Talk:Corporate welfare/Archive 1

use of Wealthfare term
Cut from opening sentence:


 * , also known as "wealthfare",

Who calls it this? --Uncle Ed 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to dispute the neutrality of this page. --Soulmaster

2006 Federal Corporate Welfare Spending
Hi!

Do you know where I could find out how much of the 2006 federal budget was devoted to corporate welfare.

It seems like I've looked everywhere on the Internet, but haven't had any luck.

Thank you for your time!

Cordially, Mike P. Sinn rory_rocket@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rory rocket (talk • contribs).

Alternative terms
I am in the UK. I understand the meaning of the term "corporate welfare", and I'm sure it goes on in most countries to a certain degree. However, I can't think of a good alternative term for the UK. Can a fellow Brit tell me if they've heard the same basic idea referred to under another (catchy) name?

WikiReaderer 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Objections to the term
"Thus, some people feel the term unfairly portrays welfare as a bad thing."

That "some people" seems weasily to me. On the contrary, I am quite certain that the term "Corporate Welfare" is a term of disapproval BECAUSE of the inclusion of the word "Welfare". That is, most people are already against Welfare, and so the term places it in the same negative context.

....

Those who receive government largesse because they are able to convince legislatures that throwing money at them with few strings attached contend as a rule that such stimulates the economy far better than does a free market that forces businesses to sink or swim as they satisfy or fail to satisfy customers. In effect it claims that some people do far more good than their unaided profit or loss suggests, even if they are for-profit entities. Such subsidy need not be cash; it can also be tax abatements, no-interest or low-interest loans, low rent of existing land or buildings, or the use of eminent domain laws to ensure cheap real estate. Add to this guaranteed purchase arrangements or suppression of competition on a national scale.

Aid such as extending a city water line or improving an abutting road has obvious potential for use by those who might locate nearby is a gray area -- a very light gray area.

Welfare directed at the poor often keeps people alive with some modicum of dignity. Life is precious, as is human dignity. Profit is not so precious. Special breaks to business entities that cannot compete without them imply either higher taxes for others (including other business capable of competing), reduced public services not related to the subsidy, larger public debt, and lower standards of living for those who derive no obvious benefit from the spending. On a national scale it often promotes the presence of uncompetitive business that pulls down the rest of the economy.

