Interesting point I heard about welfare, possible to use against right wing?

[HEAD ICE]

I was recently at a meeting with some fellow minded people and we were talking about labor struggles in the area. One girl made the point that as taxpayers, we are getting ripped off when big business who can afford to pay their workers above pennies and provide health coverage do not. If a business doesn't pay their workers enough, they go on food stamps and when they don't provide health coverage they often have to go onto Medicaid (sorry for my Americentrism). So in essence, big business can afford to pay below subsistence wages and then they put their burden and responsibility on everyone else.

I found this to be an interesting point, and turns the typical conversation about welfare on its head. Do you think this can be used as a good point when talking with conservatives? Do you see anything that is weak about it (beyond a limited class analysis)?

[RadioRaheem84]

Sort of. This was a topic already discussed by Rush Limbaugh. He went into a tirade about how certain corporations are leveraging the brunt of healthcare costs onto the tax payer. He chided companies like Wal-Mart and the automotive industry. So the argument can appeal to the libertarian side of the conservatives.

A lot of conservatives only defend corporations out of their defense for free enterprise but a lot of them also chide the big corporations for their alignment with certain political figures and policies that benefit them.

For instance, I heard Michael Savage go on about how big business and big government are almost one and the same.

Glenn Beck hates the monopoly finance capitalists.

Rush Limbaugh hates blue blood country club Republicans (or so he says on his show, but we all know he's smoking cigars in the smoke room of every country club from NY to California).

The argument you're suggesting to tout has already been explored by many of the anti-corporate welfare libertarians like the CATO Institute. They'll just use the old circular argument that it's government's fault for providing these services which the big companies will take advantage of .

[Ocean Seal]

This could be used, but of course what would be the solution here. Forcing the corporations to pay higher wages and give healthcare to their workers. Right wingers will certainly not like this because it violates the ideas of free enterprise. Their solution is to get rid of state healthcare and food stamps as a whole. So that those at the bottom of the chain suffer while they stay well. While our solution is to assume control of the means of production so that those who work reap the benefits of their work.
However this is a good argument but like RadioRaheem stated the libertarians will cover themselves by stating that this is the fault of the government. This must be combined with the argument that corporations act as their own government, one which is inherently "totalitarian," a libertarians favorite word. And that this corporate government "collects taxes" by not allowing the workers to gain the product of their work. So in effect supporting the corporations is like supporting a totalitarian and parasitic government which leeches off the people without offering them anything in return. So my final question to them would be: how can they support this "theft" as it cannot be called anything else when they don't support the government taking taxes and spending them on education and healthcare (both public services in their interest).

[RadioRaheem84]

It should also be noted that this is what corporations do all the time; privatize gains but socialize losses. We clean up oil spills, regulate externalities, control riots, break strikes, wage war.

People often tout that saying imperialism is over because the cost outweigh the gains but they never say just who would gain. For instance, war or intervention in another country would cost more than a return like say 5 billion dollars to get 1 billion in return, it doesn't matter except to who is getting the 1 billion; major corporations.

Policy is pretty much set up like this to benefit the big players.

[HEAD ICE]

I agree with pretty much all of what you guys said. I agree the argument is weak when speaking about the "role" of government or to "help" workers, but I think it would be pretty strong in explaining how class society operates. Kind of like how we can make the argument that corporations bleed Mexico dry and our corn dumping causes "illegal" immigration, but a perfectly valid response would be to change the trade laws rather than explaining how capital works.

[Nolan]

Everyone's anti-big-business when it's politically convenient. They'll see this as "socialism."

[RebelDog]

So in essence, big business can afford to pay below subsistence wages and then they put their burden and responsibility on everyone else.

You are basically pointing out an 'externality' here. Externalities are how business makes profit. It is the process whereupon costs are forced on to others in order to minimise the cost to the business and maximise profits. Your example is a good one. The corporation is minimising its labour costs by forcing wider society to take up some of the burden of paying for the welfare of the workers. This is just one example of how business/capitalism operates. There are many ways in which a corporation can shift its costs. The corporation is just a huge parasitical cost shifting machine that gobbles up welfare and has others pay its bills.

[Kayser_Soso]

Populists almost always attack finance capital, and it's an easy target because this section of the ruling class is basically a big parasite, deriving profits from deductions from the profits of productive capitalists. Yet no matter how much they are hated, finance is essential for capitalism to work. It's important to remind people about this or they will fall for all kinds of conspiracy theories which posit that the "real" problem is just with banks.