Why should government be kept smaller, and restricted to only certain tasks?

[Redfish]

true, but our left wing friends continually misuse the word 'subsidy'. just trying to set them straight.

Some of our more thoughtful libertarian friends are also misunderstanding exactly what is a subsidy and what is not too.

I'm not that interested in whether we call the games we play with the tax code 'subsidies' or 'incentives' or 'gifts-to-lobbyists'. But I would like to see the practice abolished. It's just plain bad government in my view.

I think we all agree on that.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats simply ignore the Constitution. That's why you don't think it needs changing.

If that is what you believe, you have the judicial system as a remedy....go at it

suits are being filed as we speak.

Good luck with that

That is how the process works

 

[rightwinger]

The why are Dimocraps always trying to emulate Europeans socialist governments?

I love my country and admire our Government. There is no other government in the world I would like to have

It is conservatives always planning war against the "evil" government

A US government that takes away constitutional rights by executive fiat is evil and should be replaced.

You have your vote and I have mine

 

[dblack]

Some of our more thoughtful libertarian friends are also misunderstanding exactly what is a subsidy and what is not too.

I'm not that interested in whether we call the games we play with the tax code 'subsidies' or 'incentives' or 'gifts-to-lobbyists'. But I would like to see the practice abolished. It's just plain bad government in my view.

I think we all agree on that.

I get the revulsion at the idea that a tax cut is somehow a 'gift' from government. But when the cuts aren't across-the-board, when they're implemented to give breaks to specific groups, they have the same net effect as a tax increase on everyone else. That fact often gets lost in the kneejerk response to the 'subsidizing via tax cuts' debate.

 

[Redfish]

I love my country and admire our Government. There is no other government in the world I would like to have

It is conservatives always planning war against the "evil" government

A US government that takes away constitutional rights by executive fiat is evil and should be replaced.

You have your vote and I have mine

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

 

[Foxfyre]

true, but our left wing friends continually misuse the word 'subsidy'. just trying to set them straight.

Some of our more thoughtful libertarian friends are also misunderstanding exactly what is a subsidy and what is not too.

I'm not that interested in whether we call the games we play with the tax code 'subsidies' or 'incentives' or 'bribes-for-votes'. But I would like to see the practice abolished. It's just plain bad government in my view.

I know you do feel that way. But I think I made a very good argument for why the example I used was good government. And you have made no case - yet - for why it was not, or that it was a 'bribe for votes'. Because it wasn't.

I try very hard to maintain integrity of principle in these things. One principle that the Left will not acknowledge is that a desire for small, efficient, effective government is NOT a demand for no government at all. But your argument that the example I used was somehow evil appears to support the Left's conviction that you would do away with all government and that there is no role for government in promoting the general welfare.

I think I've read your stuff long enough now to know that you probably don't think that. But you are suggesting that it would have been better for all those jobs and all that economic prosperity not to have happened at all rather than concede that government did a good thing by making it attractive for Intel to move into the area. It absolutely would not have happened otherwise as many other states wanted that plant.

 

[rightwinger]

A US government that takes away constitutional rights by executive fiat is evil and should be replaced.

You have your vote and I have mine

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You have your vote and I have mine

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

There you have it: Might makes right.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is a broader issue though. Giving a tax break to a sole proprietor who will at most hire a half dozen employees is not a judicious use of the people's funds--the return to the overall economy does not justify it.

But a large anchor store is a different matter. It not only provides enough jobs to be an economic boost to the entire community, but the whole idea of an 'anchor' store is to provide a customer base for the smaller stores by drawing more customers into a given area. Large shopping malls cannot survive without those anchor stores, nor will a shopping center do anywhere nearly as well without one or two in its midst. So there can be a prudent justification in the interest of the common good to provide incentive for those anchor stores to move in.

No, it’s not a different matter and the justification of such is exactly the same justifications that are used in any number of relative morality arguments that I know you would immediately recognize as false.

Here is the problem, you are advocating that it is proper for the people to use the force of law to assist one person over another for the immediate ‘benefit’ (in this case jobs or money) that the group receives. That relativistic way of applying the law sure sounds good now but its corrosive and destructive nature is absolutely unacceptable. Those ‘anchor’ businesses exist without government and will continue to do so. They neither need government nor will provide better benefits by having government support them. The only effect that you get in doing this is enriching the business more than it deserves by fleecing the people.