Welfare as poor relief may be a mandate of religious and philosophical systems. Aid to large-scale hustlers is an imperative for none but the corrupt. Welfare as relief for the poor is compatible with capitalism; corporate welfare degrades capitalism. Corporate welfare is a parody of aid to the poor.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Estimates of corporate welfare
There are plenty of estimates of corporate welfare besides that of Cato, and we should include some of those others as well. The Cato estimate is, IMO, highly ideological for its exclusion of tax expenditures from its estimate and for its inclusion of broad infrastructure such as airports. A comparison with other estimates would be helpful in identifying the ideological elements of each. It would also be useful to develop a definition that is internationally comparable. Finally, there have also been several estimates of corporate welfare by state and local governments that should be included in this article.Academic38 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
I am pretty sure it is correct that Nader coined the term, but I am not sure that either of the sources actually demonstrate that. I think I've read an interview where he says that. I also know that the New Democratic Party in Canada picked up the term for its federal election campaign of 1972, which would be worth mentioning in the introduction. I'll look around for a source as far as when the term was coined.Academic38 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a "definitions" section
I think that the "CW as corrupt subsidies" section should be expanded into a definitions section. I think we should start out with subsidies (I'm not so sure "corrupt" is NPOV) as that's common to all definitions. But we should note that some folks define it even more broadly. Nader comes immediately to mind, as someone who includes in the term alleged instances when government allows companies to avoid paying for externalities they create, especially pollution. Cato also seems to have a broader definition; one of its reports in the mid-nineties seemed to include virtually any government agency Stephen Moore thought should be privatized, adding the agencies' entire budgets into its subsidy estimate. Also, Cato estimates to this day do not include any tax deductions, credits, etc., though the most recent one cited in the article is willing in theory to consider targeted tax incentives to be subsidies, though it does not include any in its tally.Academic38 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul quote
I propose deleting this quote. I went to the source and nowhere does it use the term "corporate welfare." It is directed against the bank bailout and possible Big 3 bailout, but IMO those are extraordinary measures, rather than the garden-variety of corporate welfare that we see all the time. I don't doubt that Rep. Paul opposes corporate welfare -- many libertarians do -- but this quote is not about corporate welfare per se, so its inclusion is not appropriate here. Academic38 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because he didn't use the phrase "corporate welfare" doesn't mean those things aren't corporate welfare. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think bailouts of historic proportions are corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is an everyday occurrence. And since he didn't say "corporate welfare," you're putting words in his mouth. Literally. Academic38 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Academic38. Unless you can come up with a source that links this to corporate welfare then it doesn't belong in this article. It may belong in the bailout article or some other article, but not here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Shitty cars" image
This image is not useful for the article. Please see Talk:Automotive industry crisis of 2008 for more information. The Sartorialist (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The spoof ad was spot on. It was published in one issue of AdBusters.Sum (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Corp welfare info
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/ Stars4change (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/11/02/corp.welfare.html Stars4change (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cato and others
Belchfire removed two paragraphs on the claim that they're trivia. This led to an edit war that he's actively participated in. I looked at the paragraphs and they're both well-sourced, relevant and non-trivial, so I don't understand Belchfire's reasoning, much less his fervor. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for Belchfire to come here and explain himself. As far as I can tell, he's saying he's allowed to remove it because it was written by someone who's banned. This hasn't been demonstrated, but even if it were the case, the fact that multiple legitimate editors support the content is reason enough to keep it. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your fervor perfectly: it's yet another instance of your wiki-hounding.


 * Since it's been explained to you about 150 times, you ought to know by now that being "well-sourced" doesn't get content into an article, nor does it equal relevance. Since you want it included, the onus is on you to justify it.  So go ahead and explain why it belongs.   Belch fire - TALK  03:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's your job to explain your actions. If you can't, then we can only assume that you had no policy-based reason. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you have no case for inclusion? I've already explained my actions, and I remind that you made the last revert.  But you can't explain it?   Belch fire - TALK  04:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're stonewalling by playing burden tennis. Revert yourself. Explain your objection or leave that passage alone. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've explained it. I'm not explaining it again (and again, and again, and again).  It's not "burden tennis" (or whatever other bullshit name you concoct).  I explained the removal, then you reverted the content IN to the article, so now it's on you to explain why it belongs.  I'll allow you a reasonable period of time to think it over, and if you can't come up with a half-way decent reason, it's coming back out.  Cheers.   Belch fire - TALK  07:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't explained it. If you remove it again for no reason, that would constitute edit-warring. But you know that by now. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you somehow not able to see what you typed when you started this section??? How much more tendentious can you get?   Belch fire - TALK  07:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You have absolutely refused to explain your reasons on this talk page, so let's evaluate your edit comments.
 * removing fringe opinions and trivia

Well, that one's nonsensical, because the citations defend it against charges of being fringe, and there's no rule against even trivia, not that this material counts as such.
 * reverting edit by indefinitely banned user

This appears to be flatly untrue, but it's also irrelevant because it's not only this IP editor who supports the content.
 * He's an IP-hopper. Do try to remember AGF. Checking the block log doesn't fix the relevance problem.

Here you allude to some sort of "relevance problem", but when asked outright to explain, you won't.

