Why are "handouts" considered bad, when the rich took them in from the taxpayers in 2008?

There's an ongoing narrative that handouts are bad, but that never seems to include the 2008 bailout money from the taxpayers, or the billions of dollars in subsidies we give to mega-rich corporations annually, not to mention big tax cuts for the same corporations that are getting more money than the rest of us combined. There seems to be a lot of handouts to rich people that are either not discussed, or defended tooth and nail on when it is brought up.

Why are handouts to the rich okay, but handouts to the poor viewed as a bad thing? Do you think that this narrative has been purposely created by the rich?

Because they are brainwashed by the rich you mentioned. Mass misinformation from the likes of Rush and Fox, or AstroTurf nonsense. The results is poor southerns voting against their own self interests, and thus Red voting areas being far worse off places to live on average in US.

Also related to this topic, note by far most federal aid goes to red states and counties. Funded by Blue ones. It's all mass hypocrisy. Handouts are only bad if they go to people they don't like. Or skin color they don't like, thanks long standing impacts of the Southern strategy!

@Serraph105: The rich are just in a tight spot and need some boost. They obviously aren’t leeching of others.

What are you talking about? People refer to the bailouts all the time. It's one part of the Unholy Trinity (TARP, ARRA, and cap & trade) behind the Tea Party protests.

Pretty much.

It’s obvious to anyone that the modern Republican Party has no integrity or values. It’s all about power and keeping the rich rich.

New York, Louisiana, Michigan, Washington, and New Jersey get the most corporate handouts dude. Try again.

Also, you do realize the South (the place you constantly bitch about for it's welfare) has a lot of black people, right?

First off, you're operating under the premise that those you're looking to have a discussion with think bailouts are okay. You're too blinded by your hate for people with more money than you to realize most people on both sides think that if a company screws up, that's their problem. And those tax cuts you reference have put money back in the pockets of everyone, and a corporate tax cut is not a bailout, nor a handout to corporations since it reduces a cost that gets passed down to the customer.

Also, nobody on the right has a problem with assistance programs for those who legitimately need them, but calling for these programs to be unconditional, is ridiculous. If someone isn't even willing to try to contribute to society by preference, without a disability, then I couldn't care less what happens to them. And that is the opinion of virtually EVERYONE on the right. The real divide between leftist policies and people on the right is whether those programs should be reserved for those truly in need or handed out to everyone who wants it.

@vl4d_l3nin: The second paragraph, which you quoted, was not about corporate handouts, but handouts on general. My first paragraph explained why some poor people ignore corporate handouts and whine about social aid programs.

As for blacks....and? Those Red areas are run by the GOP, they can't govern. And the more red voters the county has the more federal aid is requires. This is funded by Blue states.

The right just doesn't want certain people getting handouts, while using the most handouts.

This thread already got destroyed, hasn't even been a few hours.

Yup, and the usuals have already steered it off-topic.

I've never received a handout I would be considered middle class perhaps upper middle class.

There is a reason their is a massive wealth disparity in blue states. The rich liberals still love their slave labor. And if they can get you dependent on the government for everything it's easy to control you.

Their is a reason why Democrats are on average less successful then Republicans and the poorer you are the more likely you will vote Democrat. Yet oddly the richest most expensive areas are in blue states.

@n64dd: The first post objectively answered his question and has not been refuted.

That's probably because the first half of your post was complete nonsense, and the second half was an attempt to derail the thread into another topic so you could insult more people. It's clearly bait.

@eoten: Facts you disagree with are not flamebait. I don't take orders from a climate denier and southern strategy denier. Please stop complaining.

You alright?

This thread is about corporate bailouts, which is significantly worse. Stop pretending that the Billy Bobs in their trailer parks taking advantage of food stamps is the same as giving Citigroup 45 billion.

I find it amazing you will chastise poor states for being poor and unable to sustain welfare spending. If you are talking actual dollar amounts, it's a drop in the bucket

Mississippi's welfare ratio is the highest in the country (about 3 dollars given in welfare for every dollar paid in taxes), but it would take nearly a decade for them to receive what Citigroup got in a matter of months.

