Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

Larry434 wrote:

And of course I know you are in favor of a government of entitlements. That ideology is the fundamental element of what separates conservatives and liberals.

And of course you know I am in favor of government entitlements?!? And in the next line you imply that I am a liberal. Well, maybe I am. Here, let me try...

'I know you are in favor of corporate entitlements. That ideology is the fundamental element of what separates conservatives and liberals.' How does that work for you? Just as assinine as your statement.

The truth is, Larry, that most people are moderates who can see the need for some "entitlements", but also the problems with providing something for nothing. The right-wing mouths like to repeat the kind of thing that you just said in an effort to make people think that 'liberals' are closet communists who want to take your hard-earned money and give it to some <insert racial or ethnic stereo-type here> who is lazy and doesn't deserve a pot to piss in. All due respect, Larry, that's malarkey.

0 Replies

I know, duck, in your opinion criticism of government entitlements is malarkey.

IMO, it is a valid criticism.

As to corporate "entitlements", they are but a part of the tax code, are they not, just as individuals have entitlements to deductions under the tax code?

Health care entitlements would not be.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

I know, duck, in your opinion criticism of government entitlements is malarkey.

IMO, it is a valid criticism.

As to corporate "entitlements", they are but a part of the tax code, are they not, just as individuals have entitlements to deductions under the tax code?

Health care entitlements would not be.

Hey Larry, how about we agree that you quit making stuff up and saying I said it.

Are airline bailouts in the tax code? Subsidies, grants, and protection from liability? Pord? As for the tax code itself, why did they abolish the AMT for corporations but not for individuals?

0 Replies

Are airline bailouts in the tax code?

What is an airline bailout? Bankruptcy? Government guaranteed loans, like SBA and education loans?

Subsidies, grants, and protection from liability?

Grants are for the purpose of obtaining a needed service or product. Value is received in return for the grant.

What protection from liability?

As for the tax code itself, why did they abolish the AMT for corporations but not for individuals?

I have no idea...but it was the will of our elected representatives, which is the way of our Republic.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Are airline bailouts in the tax code?

What is an airline bailout? Bankruptcy? Government guaranteed loans, like SBA and education loans?

Both direct relief (grants) and loan guarantees. SBA and education loans are not generally offered to airlines.

Quote:

Subsidies, grants, and protection from liability?

Grants are for the purpose of obtaining a needed service or product. Value is received in return for the grant.

What protection from liability?

The needed service being keeping the airlines in business? Protection from liability in the form of payouts to the 911 families in return for them not suing. There are other industries who also benefit from congressional protection from liability. Drug makers come to mind.

Quote:

As for the tax code itself, why did they abolish the AMT for corporations but not for individuals?

I have no idea...but it was the will of our elected representatives, which is the way of our Republic.

The will of our elected representatives also brought us 'entitlements'. If you can roll over for one, you can roll over for the other.

0 Replies

What airline has received a grant from the feds, duck?

0 Replies

Quote:

The handouts will go a long way toward patching the financial hole that the terrorists tore in the industry. AMR will receive the most aid, an estimated $915 million, followed by UAL, at $804 million. No. 5 Continental gets $396 million, while American Trans Air Inc. (AMT ), which ranks 10th, will get $51 million. All told, passenger airlines will get an estimated $4.5 billion, while cargo-only carriers will receive $500 million.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_41/b3752735.htm

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:
The handouts will go a long way toward patching the financial hole that the terrorists tore in the industry. AMR will receive the most aid, an estimated $915 million, followed by UAL, at $804 million. No. 5 Continental gets $396 million, while American Trans Air Inc. (AMT ), which ranks 10th, will get $51 million. All told, passenger airlines will get an estimated $4.5 billion, while cargo-only carriers will receive $500 million.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_41/b3752735.htm

Kinda like aid to those who are victims of natural disasters, huh?

Not a lifetime entitlement, but federal aid for a disaster to a critical industry crippled by government action post 911.

From the link: "Less than two weeks after terrorists hijacked and crashed four commercial jets on Sept. 11, Congress opened up the Treasury to the airline industry. Lawmakers coughed up $5 billion in emergency aid and agreed to guarantee up to $10 billion in borrowings. The government had shut down the airlines for nearly three days, so it's only fair that it provide compensation, the thinking in Washington went.

Perhaps you see no difference, but I see it as an apples and oranges comparison.

0 Replies

Did you read the rest of the article? Most of the airlines were already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Free market, anyone?

Who exactly gets the 'lifetime entitlement' from the government you are referring to?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Did you read the rest of the article? Most of the airlines were already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Free market, anyone?

The protections provided by the bankruptcy entitlement is available to everyone.

Who exactly gets the 'lifetime entitlement' from the government you are referring to?

Unearned healthcare entitlement for everyone, which is where we started this discussion.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Did you read the rest of the article? Most of the airlines were already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Free market, anyone?

The protections provided by the bankruptcy entitlement is available to everyone.

Who exactly gets the 'lifetime entitlement' from the government you are referring to?

Unearned healthcare entitlement for everyone, which is where we started this discussion.

And so you believe that the handouts to the airlines were earned. You know that they got more again, later, right? Also, my comment about bankruptcy was not intended to show bankruptcy as a benefit. In fact, the benefits given to the airlines were to prevent bankruptcy.

