If they pay back the money I'd agree somewhat (I'd call it an investment). But if they receive money, and never have to pay it back, then I'd call that corporate welfare (socialism). It's acceptable to me under certain circumstances. But when that money goes to an obviously self-sufficient business, who does not need it, I don't agree with it at all.
Isn't that what you were talking about? That the money they receive (through subsidies, etc.) is theirs anyway? Or are you now arguing they don't receive any money? Or is it you meant something else, like taxes? I was talking about subsidies being, in part, socialism and your response was to that, so if you meant that businesses are deserving of better tax-breaks that's entirely different than what I was talking about.
Lets just cut out the poor and have the government buy the products that the poor would buy if they could afford it. That way the poor will eventually die out.