@n64dd: I don't see anything in my original post that breaks forum policy. The first paragraph, which has not been refuted, directly answers the OP.

The second paragraph is extremely related to it, a direct continuation to explain the people causing this disconnect. It seems like you guys are upset I'm calling out your side for its serious shortcomings.

I just asked if you were alright? didn't flag you or accuse you of anything?

One could only draw the conclusion, given Zaryia's attempt to deflect from the topic of corporate welfare, and try to change the topic to public welfare of lower class individuals in red states that he's trying to use whataboutism to try to defend corporate welfare, and trying to shame poor people for being on it. That's usually not the position he claims to hold, so either he was being dishonest about his stances on these things in other threads, or is being contrarian and looking for any excuse to argue and insult.

I am not going to feed this troll any longer, y'all can continue with it, but I'm not going to waste more time than I already have with it.

@vl4d_l3nin: I agree, corporate handouts are out of control. That is what the right wingers should moreso complain, about. Not social welfare. But like I said, those corporate elites trick them.

@eoten: Incorrect. I agree with vl4d and the OP on corporate welfare. You are confusing a related side point with a deflection. They don't counter each other. I do not blame poor red voters for excusing corporate welfare and making a big fuss over social programs...that's the fault of big brainwashing corporates like FOX. Or the GOP as of late, especially under Trump. Socialism for the rich.

Sorry if there was any confusion.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else.

I read somewhere yesterday that working class Americans pay something like $4000 a year in income taxes just to handle the corporate incentives/bailouts.

@vl4d_l3nin: What does the number of blacks in the south have to do with anything? By that logic, the south should be run by Democrats, not Republicans.

Cato institute predicts $100 billion a year is spent on corporate welfare. Divided up that's $312.5 per person, not $4,000.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/corporate-welfare-costs-taxpayers-almost-100-billion-fy-2012-cato-report-finds

Yup. No wonder so many Americans refuse to get rich, they just hate socialism that much.

Yeah, I've never hated people simply because they have more money that me, and you sound ridiculous when you say that to the point where I can't take you seriously after that.

I don't recall the bailouts being popular, nor do I recall them gaining popularity among voters. If anything, after time passed there was an even more negative response to the bailouts.

Yup, I wasn't a fan when either Bush or Obama did it.

i'm assuming the same applies to trump's farmer bailouts? for consistency at least...

Most people including myself aren't fond of it either. It was mostly just aid to factory farms too large and specialized to diversify. And if his trade deal with China does entail $40-$50 billion additional costs in soybeans, those who received those bailouts should have no problem paying them back. However, the Obama "stimulus package" came out to $831 billion, Bushes TARP bank bailout was for $700 billion. Trumps farm bailout from all information I could find was about $28 billion tops.

@comp_atkins: The farming subsidies are different, but cut from the same animal. There is a different perception towards farmers though, compared to auto and banking corporations.

why should an a line worker in an auto plant get shit on for his employer receiving bailout money but a farmer get a pass?

Again, we're talking a difference of about $28 billion to $800 billion.

@comp_atkins: Why do you think there was a negative perception towards the auto employees, instead of towards the corporation itself?

iirc there was lots of talk about them doing shit jobs, building terrible cars, wanting unions etc... when the auto bailout went through.

@comp_atkins: I don't recall any of that. Do you have any polls/links to support that position?

no, it was 10+ years ago. jut working off memory.

Corporate welfare exceeds personal welfare.

The only people mad about a bailout even the horrible wall street, are people who are either republican and mad that Obama got to take credit for Bush´s idea. or people who have not yet looked at the bigger picture, kinda like Sanders and the squids with Amazon and NY.

AMAZON paid zero in taxes on 11 billion in profits. They also got 129 million tax rebate from the federal government

It stems from the Trump Republican TAX CUTS in 2017.

THERE CEO has 100's of billions of dollars enough is ENOUGH get sanders in there he will make IT ALL RIGHT AGAIN.

Ehmmmm Ok? and your point being

They should pay tax and NOT get rebates.

Fancy ideals. are you going to pay the food on those unemployed people´s tables?

@Jacanuk: Lol

@vl4d_l3nin: do you have a per-capita map to match that one?