Corporate welfare in action ....

[dblack]

I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?

They should be but the EPA would never allow that.

Does the principle apply to everything then? Is there any area of law where government should NOT be allowed to wheel and deal?

As long as it's within regulation and constitutional, they can do as they please. It's called States Rights.

Really? So, let's say Peter McBillionaire, who is rumored to have a thing for young girls, is thinking of moving to your state - bringing his money and businesses with him! Would you object if your state offered him his own personal five-year 'free pass' on statutory rape charges?

 

[Cellblock2429]

I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?

They should be but the EPA would never allow that.

Does the principle apply to everything then? Is there any area of law where government should NOT be allowed to wheel and deal?

As long as it's within regulation and constitutional, they can do as they please. It's called States Rights.

Really? So, let's say Peter McBillionaire, who is rumored to have a thing for young girls, is thinking of moving to your state - bringing his money and businesses with him! Would you object if your state offered him his own personal five-year 'free pass' on statutory rape charges?

/----/ again, I don't respond to hypothetical questions especially an idiotic one like yours.

 

[dblack]

I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?

They should be but the EPA would never allow that.

So, this is interesting because it points to the kind of thing that could result if we dispense with equal protection. I'm hoping that most sane folks are aghast at the idea of states selling indulgences in this way. But it's exactly kind of thing you'd like to see more of.

 

[dblack]

I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?

They should be but the EPA would never allow that.

Does the principle apply to everything then? Is there any area of law where government should NOT be allowed to wheel and deal?

As long as it's within regulation and constitutional, they can do as they please. It's called States Rights.

Really? So, let's say Peter McBillionaire, who is rumored to have a thing for young girls, is thinking of moving to your state - bringing his money and businesses with him! Would you object if your state offered him his own personal five-year 'free pass' on statutory rape charges?

/----/ again, I don't respond to hypothetical questions especially an idiotic one like yours.

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

 

[Cellblock2429]

They should be but the EPA would never allow that.

Does the principle apply to everything then? Is there any area of law where government should NOT be allowed to wheel and deal?

As long as it's within regulation and constitutional, they can do as they please. It's called States Rights.

Really? So, let's say Peter McBillionaire, who is rumored to have a thing for young girls, is thinking of moving to your state - bringing his money and businesses with him! Would you object if your state offered him his own personal five-year 'free pass' on statutory rape charges?

/----/ again, I don't respond to hypothetical questions especially an idiotic one like yours.

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

/----/ it's a stupid question and a waste of time to try an answer since it would never happen. BTW I'll respond to any post that I want to. I don't need your permission.

 

[dblack]

Does the principle apply to everything then? Is there any area of law where government should NOT be allowed to wheel and deal?

As long as it's within regulation and constitutional, they can do as they please. It's called States Rights.

Really? So, let's say Peter McBillionaire, who is rumored to have a thing for young girls, is thinking of moving to your state - bringing his money and businesses with him! Would you object if your state offered him his own personal five-year 'free pass' on statutory rape charges?

/----/ again, I don't respond to hypothetical questions especially an idiotic one like yours.

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

/----/ it's a stupid question and a waste of time to try an answer since it would never happen. BTW I'll respond to any post that I want to. I don't need your permission.

So where would you draw the line? Which laws should states be allowed to offer up as exemptions to shoppers?

 

[Cellblock2429]

As long as it's within regulation and constitutional, they can do as they please. It's called States Rights.

Really? So, let's say Peter McBillionaire, who is rumored to have a thing for young girls, is thinking of moving to your state - bringing his money and businesses with him! Would you object if your state offered him his own personal five-year 'free pass' on statutory rape charges?

/----/ again, I don't respond to hypothetical questions especially an idiotic one like yours.

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

/----/ it's a stupid question and a waste of time to try an answer since it would never happen. BTW I'll respond to any post that I want to. I don't need your permission.

So where would you draw the line? Which laws should states be allowed to offer up as exemptions to shoppers?

/----/ None. Does that answer your question? The law is the law and none one can legally give another a free pass you moron

 

[dblack]

Really? So, let's say Peter McBillionaire, who is rumored to have a thing for young girls, is thinking of moving to your state - bringing his money and businesses with him! Would you object if your state offered him his own personal five-year 'free pass' on statutory rape charges?

/----/ again, I don't respond to hypothetical questions especially an idiotic one like yours.

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

/----/ it's a stupid question and a waste of time to try an answer since it would never happen. BTW I'll respond to any post that I want to. I don't need your permission.

So where would you draw the line? Which laws should states be allowed to offer up as exemptions to shoppers?

/----/ None. Does that answer your question? The law is the law and none one can legally give another a free pass you moron

Tax law included? Am I mistaken in assuming you were supporting targeted tax incentives?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ again, I don't respond to hypothetical questions especially an idiotic one like yours.

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

/----/ it's a stupid question and a waste of time to try an answer since it would never happen. BTW I'll respond to any post that I want to. I don't need your permission.