Looks like you have no argument. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of "irrelevant trivia" do you not understand? I recommend a good dictionary.   Belch fire - TALK  22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The part where you show how that term applies here. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See if consensus changes, since it could. Until then, best not to continue to edit war. --Mollskman (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't falsely invoke consensus. An edit-warring tag team is not a consensus. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretending not to understand plain English is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKE, and is nakedly tendentious.  Belch fire - TALK  01:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to note that you attacked me but didn't bother showing how that term applies here. I don't think you actually have an argument. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war
Currently, Belchfire, Little green rosetta and Mollskman are tag-team edit-warring to keep the Cato reference out. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you are talking about. My edit summary stated my rationale and has nothing to do with Cato.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statement is not factual. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see CATO mentioned in that edit summary.  Belch fire - TALK  03:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my point: LGR removed the Cato line, but didn't mention it in the edit comment and won't explain it here. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All of you should stop it. This edit-warring over multiple articles is not helping anyone improve the content. You should all sit back and converse politely about what to do with the article to reach a compromise, rather than fighting over every little detail.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I can't even get them to admit that they're removing the Cato line, even though each diff proves it. How exactly am I supposed to compromise with a denial of reality? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear from the edit summary that LGR feels the content is a FRINGE opinion, which has nothing to do with whether it came from Cato. So therefore, this claim - "Your statement is not factual." - is nonsense.  And false.   Belch fire - TALK  03:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the message is just as much for them because both sides need to agree to work towards compromise before it is possible to achieve compromise.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At least Still is no longer claiming our edits were unexplained. I guess that's something.
 * As to the rest... there's no need to compromise here. This is a binary question, and Still is wrong.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Devil, do I need to say anything or does this speak for itself? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My revert was done because of the fringe claim that local govs spend up to 40-50 billion per year on CW. Excuse me for throwing the baby out with the bath water, but i'd rather lose the baby then keep that fetid pool in here. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LGR, I need you to pay careful attention. Here's the Cato line that you edit-warred against.
 * According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government will spend almost $100 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2012.[6]
 * Now, what objection do you have to this? Why should this be lost in order to remove the Peters and Fisher claim? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Cato item didn't catch my eye at first, so I probably should have left that. But having just reviewed that as well, it is fringe as well.  For $100 billion, we need more sources.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't catch your eye? The three of you have been edit-warring to remove it! I can WP:AGF, but you just put a bullet between WP:COMPETENCE's eyes. You've been reverting it by accident?!
 * The Cato line is fully attributed, so we don't need any more sources. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is attributed. It is also an outlandish statement, which is kind of what fringe is all about. And I suggest you temper your accusations of EW & TT.  One revert on my part doesn't point to that.  Settle down.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$
 * Other than you saying so, how is it outlandish? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll address your question but first I want to ask you this: Do you realize that the way you phrased your question was obnoxious?  You seem to do that a lot and its no wonder that people constantly accuse of you having a battleground mentality.  AGF is a guideline, but I'm afraid you've about run the well of good faith dry.  Dropping the snark and antagonism will go a long way towards repairing your damaged reputation.  Now,the Cato claim is outlandish because it is an extraordinary claim with no corroboration.  $100 billion is an enormous sum of money even for the US government to piss away.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And that's a perfectly good reason. But let's pretend for a moment that the claim is true - why is the opinion of a single politically-motivated source sufficiently dispositive to include these dollar figures?  How do we know the figures match the criteria for CW given elsewhere in the article?  And how does the inclusion of that content enhance the reader's understanding of CW?  There aren't any good answers to those questions, and without good solid answers, there is no good case to be made for including the material.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am wholly uninvolved in this quarrel, but there appears to be no substantive argument against inclusion being made by anyone here. We include material based on its verifiability, quality, and relevance. Cato's claims sufficiently satisfy all three categories, regardless of whether they're agreeable or not, and thus should be included in an attributory fashion. I propose the following text as a starting point:
 * Policy analysis conducted by the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, argued that United States fiscal policy allocated approximately US$92 billion in the 2006 federal budget toward programs that the report considered as corporate welfare. Subsequent analysis by the institute estimated that number to be US$100 billion in the 2012 federal budget.
