the "Swamp" and the "elites" called the public's bluff.

To the American public: If you don't like the elites, change your habits and vote for different elites. In the meantime, J'accuse!!!

[nightdrot]

By the way, thanks for your positive emoji.

[Exterminatore]

I strongly think there is something conspiratorial going on in regards to the economics in the country, the brain washing of children towards lgbt, the drug problem the mass shootings, and a number of issues. It seems clear the intended destruction of this country from within is the goal. Who is behind it? I’ve always felt is was China I could certainly be wrong. There is no doubt Woke ideology and politics play a part in this. It seems clear someone is intent on eroding the moral fabric of this country and destroying it economically, and dividing its population against each other as much as possible.


In regards to the tax amounts the one meme cites, I don’t think that’s accurate. I make just under $60K with no overtime. YTD I haven’t paid 50% of those figures yet in federal taxes.


Not that I’m any great friend of either the cooperations who think exploiting American workers and consumers is ok, nor am I a friend of the crowed that thinks someone owes them a living. I have far much less love for the former than the latter however.

[KrakenAttackin]

Your numbers are not accurate. There are no "tax breaks for moving business overseas", and the "loopholes" are utilized by smart accounting departments.

The majority of corporate tax "breaks" come from depreciation, capex, and other business expenses.

I remember when Obama was hell bent to tax the fuck out of private jets, until the unions of aerospace workers set his ass straight. Corporations certainly do bad shit, but they do produce jobs and needed goods and services.

[Juxtapose]

Sure corporations have their place but when have we ever bailed the people out like we bailed the banks out? FDR was the last president to institute such a huge social program to help the people, since then not much has been really done in my opinion.

[Juxtapose]

I didn't mean to imply that corporations and banks are the same but you get what I mean.

[KrakenAttackin]

@Juxtapose. It's the golden rule, those who have the gold make the rules. Big companies will always have power over politicians.

[Juxtapose]

I don't think it has to be this way, I think we can do better. But anytime headway is made people forget it in the coming generations and any headway is eroded outside of the public view.

Now we have Gen Z who has never seen a time where a single person without a college education can provide for a whole family like in the past.

[KrakenAttackin]

@Juxtapose. Gen Z hasn't looked to see people who work in the trades. There are plenty of skilled tradesman who make much better money than those with victim studies degrees. We greatly undervalue trades in the US and it is hurting us.

[Juxtapose]

I got to say if I ever did return to the workforce then getting into a trade would be one of the wiser ideas.

[Juxtapose]

"Victim Studies" hahaha well put 🤣

[goaded]

Apart from the idea that taxing private jets would have made a big difference economically (what self-respecting multi-millionaire would give up their toy?), I find myself mostly agreeing with both of you. Trades are underrated, but there are an awful lot of bad apples.

[Fuentes]

Lol i always said this when i watched movies and talked to my old realitives that are still alive or passed they all said. They could take care of their family's back in the day with one job, get a house and 2 cars. But because of constant "inflation" over the years. It's funny we pay out more for secret wars and immigrants & refugee's due to those wars.

Biden say's sorry gas lrices and food cost will remain high. But the white house and Biden have no issue sensing billion to Ukraine and other countries and rebellion militias at war fighting for "democracy" while these immigrants and refugees come in and out work us due to the major handout we all paid for, then come here and wave their flags and block normal citizens from work and do weird shit we got fucked with no vaseline YEARS AGO. Biden is just putting it in our faces now.

[hahahmm]

I don't think it's that simple because you have to consider the incomes of the employees of the corporation. If they spend that income in the economy then it is generating other jobs. If a corporation only has a tiny number of employees then I'd agree with where you're headed.

Taxes are too high tho... I'd like to see a small flat tax. But voters are too dumb to reduce taxes.

[Lliam]

Corporations, industries, and elites are the greatest parasites by far. It's corporate welfare all the way, baby. But spend a few dollars to help out an actual human being and it's called socialism and the recipients are called bums and leaches.