Simply put – law should apply to ALL equally. Every single entity that it governs. In the same manner that it is not proper for me to steal from you even if I am giving it to the Jones family down the street for all our betterment, it is not proper for me to give a large entity a tax break that I am not offering to another business venture. To do so undermines the entire concept of a nation of laws rather than men.

Not all that many years ago, the state of New Mexico and a barely incorporated Village of Rio Rancho put together a tax break for an Intel plant to establish itself there. Again it didn't take a penny out of anybody's pocket or put a penny into Intel's pocket. It was bait dangled out there to get a very large employer to locate on the high desert with few amenities when it could have chosen a more attractive location. Intel is now New Mexico's largest single private sector employer, pays massive taxes to the State of New Mexico and the city, has donated many wonderful things for the community, and the good jobs it has created have provided a market base for hundreds of other businesses providing a good living for tens of thousands that wouldn't exist without Intel. Rio Rancho is the fastest growing city in New Mexico, and the odds are good that it will be the largest in a few years.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that initial tax break was not a good investment and was not a huge benefit to all, i.e. promoted the general welfare.

A government initiative that benefits only one entity is of course immoral. But one that creates private sector jobs for many hundreds or thousands including providing a market base for many other private sector enterprises is a solid investment.

It costs nobody anything. And the benefits are huge.

Your land is prime land for raising crops. You, however, do not want to be a farmer and decide that you have no interest in developing your land. Perhaps you want to do something else with it. Maybe you like it the way it is. The rest of the community has decided that they want the tax revenue and goods that would be brought to market if your land was developed and they then decide that property rights no longer belong to you. Just to everyone else. They are allowed access to equal law but have decided that because things would be ‘better’ you don’t. It would be in everyone’s best interest if we simply remove you from your land and take what is on it. That is the exact same ‘logic’ that you have used to justify charging everyone else one rate but giving another entity a different one.


You are willing to give one business a rate that is lower or other incentives to move into an area but then that same rate is not applied to local competition. What you have done, in effect, is allow company X to price their products lower than the others that are already there essentially limiting competition from other companies. How can you think that is a good practice? That is the very heart of government picking winners and losers. It is how the government practices favoritism.

Your logic is the EXACT same logic that justifies Solyndra, Halliburton and a thousand other crony institutions that the government has backed. Are you really comfortable supporting those endeavors?


You state that the practice costs nothing. In that you could not be more incorrect. It does not cost tax dollars up front but that is as far as you are looking into it. What it does cost is competition and law. It changes the purpose of government from enforcing law to picking those that law is applicable to. It is the heart of why the government has moved into economic matters and as long as that practice remains there will ALWAYS be government right there bailing out banks and giving loans to campaign donors. As long as government retains the ability to give business the edge over its competitors then those businesses will continue to corrupt government in order to gain those favors from them.

 

[rightwinger]

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

There you have it: Might makes right.

Actually, that is how our country functions. If you think your "rights" are violated, you have access to the court system

Great country, isn't it?

 

[Foxfyre]

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

There you have it: Might makes right.

Most especially when the government bribes those voters not to rock the boat.

Entitlements via government subsidy are heady things. And even staunch conservatives are reluctant to give up advertised 'free money' or advertised 'free stuff' government doles out to them. Intellectually they know that 'free stuff' is costing them many times over, but emotionally it is difficult to relinquish what they hold in their hands especially while other people are still taking it.

So the government is free to increase its own bloated size, power, and influence for its own advantage knowing that it can perpetuate itself unhindered so long as it throws 50% of the people a bone now and then.

The only remedy is to make it illegal for government to use the people's money to benefit any person, entity, demographic, or constituency that does not benefit all. Only then will government have incentive to be efficient, effective, and fiscally prudent as it will have no other way to convince people to vote for those in government. We would have public servants again instead of career politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[Redfish]

You have your vote and I have mine

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

"the size we have today" is not "the size desired by the progressives and liberals". The vast majority want what we have today or less.

you lose.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

There you have it: Might makes right.

Actually, that is how our country functions. If you think your "rights" are violated, you have access to the court system

Great country, isn't it?

Actually, that is why out country has become dysfunctional.

