• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Bernie's new anti welfare build

I wonder what excuse the cronies will have when they vote this bill down.
I was strongly in favor of this bill when I first heard about it, but now I am not so sure.

There is a plausible argument that this bill would just discourage corporations from hiring the disabled, the elderly, the single mom... basically anyone who couldn't bring value to a corporation in a full time 40 hour a week capacity.

There's also the absurdity of trying to pass this bill at the same time that many states are passing work requirements for people to receive welfare.

Ultimately, raising minimum wage probably accomplishes more with fewer potential pitfalls.

Personally, I would love to see a progressively higher minimum wage for corporations as they meet certain profit thresholds. That way mom-and-pop businesses wouldn't be caught in the crossfire-- and in fact it would make them more competitive in many markets.

(The problem with this approach is that those threshold numbers would have to be responsibly managed over time, or else they would just end up stagnating to the point of uselessness, like the current federal minimum wage has.)
 
Last edited:
I was strongly in favor of this bill when I first heard about it, but now I am not so sure.

There is a plausible argument that this bill would just discourage corporations from hiring anyone that might qualify for welfare-- the disabled, the elderly, the single mom... basically anyone who couldn't bring value to a corporation in a full time 40 hour a week capacity.

There's also the absurdity of trying to pass this bill at the same time many states are passing work requirements for people to receive welfare.

Ultimately, raising minimum wage probably accomplishes more with fewer potential pitfalls.

Personally, I would love to see a progressively higher minimum wage for corporations as they meet certain profit thresholds. That way mom-and-pop businesses wouldn't be caught in the crossfire-- and in fact it would make them more competitive in many markets.

I think this is real simple. If we cut welfare payments to people who work for these corporations, what would those companies have to do?

They would have to pay more or hire high school kids I'm guessing.

We are subsidizing those low wages.

I don't care by what means this is accomplished. This has to stop.
 
You claimed republicans support capitalism with as little government as possible.

I responded that Republicans obviously do not believe in that, as they have been in charge nearly 2 years with full control, and I see mountains of government all throughout our economy still.

My statement is simply that your claim is false. Republican actions prove that is not what your elected officials believe.
No, I said that's the conservative position, which is not the same as Republican politicians. I responded to the guy asking about threads on here, and afaik, Republican politicians aren't starting any threads at all on the karate forum.

So like I said, conservatives prefer capitalism with minimal if any government intervention, and that does not always coincide with anyone running for certain offices, including many Republicans.
 
No, I said that's the conservative position, which is not the same as Republican politicians. I responded to the guy asking about threads on here, and afaik, Republican politicians aren't starting any threads at all on the karate forum.

So like I said, conservatives prefer capitalism with minimal if any government intervention, and that does not always coincide with anyone running for certain offices, including many Republicans.

I don't think anyone knows what the word conservative or liberal means anymore. I mean that as in, the words have become amorphic.
 
good, Corp Welfare is bs

orgs shouldn't be allowed to essentially form trusts, monopolize industries, reap massive profits, benefit from MNC status, and then pay little to no tax as a result of this favorable treatment....

That is patently absurd
 
Was expecting to see this in the OP:

33ead56412c5a4ed2a5676e626883522.jpg
 
Of course, I've just become a better informed one.

I can be against welfare while recognizing that the larger economic issues that drive it aren't the result of people being too lazy to work.

Corporate welfare is still someone suckling at the teat of big government. If I'm going to start punishing people for abusing the government's largesse - I should start with the people who least need it. And multinational corporations fit that bill.

I don't allow myself to be distracted by politicians railing about Mexicans and blacks. I follow the money. And if someone is collecting welfare while working a full time job then I want to know why/if the corporation is collecting government money somewhere else. Amazon has government contracts. Walmart takes SNAP. Yet they both have billions in revenue and potential profits. These are examples, to me, of double dipping. I've complained about corporate welfare for years at this point.

I can't be one of those Republicans who's only concerned about sticking it to poor people, lol.


The owner of Amazon makes 225 million dollars a day.... no way we need to fund welfare for his employees.
 
I was strongly in favor of this bill when I first heard about it, but now I am not so sure.

There is a plausible argument that this bill would just discourage corporations from hiring the disabled, the elderly, the single mom... basically anyone who couldn't bring value to a corporation in a full time 40 hour a week capacity.

There's also the absurdity of trying to pass this bill at the same time that many states are passing work requirements for people to receive welfare.

Ultimately, raising minimum wage probably accomplishes more with fewer potential pitfalls.

Personally, I would love to see a progressively higher minimum wage for corporations as they meet certain profit thresholds. That way mom-and-pop businesses wouldn't be caught in the crossfire-- and in fact it would make them more competitive in many markets.

(The problem with this approach is that those threshold numbers would have to be responsibly managed over time, or else they would just end up stagnating to the point of uselessness, like the current federal minimum wage has.)