 * As a side note, it's my personal opinion that Cato's numbers are deeply flawed: the real numbers are likely staggering in comparison. For example, while evaluating this dispute, I came across a laundry list of corporate welfare which, while informal and also very incomplete, adds considerable depth beyond what Cato has previously described. —  C M B J   06:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so what's the definition we're working with? All I see in the article are subjective, value-laden criteria: "excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying"  Is Cato's number constrained within these bounds?  And how would we know if it is or not?  These questions must be answered definitively before any argument for inclusion can move forward.  Good luck.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, those questions needn't be answered definitively before an argument for inclusion can move forward. There may be serious article issues that need to be worked out here, but continuing to blockade any and all inclusion of acceptable material for that reason alone is tantamount to disruptive behavior. Everyone here needs to drop the stick before this asinine dispute escalates any further. —  C M B J   07:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. Not only have you failed to establish that the material is acceptable, but you're also suggesting that it should be included without even making a case that it's acceptable.  "Drop the stick" is just another way of saying "stop disagreeing with me".  Now that's asinine.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  07:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as establishing that the aforementioned material is acceptable goes, it has already been said that it is satisfactory with respect to our criteria for inclusion. The onus to demonstrate otherwise rests with those who favor exclusion. The argument that it cannot be included because we lack an objective international definition of "corporate welfare" is irrelevant -- Cato's opinion needn't even be consistent with our definition to warrant inclusion of their analyses. —  C M B J   07:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you want that material in the article, you need to show us why it belongs.  Yes, it has been claimed that it meets the criteria for inclusion... and the claim has been refuted.  The definition of "corporate welfare" goes to relevance, and it was for lack of relevance that the material was removed in the first place.  So, what's your next argument?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  08:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN only refers to the removal and readdition of unsourced material. The material in question is verifiable and very well sourced. Again, our definition of corporate welfare is irrelevant because Cato's comments pertain to Cato's criteria. —  C M B J   08:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BURDEN applies to everything, and again, relevance is a crucial test. Sourcing does not equal relevance.
 * In order to be relevant, the material has to be in-scope. So, how do we know Cato is talking about the same thing the article is talking about?  The material constitutes original research unless either (a) we know for sure that Cato's material is within scope, or (b) we spell out precisely what Cato is talking about, if there is a variance.  So far, your argument in favor of inclusion amounts to "I think it belongs here, therefore it does."  That don't cut it.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  08:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, I think you need to accept that policy supports inclusion and drop this. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that nearly two months have lapsed without any productive discussion and that Cato's report already re-appeared in the article, I have integrated my above text for improved veracity and to outline a framework for moving forward with meaningful coverage of this subject. I welcome constructive improvement from anyone here, including Belchfire, though I strongly discourage subsequent blanking without clear consensus. —  C M B J   11:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Corporate socialism is not the same as Corporate Welfare
Corporate socialism is where companies look after their employees to the extent that they redistribute salary away from senior executives to lower level employees. It is a system that is very common among Japanese companies.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Corporate welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sen-Sanders-Held-a-Tax-Cut-Filibuster/20338/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 01:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Indirect subsidies "are" worth more than direct subsidies
Alfie Gandon changed

...[indirect subsidies] which, in practice, could be worth much more than any direct subsidies.

to

...[indirect subsidies] which, in practice, are worth much more than any direct subsidies.

saying that this was backed up in the main text. I can't see where this is backed up in the main text even just for the USA, and we should remember that this is a global article and so should not be US-centric. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Corporate welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014234517/http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=555 to http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=555
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001216074600/http://www.newrules.org/retail/veto.html to http://www.newrules.org/retail/veto.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010415010329/http://www.goodjobsny.org/deals_company.htm to http://www.goodjobsny.org/deals_company.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Corporate welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227010823/http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/8998982778762559487 to http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/8998982778762559487
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210035144/http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter3.htm to http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026024023/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023111/023111432X.HTM to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023111/023111432X.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Examples
How about an examples section:

Stadiums for sports teams, Military contractors, etc.

improve
very important topic but very short article. also poorly organised. first spell out the different forms of corporate welfarism (tax breaks or cuts, awarding large contracts to certain companies like military ones, bailouts, etc.) and then mention countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 April 2016‎ (UTC)