My rights were meant to be above the "if you don't like it, sue me" mindset of despotic thugs, finger wagging nannies and bureaucratic tyrants.

So much for greatness.

 

[Redfish]

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

There you have it: Might makes right.

funny isn't it? the libs demand minority rights except on issues that are important to them. then its, damn the constitution, we are going to ram our agenda up the collective asses of the nation.

liberalism is a mental disease.

 

[dblack]

Some of our more thoughtful libertarian friends are also misunderstanding exactly what is a subsidy and what is not too.

I'm not that interested in whether we call the games we play with the tax code 'subsidies' or 'incentives' or 'bribes-for-votes'. But I would like to see the practice abolished. It's just plain bad government in my view.

I know you do feel that way. But I think I made a very good argument for why the example I used was good government. And you have made no case - yet - for why it was not, or that it was a 'bribe for votes'. Because it wasn't.

You might have noticed I changed my original post to 'gifts-to-lobbyists' (obviously after you quoted me), but I still think it's bad government. Primarily because of what I was discussing earlier about how it undermines rule of law and equal protection.

I try very hard to maintain integrity of principle in these things. One principle that the Left will not acknowledge is that a desire for small, efficient, effective government is NOT a demand for no government at all. But your argument that the example I used was somehow evil appears to support the Left's conviction that you would do away with all government and that there is no role for government in promoting the general welfare.

I think I've read your stuff long enough now to know that you probably don't think that. But you are suggesting that it would have been better for all those jobs and all that economic prosperity not to have happened at all rather than concede that government did a good thing by making it attractive for Intel to move into the area. It absolutely would not have happened otherwise as many other states wanted that plant.

Your view, or my reading of it at least, is that it's okay to cater to special interests if it promotes the general welfare, and that's what I'm disputing. Government can create a favorable economic climate without sacrificing equal protection (and if it can't, then it shouldn't). It comes back to the corporatism thing that I'm always railing about. We're moving steadily away from government centered on protecting the equal, universal rights of individuals in the name of justice, to government preoccupied with assessing targeted favors and penalties in the name of expediency.

 

[dblack]

You state that the practice costs nothing. In that you could not be more incorrect. It does not cost tax dollars up front but that is as far as you are looking into it. What it does cost is competition and law. It changes the purpose of government from enforcing law to picking those that law is applicable to. It is the heart of why the government has moved into economic matters and as long as that practice remains there will ALWAYS be government right bailing out banks and giving loans to campaign donors. As long as government retains the ability to give business the edge over its competitors then those businesses will continue to corrupt government in order to gain those favors from them.

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say!

 

[rightwinger]

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

"the size we have today" is not "the size desired by the progressives and liberals". The vast majority want what we have today or less.

you lose.

Then let them vote that way....That is the way we decide things in this country

 

[rightwinger]

There you have it: Might makes right.

Actually, that is how our country functions. If you think your "rights" are violated, you have access to the court system

Great country, isn't it?

Actually, that is why out country has become dysfunctional.

My rights were meant to be above the "if you don't like it, sue me" mindset of despotic thugs, finger wagging nannies and bureaucratic tyrants.

So much for greatness.

Well, you have a dilemma then don't you?

You can't find enough other voters who agree with you
The courts do not agree with you

What do you have left?
Bitching on a Message Board I guess

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only remedy is to make it illegal for government to use the people's money to benefit any person, entity, demographic, or constituency that does not benefit all. Only then will government have incentive to be efficient, effective, and fiscally prudent as it will have no other way to convince people to vote for those in government. We would have public servants again instead of career politicians and bureaucrats.

The people who founded this country, knew that more than two hundred years ago.

And so they put an ironclad statement into the U.S. Constitution, saying exactly that.

In modern language: "The govt can collect taxes only for certain purposes, namely for Defense, and for programs that benefit all Americans equally."

Spending tax money on Special-interest groups is unconstitutional.

For extra credit: Can you identify the language in the Constitution that makes this rule?

(Hint: It's in Article 1 Section 8, near the beginning)

 

[DiamondDave]

You have your vote and I have mine

yep, and in most cases I would say that mine cancels yours

And a lot more voters who want the size of government we have today exceeds those who do not

You lose

Constitution says otherwise.. you lose

We don't live on the tyranny of the majority.. we and our government are to be bound by the rule of law