3 completely agree with you, but every time Bernie has wanted to increase minimum wage it's failed. I like your take on it, because increasing minimum wage to 15 dollars would hurt small businesses, so progressive increase based on the company would make more sense.

I think Bernie worded the bill this way to entice Republicans to vote for it. Because conservatives generally want to decrease welfare
I was strongly in favor of this bill when I first heard about it, but now I am not so sure.

There is a plausible argument that this bill would just discourage corporations from hiring the disabled, the elderly, the single mom... basically anyone who couldn't bring value to a corporation in a full time 40 hour a week capacity.

There's also the absurdity of trying to pass this bill at the same time that many states are passing work requirements for people to receive welfare.

Ultimately, raising minimum wage probably accomplishes more with fewer potential pitfalls.

Personally, I would love to see a progressively higher minimum wage for corporations as they meet certain profit thresholds. That way mom-and-pop businesses wouldn't be caught in the crossfire-- and in fact it would make them more competitive in many markets.

(The problem with this approach is that those threshold numbers would have to be responsibly managed over time, or else they would just end up stagnating to the point of uselessness, like the current federal minimum wage has.)
 
Can we put the old man to bed already


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-bezos-bill-would-hurt-the-working-class.html

Bernie Sanders’s BEZOS Bill Would Hurt the Working Class, Not the Rich
By Jonathan Chait


Bernie Sanders has been on a very odd rhetorical crusade to rebrand public assistance to low-wage workers as “corporate welfare” that actually benefits their bosses. This messaging gambit has given Sanders a new way to lambaste the rich (i.e., “It’s time to get Mr. Bezos off welfare”) while framing his ideas in novel ways that appeal to anti-government constituencies. Tucker Carlson excitedly picked up the theme, claiming that Jeff Bezos and other billionaires are “offloading their payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it?”

But the entire underlying premise of Sanders’s argument is false. Social welfare benefits workers, not their bosses. Now Sanders has turned his talking point into a piece of legislation whose perverse design and effects only serve to demonstrate the falsity of the assumption that created it.

The Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act, which Sanders has co-sponsored with left-wing House Democrat Ro Khanna, imposes a tax on large corporations equal to the value of the social spending — specifically, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), rental subsidies, and free or reduced-price school meals — collected by their employees. Its intent is to force these firms to raise their employees’ wages high enough so that they no longer qualify for public assistance, in order to avoid paying the new tax.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank, points out several crippling flaws in this proposal. Penalizing firms who have employees receiving federal benefits would create several perverse side effects. Those firms would have an incentive to avoid hiring employees more likely to receive Medicaid and other forms of assistance — i.e., employees who have families or expensive medical needs. They would also be incentivized both to pressure their employees not to sign up for public assistance and to lobby politically against the expansion of social welfare benefits. State Medicaid expansion would become a large new cost to these companies, and the BEZOS Act would give them a new incentive to oppose it.


The imagined positive effects of the new law would be ineffectual. “Companies that raise wages would have to do so for all workers in particular job categories, not just those who receive public benefit,” the CBPP analysis points out. “That would be more expensive to companies than paying the tax penalty.” As the Center notes, there are several ways to encourage higher wages for low-income workers that, unlike this one, would work. If the goal is to publish companies for paying workers too little, raising the minimum wage (which Sanders also supports) is a more effective tool.

Sanders is not a policy wonk. His political style revolves around reducing all political questions to simple moral fables in which almost every public problem is attributed to the greed of “the billionaire class.” His attacks on public assistance cross the line from brutal oversimplification into outright demagoguery. By forming the argument as a bill whose effects can be predicted, the BEZOS bill performs the service of revealing just how misguided this particular bit of anti-corporate propaganda is.
So basicly what the article is saying is that any change to the status quo should be halted because the companies holds a gun to your workers heads. This guy is making 200+ millions A DAY FFS, on the back of his workers who are worked to the ground for shit pay. He's the richest man EVER IN HISTORY, the company can afford it ffs. He would still be the richest man by far even if the workers got a living wage. Why are these guys so cartoonishly greedy? This would never stand in Denmark.

It's insane, and the gap is widening and widening. You guys need to regulate that shit. This bill is certainly not perfect, and I don't think it will pass, but it's about cornering the opposition and in using the "welfare" argument, it gets more and more challenging for the republicans and establishment democrats to argue against change.
 
Last edited:
It's like most of Bernie's ideas. They sound great on paper. If anyone is going to try to enact them soon, I would very much like it to be him. Not a big fan of his progressive dream team i.e., Warren, Harris, Booker.

Harris and Booker are not on his "progressive dream team" lol. Especially Booker.

Warren, maybe.
 
