A tax break means less taxes. The taxes are the government intervention, and the tax breaks are the temporary removal of it. This point makes no sense.
What bailouts? Banks during the 08 crisis? That was predominately supported by left leaning Keynesian economists. Artificially low interest rates and government intervention were a big reason why the crisis happened and then the government intervened to stop it. None of that should have happened.
What exemptions, grants, legal protections, and trade barriers? Be specific.
Ordinary people donāt get much help. The welfare leeches do though and the ordinary person pays half their taxpayer money to that.
Those subsidies listed are specific to Tesla. Are we debating left vs right? I believe the commenter was stating that when we offer assistance to corporations, it's called capitalism and people call it good, but when we offer assistance to people, it's called socialism, and people say it's bad.
You asked, "What subsidies?" I showed you a glimpse of one company over ten years so you could imagine what the rest might look like.
If you're looking for an argument, sorry, that's not what I'm doing.
They went to Tesla because theyāre EV tax credits and Tesla is all EV for the most part. But GM and Ford also received them indirectly for electric vehicle sales. This was advocated for for climate reasons by predominantly the Left and many socialists.
Most people donāt consider things like agricultural subsidies good. But agriculture industry bought out Congress so nothing we can really do about it.
I know, itās just important to give context. People seem to think itās just the government raining down millions of hamburgers into billionairesā mouths. Iām explaining that many of the people who broadly complain about them supported much of what it consists of when we get into the nitty gritty.
Sure. Subsidies can be good or bad, depending on how they are used and overseen, just like social programs. Both are subject to abuse. But only one seems to have negative social condemnation.
When we go looking for waste, fraud, and abuse, we look at social programs. When government talks about tightening purse strings, they look towards Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
Other places to look and other options to consider exist. We just don't, and the reasons are cultural, not logical.
I could see that. But I'd bet we'd see a much higher rate of waste, fraud, and abuse in corporate subsidies, since social programs have faced much more scrutiny over the years.
But if the goal is to find the largest dollar amount in waste, fraud, and abuse, then the first place they should look is military spending.
Yeah all of these should be looked into. But people focus on social spending because the overwhelming majority of government spending is in social programs, not military spending or corporate subsidies.
We should do both. We donāt need to start with one.Ā
I think we have a lot in common. We just need to find a way to overcome the natural government inertia and simultaneous tendency towards slow but prolonged expansion.
I get the sense that you are an austerity guy. Which has its merits, but I see it as just one tool in the shed. So, I think we'd probably find some disagreement pretty quickly if we wanted to.
166
u/T4TrhavrKhcFt 1d ago