Not apples and oranges; wordplay.
A mortgage expense deduction is a "subsidy". Homeowner federal largesse. welfare. As are corporate loopholes and offshore profit non-repatriation.
Welfare. Lock, stock, the lot.
Differences lie in word play and perceptions of 'deservedness' (not sure if that's grammatically correct; will leave it to hairsplitters).
Subsidies are a false economy; witness the sub-prime meltdown that cascaded across the world in 2008.
As you were.
There is one, not so small, and very crucial difference.
Let's call them type a and type b.
Welfare type a) someone is poor, they have a bunch of kids, they get money from the government. It comes in the form of a check each month. It is there income.
"Welfare" type b) someone generates their own income, which is then taxed by the government. When it comes time each year to pay taxes, the government reduces the bill for certain activities. The result is they don't pay as much as they would have otherwise.
For the life of me, I don't see how that second type can be called welfare, and grouped in with the first with a straight face.
The person in the second type only gets a reduced tax burden, that isn't anywhere near the same thing as a handout.
The only way you could think this is if you consider all money ultimately being the government's.
Corporate welfare is similar. Very often it is "given" to companies who are trying to accomplish some good. Like creating green technology. Or giving jobs or loans to the poor or minorities.
I'll agree with you that some forms of corporate welfare ought to end. Oil companies don't need it. The only exception to this might be an oil company that is trying to create hydrogen fuel cell cars or some other type of revolutionary technology for which there is currently no profit motive.