So where would you draw the line? Which laws should states be allowed to offer up as exemptions to shoppers?

/----/ None. Does that answer your question? The law is the law and none one can legally give another a free pass you moron

Tax law included? Am I mistaken in assuming you were supporting targeted tax incentives?

/---/ Its legal to offer tax incentives. It's not legal to allow child abuse.

 

[dblack]

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

/----/ it's a stupid question and a waste of time to try an answer since it would never happen. BTW I'll respond to any post that I want to. I don't need your permission.

So where would you draw the line? Which laws should states be allowed to offer up as exemptions to shoppers?

/----/ None. Does that answer your question? The law is the law and none one can legally give another a free pass you moron

Tax law included? Am I mistaken in assuming you were supporting targeted tax incentives?

/---/ Its legal to offer tax incentives. It's not legal to allow child abuse.

Yes. We're discussing what should be legal for them to offer as incentives. Ray would like to add pollution regs. I'm assuming, based on your previous answer, you would not. But you do think taxes should remain fair ground. Is that correct?

If it is, I wonder why. Why taxes and nothing else?

 

[Markle]

Apple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives

We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?

Isn't that a decision for Iowa to make?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ it's a stupid question and a waste of time to try an answer since it would never happen. BTW I'll respond to any post that I want to. I don't need your permission.

So where would you draw the line? Which laws should states be allowed to offer up as exemptions to shoppers?

/----/ None. Does that answer your question? The law is the law and none one can legally give another a free pass you moron

Tax law included? Am I mistaken in assuming you were supporting targeted tax incentives?

/---/ Its legal to offer tax incentives. It's not legal to allow child abuse.

Yes. We're discussing what should be legal for them to offer as incentives. Ray would like to add pollution regs. I'm assuming, based on your previous answer, you would not. But you do think taxes should remain fair ground. Is that correct?

If it is, I wonder why. Why taxes and nothing else?

/---/ No that is illegal. Remember your moral hero Bill Clinton gave a chicken processor permission to dump toxic waste in an Arkansas River?

 

[dblack]

Apple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives

We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?

Isn't that a decision for Iowa to make?

I think that's what the current legal status, yes. That's what I'm questioning. This kind of government manipulation of our economic decisions undermines markets and freedom. It would, in my opinion, be a proper application of the 'commerce clause' for the federal government to take a role in ending it.

 

[dblack]

Yes. We're discussing what should be legal for them to offer as incentives. Ray would like to add pollution regs. I'm assuming, based on your previous answer, you would not.

/---/ No that is illegal.

So, why should that be illegal and not taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But you do respond to questions not addressed to you? Interesting ...

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

I believe I already told you where the line was, but I'll reiterate: If it's legal and constitutional, a city or state should be allowed to offer businesses anything they can afford to bring them to their area.

 

[dblack]

I'm trying to understand how far people like Ray are willing to go in allowing government to grant ad-hoc exemptions from the law. He's already said he'd like to see pollution laws up for grabs. I'm wondering if there are any others. I'd assume that, somewhere between rape laws and pollution regulation, there is a point where even Ray would draw a line.

I believe I already told you where the line was, but I'll reiterate: If it's legal and constitutional, a city or state should be allowed to offer businesses anything they can afford to bring them to their area.

The question is: What do you think it should be legal and constitutional for them to offer?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?

They should be but the EPA would never allow that.

So, this is interesting because it points to the kind of thing that could result if we dispense with equal protection. I'm hoping that most sane folks are aghast at the idea of states selling indulgences in this way. But it's exactly kind of thing you'd like to see more of.

Sure I would. Anything to help bring in businesses.

One of our customers purchased a large lot of land. They only used half of it to build their new operations. The other half they left vacant but kept it in case they needed to expand again years down the road.

The EPA got a hold of them and told them they cannot build on their land if they wanted to because by federal standards, it was considered wetlands. So now there are acres of property that can't be used because of some stupid bureaucracy.

I don't think this company will expand anymore, but if they need to, they will have to pack up and move somewhere that has the land they need, and everybody here will lose their jobs. The city will lose all that tax revenue, and the citizens of that community would suffer.

So if the feds or state could allow them to build on that land so they wouldn't have to move, Im all for it. The tit mouse (or whatever they are trying to protect) can find someplace else to live.

 

[dblack]

Sure I would. Anything to help bring in businesses.

Anything? Even the exemption for statutory rape? I assume not, but how do you make the call?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure I would. Anything to help bring in businesses.

Anything? Even the exemption for statutory rape? I assume not, but how do you make the call?

WTF does rape have to do with this? Rape is illegal which goes against what I said.

 

[dblack]

Sure I would. Anything to help bring in businesses.

Anything? Even the exemption for statutory rape? I assume not, but how do you make the call?

WTF does rape have to do with this? Rape is illegal which goes against what I said.

So is not paying your taxes. What's the difference?