> conservashits
>>73441466
>Giving money to shitty people will have a better result than giving it to powerhouse corporations bringing in financial stability to the country
>>73441603
Fuck off bootlicker
>>73441603
this. the sub-humans will just spend it on crap at walmart and meth anyways
>>73441466
>Because poor people won't sell their food stamps at 50% of their going value on craigslist to buy drugs
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your depressing stay.
>>73441677
>bootlicker
found the leftie cuck. Fuck off back to /b/ you tranny loving faggot and take your occupy demokike crap with you.
>>73441466
>implying conservatives didn't care
>>73441695
>>73441603
Money going to the poor goes right back into the economy because they can't afford to save up
How it this a difficult concept to grasp conservashits?
>>73441466
>neocons
>conservatives
>>73441677
Nice arguement, and your boy Obama obviously hasn't done much to change all that shit you're complaining about, so I fail to understand why you're coming here to complain about it when you could instead write your congressman or look for a suitable canditate to vote for, instead of mindlessly voting Blue because "muh Democratic party".
/yawn
>banks
>oil tycoons
>fortune 500s
>poor
>>73441466
Nice straw man you got there, shame if it burned down
>>73441466
Those companies should be taxed and pay their fair share. The Googles and Apples and Fuckbooks of the world are all liberals who try to tell Americans who can go into which bathrooms but will happily deal with the illiberal Chinese. Liberals, Obama's best buddies and bailout recipients, are the real hypocrites.
>>73441874
If you don't support the banks and the corporations the people will have money, sure! But the cost of the goods that were once affordable to them are no cheap, in fact without the money going to the banks and companies the cost of imported goods would skyrocket because those companies would have to sell at a larger price.
Le bump
>>73441466
>You don't care about subsidizing Wallmart and McDonald's workers!
But at the start of the fucking image it said how we hate giving stuff to poor people.
Occupy Democrats needs to 'occupy' some brain cells.
>>73442110
Friendly reminder that George Dubya started the bailouts before Obama came into office
>>73442613
Every dime we gave to the banks was paid back. That is not welfare.
>>73442613
Yeah yeah. "Bush did it!" when people say it was bad. "Obama did it!" when people say it was good.
Just fuck off already. Democrats are just one side of a corrupt coin.
>>73441946
The only time Obama managed to get things done is when Republicans weren't there to cock block him.
>inb4 muh obamacare
My fucking shit tier red state refused to expand medicaid.
>>73441874
refer to >>73441764
retarded libcucks these days.. dont even bother getting into politics, you're an idiot.
>>73442817
oops avoid namefield
>>73441466
Surely hillary clinton will put an end corporate/bank welfare. You have changed my mind, I will now support hillary clinton.
>>73441603
fpbp
Alright so let me get this straight
>$70B
>$38B
>$153B
Is given to these corporations and such per year. That amounts to $261B per year.
The US spends about (low-end) $700B - (high end) $1.1T per year on welfare in all forms.
I'm actually not too mad about these companies receiving these help when they employ literally millions of people collectively, who you know, pay taxes. These Fortune 500 companies they're talking about already pay upwards of $2T per year in taxes to begin with.
>>73442613
Obama continued them. Does GE ring a bell? He continues to subsidize massive corporations like Google to this day.
>>73442817
He had two years of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate. He did NOTHING. His entire presidency has been nothing but empty symbolic gestures, and his "legacy" will ultimately be a footnote in history. Just another corporatist puppet for the bankers who bankrolled his run.
>>73441466
>Giving money to people who will amount to nothing and will probably use that money to buy shit they wont need, drugs or alcohol
Versus
>Institutions that help in advancing the world and some of which use money from subsidies to pay some of their workers so they don't become welfare recipients
>>73443228
The "democrats super majority for 2 years " is a fucking myth and meme anyway . Democrats didn't have that kind of power
>>73441466
You have Republican mixed up with Conservative like a proper retard.
>>73443518
Never said it was a "super" majority (it was close). Stop moving the goalposts. Obama sucked, get over it.
>>73441466
Yes, the goal of conservatism is to make sure that people and corporations don't get diddley squat from the government because the government won't have diddley squat to give. Self reliance and charity are the two pillars of conservatism - not coercion and dependency.
>>73443825
They had a super-majority for an entire year, apparently.
>>73441466
Everything listed there is government giving tax breaks as an incentive for certain behavior demanded by leftists and giving money to the poor. Democrats encourage both. We should stop both.
>>73442486
Can you elaborate on that, I'm genuinely interested but I'm shit at economics.
>>73441695
>>73441764
Nice meme
>>73441466
How about we stop subsidizing period? Paying people to make stupid mistakes is a dumb idea in general.
>>73441874
Giving money to someone who produces nothing to acquire goods from someone who produces something, when you took the money from the person who produces something to fund the person who produces nothing, is not a net gain for the economy. It is a net loss. It is additional consumption without additional production.
The amount of "money" in "the economy" is irrelevant. The federal reserve could print trillion dollar bills and it won't help anything. What matters is production. This is why we most directly measure the health of the economy by real gross domestic PRODUCT per capita and the size of the workforce.
>why care about giving poor people free stuff, there are other issues like subsidizing Walmart and McDonald's employees
Aren't those the same thing?
>>73442613
Elected Democrats pushed for and supported the bailout more than Republicans. Only moderate Republicans like George Bush went along.
Furthermore, those were loans. The only loans not paid back were those given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government entities. Loans from the 2009 stimulus to private businesses were also not paid back, but that was passed strictly along party lines with not a single Republican voting for it.