So basicly what the article is saying is that any change to the status quo should be halted because the companies holds a gun to your workers heads. This guy is making 200+ millions A DAY FFS, on the back of his workers who are worked to the ground for shit pay. He's the richest man EVER IN HISTORY, the company can afford it ffs. He would still be the richest man by far even if the workers got a living wage. Why are these guys so cartoonishly greedy? This would never stand in Denmark.

It's insane, and the gap is widening and widening. You guys need to regulate that shit. This bill is certainly not perfect, and I don't think it will pass, but it's about cornering the opposition and in using the "welfare" argument, it gets more and more challenging for the republicans and establishment democrats to argue against change.
I believe John Rockefeller was worth ~$400b in today's dollars. Pablo Escobar is another who was estimated to be worth over $100b adjusted for inflation.

It's just absurd. But what's even more absurd are all the idiots making $30k/year who defend it. Not a single billionaire got to where they are without the help of taxpayers, yet some of these same tax payers who literally subsidized that wealth refuse to stand up and demand their share.

They have convinced themselves to believe that they directly relate to these billionaires. That any form of redistribution of wealth is a hindrance to their own ability to obtain that amount of wealth. But 99.99% of people will never get there so they're only hurting themselves. Literally cucking themselves.
 
So basicly what the article is saying is that any change to the status quo should be halted because the companies holds a gun to your workers heads. This guy is making 200+ millions A DAY FFS, on the back of his workers who are worked to the ground for shit pay. He's the richest man EVER IN HISTORY, the company can afford it ffs. He would still be the richest man by far even if the workers got a living wage. Why are these guys so cartoonishly greedy? This would never stand in Denmark.

It's insane, and the gap is widening and widening. You guys need to regulate that shit. This bill is certainly not perfect, and I don't think it will pass, but it's about cornering the opposition and in using the "welfare" argument, it gets more and more challenging for the republicans and establishment democrats to argue against change.

Why do you hate success?
 
I was strongly in favor of this bill when I first heard about it, but now I am not so sure.

There is a plausible argument that this bill would just discourage corporations from hiring the disabled, the elderly, the single mom... basically anyone who couldn't bring value to a corporation in a full time 40 hour a week capacity.

There's also the absurdity of trying to pass this bill at the same time that many states are passing work requirements for people to receive welfare.

Ultimately, raising minimum wage probably accomplishes more with fewer potential pitfalls.

Personally, I would love to see a progressively higher minimum wage for corporations as they meet certain profit thresholds. That way mom-and-pop businesses wouldn't be caught in the crossfire-- and in fact it would make them more competitive in many markets.

(The problem with this approach is that those threshold numbers would have to be responsibly managed over time, or else they would just end up stagnating to the point of uselessness, like the current federal minimum wage has.)
I agree, esp with the tax part. Take how many workers are on assistance and use that to play with the o really tax. 100 percent of your workers are on welfare? Then you're paying 1950s corporate tax. Walmart I'm looking at you.
But if like Costco the number is small, then I think it would be understandable to allow them to pay the absolute minimum, say 15-20%

The current proposal has too many nasty unintended consequences . Like executive pay, that law make things worse.
 
So basicly what the article is saying is that any change to the status quo should be halted because the companies holds a gun to your workers heads. This guy is making 200+ millions A DAY FFS, on the back of his workers who are worked to the ground for shit pay. He's the richest man EVER IN HISTORY, the company can afford it ffs. He would still be the richest man by far even if the workers got a living wage. Why are these guys so cartoonishly greedy? This would never stand in Denmark.

It's insane, and the gap is widening and widening. You guys need to regulate that shit. This bill is certainly not perfect, and I don't think it will pass, but it's about cornering the opposition and in using the "welfare" argument, it gets more and more challenging for the republicans and establishment democrats to argue against change.


You fix that by taxing passive income more aggressively not cartoonish policy like this.
 
All you anti-union fuckwits are the reason this is a thing to begin with. Strong labor union = strong wages/working conditions.
 
All you anti-union fuckwits are the reason this is a thing to begin with. Strong labor union = strong wages/working conditions.
I agree in principle but in practice my old union whom I had at two different jobs, spent most of its time protecting the incompetent. That or ensuring that the old people kept their benefits , while the new people got pretty much nothing
 
I agree in principle but in practice my old union whom I had at two different jobs, spent most of its time protecting the incompetent. That or ensuring that the old people kept their benefits , while the new people got pretty much nothing


Ever stop to think that the unions already fought the fight so you didn't have to? Your work conditions were already improved, but you didn't realize it.
 
good, Corp Welfare is bs

orgs shouldn't be allowed to essentially form trusts, monopolize industries, reap massive profits, benefit from MNC status, and then pay little to no tax as a result of this favorable treatment....

That is patently absurd

Single payer would count as "corporate welfare" by the definition you're using.
 
Back
Top