>social programs run by the government are stupid.

If you're rich. Providing social programs is a key sector of the government's responsibility. Why else would you want a government? Wealth is in a process of centralization (intense centralization) and without social programs the poor get ground under the bootheel of "progress".

>> Moreover, American companies aren't sharing equally in the
>>tax burden--the value of corporate welfare in America is
>>many times that of public welfare. There's a distinction to
>>be drawn between corporations and small businesses here,
>>too. The corporate welfare I'm talking about goes primarily
>>to large multinationals. The Boeing bailout is a really
>>good example. These kinds of incentives are basically a
>>mechanism to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
>
>right, i dont see too much wrong with this, aside from some
>coruption.

Here's what's wrong. American companies get tax incentives and bailouts (corporate welfare) to set up shop with the rationalization being that it's going to provide jobs to the American population. That isn't happening. Multinationals are moving and outsourcing production, resulting in thousands of American job losses. These multinationals typically get "tax holidays" in the country that's hosting them, meaning they pay no tax in that country either for from one to five years (it can be as many as ten). Overseas production typically takes place in EPZs (export processing zones), destitute areas that, for legal purposes, aren't part of the country. There are almost no environmental or labour regulations aside from those self-imposed by the beneficent corporations. The Third World is forced to lower environmental and labour regulations to attract new corporations in the hope that they'll stay after the "holiday" is over. Not likely.

It's public money for private profits. If the people were reaping the rewards (read:profits) it wouldn't be a problem.

America taught me how to kidnap and torture cats...