The Instigator
cheyennebodie
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shukini
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is there such a thing as corporate welfare.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 64936
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

cheyennebodie

Con

Using the definition of welfare. Receiving property ( money, food stamps,etc.. ) or services confiscated by government force ( tax law ) and giving it to those who did not earn it.
Shukini

Pro

Using the definition of welfare as "the health, happiness, and fortunes of a persons or group," corporate welfare often succeeds in preventing prevalent industries from failing. Since failure in major industries and business often result in loss of jobs and wage, government intervention assists these industries by allowing them to continue and thus preventing job loss. The U.S government intervention in the automotive sector in 2008 shows the significance of preventing major industries from failing. Corporations ultimately affect larger numbers of people and have economic impact that can reach past its own industry. Since welfare is meant for the benefit of the people, it is within the best interest to protect large corporations as their failures would result in larger global and socioeconomic problems. In plain terms, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Debate Round No. 1
cheyennebodie

Con

I already gave you the definition of welfare.How do you know that bankruptcy would not have been better for us than bailing out companies that already proved they mismanage the companies.Obama did not bail out GM. He bailed out the unions, which is the problem. And what is to make them operate any wiser. They were bailed out once, all that did was to enable bad behavior. Freedom is letting people succeed or fail without government intrusion.I have had downturns in business. I had to adjust some bad judgments. That is what real men do.Not run to government for a welfare check.

That nonsense that something is too big to fail. Nothing is not too big to fail. There are laws of prosperity, and laws ff poverty.America is now walking in the laws of poverty. The main law of poverty is debt. We can collapse just as an individual can who is head over heels in debt.The coffers of those who are lending to us will eventually be cut off. And then what will government do. Raise taxes.
Shukini

Pro

1. You gave "A" definition of welfare, not "the" definition of welfare.
2. Hypothetical situations are useless. There is no way to accurately determine any fictional situation.
3. The bail out money was given to GM and Chrysler to prevent them from having to liquidate their assets, including their workforce. In basic math terms, more people working means less people seeking welfare.
4. We're not speaking about 'bad behavior,' this is reflective of the need to protect a workforce and industry that provides 3-3.5% of the U.S. GDP.
5. Protecting companies is not wasting resources on those abusing the system. When the economy of your country is so richly intertwined to one industry, failure can be disastrous
6. Everything in life can succeed or fail. Big or small.
7. Welfare is not meant to last. The auto industry is succeeding now and the bailout money has to be repaid.
8. Debt is everywhere, individually and commercially. But commercial debt has a larger impact on society than individual
Debate Round No. 2
cheyennebodie

Con

cheyennebodie forfeited this round.
Shukini

Pro

Blaming workers and unions for the failure of a company is appalling. Arguing that companies abuse corporate welfare and that unions abuse corporations insists companies hold no liability. The UAW started at a time where the auto industry was playing the same political game unions are associated to. Remember too that GM began outsourcing parts of the auto sector, cutting jobs in the U.S in favor of cheap labor.

The Obama administration gave bailout money to protect the over 1.7 million workforce, not solely the unions. Obama was protecting a sector that generates 9.8% (as of 2013) of the countries GDP, more than food/beverages, and oil/petro.

There is greed on both sides, that I agree, but saying that corporate welfare is solely negative is to undermine its entire purpose. It prevents the collapse of companies and jobs. Adding another 1.7 million people to unemployment is not a solution.

As for crony capitalism, there is no favoring when you're protecting an entire industry.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MarxistHypocrisy101 1 year ago
MarxistHypocrisy101
In addition to lying, goalpost moving (Con gave the ptoper definition in this context, you're just grasping for straws) naked double standards ("It's okay when Obama does it!") and shameless Union apologism, Pro refuses to accept the plain fact that tax cuts are NOT welfare.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I blamed the company for giving in to union demands. They should have closed their doors a long time ago. And moved out. There are lots of places that are business friendly.Unions are the biggest problem for companies. And government. Unions and government are in lockstep with one another.They collaborate to get as much as they can. Then cry like babies when companies move out.And the taxpayer has to be used by both to give them a pacifier.

Those bailouts helped no one except the crybaby unions.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I don't know how I forfeited that round. But here goes.Bankrupcy doesn't have to liquidate anythiun. It is a means of restructuring bad behavior. It was the unions demands that made GM unsuccessful. More than anything else. And WHY haven't they paid back the bail out money. They never will. There is no real demand on them to. Because that was crony capitalism. Unions vote democrat. Obama is a democrat. Not all that hard to figure out.

Do you honestly think that if GM went under people would not be able to buy cars. Even Gm products. Another financial group would just buy them up. And maybe they would have the cahonies not to give into union demands. Why didn't they move out of Detroit to a more friendly business climate? All those bailourts did was enable bad behavior. That is what all handouts do. Welfare and bailouts are the same thing.

Obama tried to force Ford to take bailouts. But they had integrity. They restructured and are not in hock to the American people.

GM going under would not be but a blip on the economic screen. The unions would just have to suck it up and go where their work is more in line with what it is worth.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
That would be crony capitalism. And that is unconstitutional. Like Obama giving 2 billion to salindra.Trying to prop up a political agenda.Picking winners and losers.I am talking about real businesses.They are often accused of corporate welfare. Still do not understand what that is supposed to mean.It is no more right to give confiscated money from legitimate people to those who did not earn it, whether they are individuals or companies.

Like loop holes. There is no such thing. All that is is the tax code. I do not blame any corporation for paying as little tax as the tax code allows.

What gets me is the democrats cry the loudest about corporate welfare when they are the biggest contributors to crony capitalism. Those companies are just an extension of government and thus are doomed to fail.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Clearly the government subsidizes businesses. Are you sure you want to debate this?
Posted by Libertatis 2 years ago
Libertatis
We should get rid of it, but not all at once. It should be done gradually.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Welfare cannot be reduced. It is all or nothing.To get rid of welfare now would be like a heroin addict going cold turkey. You would have freeloaders all over America screaming and growling like taking a bone from a hungry pitbull.
Posted by Libertatis 2 years ago
Libertatis
welfare is bad. We should completely get rid of it or at least reduce it to a very low rate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.