I am fascinated though by your obsession that people must earn healthcare, but that corporations are not required to 'earn' taxpayer dollars. And what of disaster relief, as you brought up. That is certainly not 'earned'. You may say it was deserved because of the hardship of natural disaster. But then is healthcare not also deserved because one is sick?

0 Replies

But then is healthcare not also deserved because one is sick?

As a government entitlement?...not in my opinion.

Taxpayer dollars used for corporate bailouts are often to the benefit of the Treasury, in that they enable the company to retain its taxpaying employees and continue to generate corporate income and taxes thereon. The Chrysler bailout, which was in the form of government guaranteed loans, comes to mind. Those loans were all paid on or ahead of schedule.

0 Replies

But you do believe that people are entitled to gov't disaster money.

Strange that you discriminate between one event which is out of the control of man, and another which is out of the control of man. We can do things to keep ourselves healthy, but sickness and disease can strike anyone, anywhere, in the same way as a natural disaster.

Why is it you believe that people are entitled to gov't help sometimes, but not others? It is a logical discrepancy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But you do believe that people are entitled to gov't disaster money.

Strange that you discriminate between one event which is out of the control of man, and another which is out of the control of man. We can do things to keep ourselves healthy, but sickness and disease can strike anyone, anywhere, in the same way as a natural disaster.

Why is it you believe that people are entitled to gov't help sometimes, but not others? It is a logical discrepancy.

Cycloptichorn

Fair question.

My rationalization of the apparent logical discrepancy...

Individual choices lead to the circumstance of having no healthcare insurance.

Manmade (911) or natural disasters (4 FL hurricanes this season) of astronomical scale in economic damages are not the result of individual choice.

0 Replies

Quote:

Individual choices lead to the circumstance of having no healthcare insurance.

But, of course, you know this isn't true.

Take my aunt for example. She had worked at IBM for 25 years when her whole division got axed. All of a sudden, no health insurance. It certainly wasn't her fault that she was diagnosed with breast cancer a few weeks later. But the medical bills, with no insurance and a pre-existing condition when it came to applying for new insurance, cost her a fortune. If she hadn't had a bunch of money socked away, she never would have been able to afford it.

Think about the vast number of people who recieve their health benefits through work, the situation of which can change COMPLETELY outside of the control of the individual. Are we to forget those people?

Sickness and disease are not always preventable, no matter how healthy one lives. Health insurance is not always guaranteed, as the vast majority of people cannot guarantee their empolyment will continue and cannot afford individual health care.

Therefore; to say

Quote:

Individual choices lead to the circumstance of having no healthcare insurance.

Is fallacious, given there are many instances where this is not true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

But then is healthcare not also deserved because one is sick?

As a government entitlement?...not in my opinion.

larry, what is your opinion on the bush admins use of tax money for faith based initiatives?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Larry434 wrote:
But then is healthcare not also deserved because one is sick?

As a government entitlement?...not in my opinion.

larry, what is your opinion on the bush admins use of tax money for faith based initiatives?

Using the established infrastructure of faith based charity delivery organizations is smart use of taxpayer dollars, since we need not fund a federal bureaucrat to distribute the charity the faith based institutions are already setup and staffed to provide. Thus less overhead and more of your tax dollar gets to the truly needy.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
But then is healthcare not also deserved because one is sick?

As a government entitlement?...not in my opinion.

larry, what is your opinion on the bush admins use of tax money for faith based initiatives?

Using the established infrastructure of faith based charity delivery organizations is smart use of taxpayer dollars, since we need not fund a federal bureaucrat to distribute the charity the faith based institutions are already setup and staffed to provide. Thus less overhead and more of your tax dollar gets to the truly needy.

Well now I'm confused. It's okay for taxpayer dollars to go to the needy, as long as there is no bureaucracy involved? Isn't that a good argument for Kerry's healthcare plan? That would be using an infrastructure already in place...

0 Replies

Well now I'm confused. It's okay for taxpayer dollars to go to the needy, as long as there is no bureaucracy involved?

Yes.

Isn't that a good argument for Kerry's healthcare plan? That would be using an infrastructure already in place...

No. Because that is a government run organization staffed with federal bureaucrats that will obviously have to grow if it is going to take another 40 million or so clients...thus growing government expenditures for personnel and insurance entitlements that the government will pay the large majority of the cost of.

No wonder you are confused...you keep insisting on mixing apples and oranges and you will remain confused.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
But then is healthcare not also deserved because one is sick?

As a government entitlement?...not in my opinion.

larry, what is your opinion on the bush admins use of tax money for faith based initiatives?

Using the established infrastructure of faith based charity delivery organizations is smart use of taxpayer dollars, since we need not fund a federal bureaucrat to distribute the charity the faith based institutions are already setup and staffed to provide. Thus less overhead and more of your tax dollar gets to the truly needy.

why should tax dollars go to the needy? obviously they've made the wrong choices, otherwise they'd be fine. bailing them out is an unearned entitlement, is it not?

and why does the church need tax money to be thy brother's keeper? certainly the church takes in enough in untaxed donations to do the job?

so, iguess what i'm getting from your statement is;

funding federal bureaucracy = bad

funding theocratic bureaucracy = good

0 Replies

Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know