A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
==========
It's sheik to call subsidies "corporate welfare," but
it's also factually incorrect.
=========

notwithstanding the current american obsession with arabs, i'm going to
assume you mean "chic" (or perhaps "sheik" is just one more american
way of getting under france's skin.

Clever boy, you caught me!

in that case, you ought to know
that in german, sheiks are known as "pariser", but that's another story
completely).

but to the issue at hand: pedantic semantics! welfare is a "lifestyle
subsidy" and subsidies are "welfare for corporate shareholders".

I disagree. While welfare may be fairly described as a "lifestyle subsidy,"
business subsidies are not. They are intended to stimulate the economy.


no matter how many times you deconstruct it, it still amounts to "six
of one equals one half dozen of another",

I disagree.


welfare or subsidies: they both represent a government's decision to
redistribute a nation's wealth.

True.

welfare has -- in both cases --
positive short-term effects but can be, as you so eloquently point out
in your "what i'd do to wefare recipients" discourse, debilitating in
the long-term. if welfare serves to allow the individual time to
acquire skills necessary to become employable, or to permit a
corporation time to readjust to market conditions, it seems we're on
the same page on this one.

or would that be unbearable for you?

Not at all. I merely require that the intent of the grant be to stimulate
the economy, either through protection of existing businesses, creation of
new businesses (SBA loans) or improving the employability and capabilities
of the workforce...and that those objectives be carefully monitored and
achieved, so that NO ONE, corporate or individual, can scam the system.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser