Spin off: Has anyone here ever heard of corporate welfare?

[Karen sn]

Reader's digest published a report in the mid to late 80's.

Welfare for people in one year 16 million.
Welfare for already wealthy corporations that same year 14 BILLION.

Since the start of this welfare to the time the report was published - Pilsbury had received 8 million.

Tell me someonelse read reader's digest as a teen!

[Carol in Cal.]

There was a lot of criticism of giving money to poor people at that time. Welfare had become an epithet.

So some studied where government money actually goes, and lots of it went to corporations in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. The quantities were staggering.

I believe that this is actually worse now, but I don't know where to get figures to back it up.

I think that one of the worst things about the welfare debate is the way it demonized people for being poor, as if that were always a choice; and as it compassion is a misguided impulse of stupid people. Well, call me stupid, but I'm compassionate. And I am in good company. (JC is, too.)

[Tutor]

Yup. Without corporate welfare, there would be no Amtrak. It would have gone under years ago without government help. It is basically a government owned company now. Good thing we are keeping alive a business that the general public basically doesn't use anymore. :001_huh: Couldn't let that happen. :confused:

[Melinda in VT]

Yup. Without corporate welfare, there would be no Amtrak. It would have gone under years ago without government help. It is basically a government owned company now. Good thing we are keeping alive a business that the general public basically doesn't use anymore. :001_huh: Couldn't let that happen. :confused:

I'm not big on corporate welfare in general, but I do wish our government would spend more time subsidizing public transportation. The train system in this country is embarrassing. Instead of adding lanes to freeways, we should be making public transportation faster and more convenient.

[LizzyBee]

The idea behind corporate welfare for businesses is that if the company goes under, their employees will be unemployed and end up on personal welfare, competition will be decreased, the companies suppliers will also go under, etc. In some cases, the argument is valid; it is in the best public interest to keep the company afloat.

[Karen sn]

The idea behind corporate welfare for businesses is that if the company goes under, their employees will be unemployed and end up on personal welfare, competition will be decreased, the companies suppliers will also go under, etc. In some cases, the argument is valid; it is in the best public interest to keep the company afloat.

But at what point do the CEO's give up their million dollar salaries?

[LizzyBee]

But at what point do the CEO's give up their million dollar salaries?

Very good question! The ironic thing about failing businesses is that the closer to the brink they get, the more they pay for executive salaries and professional fees, because they need the best of the best to pull them back into financial health. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. One company that I worked on after it went from Chapter 11 (reorganization) to Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy was paying some of its chapter 11 professionals $450 an hour!!! This was a company (an airline) that had gotten some public funds to keep it in business after 9/11. But the management had made a lot of poor decisions, and pouring in more money was a wasted effort. All those employees ended up unemployed anyway.

[Carol in Cal.]

However, I find it very ironic that lots of same people who oppose welfare for people favor it for companies. It seems like it is not such a matter of principle as it is presented as. And, frankly, the principle behind that stance always seems profoundly meanminded and lacking in human compassion to me.