[WindAtMyBack]

What the hell kind of BS is this? This is probably the most extreme case of lying with statistics I have ever seen. I'm a statistics junkie, and have been for decades. I've seen a heck of a lot of statistics in my life, and this is completely over the top when it comes to being total BS.

How can anyone possibly look at this without it raising red flags all over the place?

[Juxtapose]

When you look at how hard we're getting fucked it is pretty shocking isn't it?

[WindAtMyBack]

Dude, you are cherry picking and twisting things around to such extremes that your arguments have zero merit and you have zero credibility.

By the way, corporate profits are the absolute BEST thing for the welfare of the people. What do you think companies do with their profits? Do you think they hide it in a mattress somewhere? It's what makes the economy. It's what makes jobs. It's what makes a higher standard of living. It's the reason why people today have a dramatically better standard of living than they did in the past.

[goaded]

"What do you think companies do with their profits?"
Since Reagan made it legal, they've bought back their own shares, inflating the price so that the C-level can make a killing. They pay dividends to their shareholders. They do not, generally speaking, raise the wages of the people who work for them.

[WindAtMyBack]

@goaded

As far as I know it's always been legal for companies to buy back their shares. It's considered a good thing. It's basically the opposite of dilution which happens when issuing new stock. It's not all that common for companies to buy back stock. They will think about it carefully before they make such a decision.

The point is that that money stays in the economy. It doesn't end up hidden in the mattress or in a wall. If they buy back stocks (which is a small fraction of what they do with profits) then the money ends up in the hands of the general public.

In the modern market, that usually means it will end up in the hands of the general public indirectly through mutual funds or some other type of pooled money. Once the people have the money, it's up to them what to do with it. A significant part of it is actually in the form of retirement plans, which keeps in line with what I said about corporate profits being the best welfare for the people.

Yes, it will cause the stock price to go. Just the announcement of a buy back will cause the price to go up. Keep in mind that the increase in price applies to everyone, including the general public who actually own most of the stock.

[goaded]

"Buybacks were illegal throughout most of the 20th century because they were considered a form of stock market manipulation. But in 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission passed rule 10b-18, which created a legal process for buybacks and opened the floodgates for companies to start repurchasing their stock en masse. "
www.vox.com/.../stock-buybacks-republican-tax-cuts

I'm not convinced that they improve things for everyone. What happens after the stock buyback has increased the value of the managers' shares? Maybe they sell them, and the price goes back down again? That would leave everyone else back where they started, and the company no better off.

[WindAtMyBack]

@goaded

Managers and even executives likely have only a small percentage of the stock. Normal people own the large majority, or it's owned on their behalf. A company officer, or anyone with (I think) 5% of the stock is considered an insider. They can't sell stock any time they want. They have to register it and announce it ahead of time - I think it's 30 days but I could be way off.

Stock prices will stabilize. The market tends to be very fickle and reactionary in the short term, but in the long run it will find it's price. Insider trades can have a short term effect, but it will stabilize and probably not take too long to do it.

As I said, this is the opposite of issuing new shares, which dilutes the stock value. Shareholders would much rather the company buy back stocks than issue new shares. For one thing, it means the company probably has a lot of cash and little to no debt. I hate companies with debt. They tend to go under when things like COVID happen because they don't have enough money to survive extended slowdowns.. To me, a buyback is a sign of a healthy company. Of course you have to check it out, but the buyback is a good sign.

[Avicenna]

It's definitely corporations and the political elite

[goaded]

So, what do we do about it? Elect more Republicans to cut their taxes even further?

[anylolone]

Corporations, a several hundred times corporations!
Don't take me wrong, way less is spent with mussolini's distributive justice , but it's worst by several orders of magnitude.

[RealMarek]

What you are showing is the alignment of high (elite) and low (client groups) against the middle class. It is a fairly typical strategy.

[OddBeMe]

I can't tell which selection is corporations. But its corporations. Not even close, by the way.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah I don't know what happened there but it was supposed to be option A represented corporations.

[msc545]

Corporations of course

[lofii]

The working class are the biggest freeloaders