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

[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

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

Very true....

and those laws are determined by our Constitutionally elected representatives. If you consider that process to be tyranny, it is your problem

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The initiative took not one dime out of the public treasury. The initiative put not one dime into the pocket of Intel owners other than what Intel would subsequently earn. It raised nobody's taxes. It confiscated nobody's property. All it did was make what was a highly unattractive location more attractive.

The initiative resulted some 3,300 hundred very good paying private sector jobs in an area in which unemployment was high and people very much needed the work. Those 3,300 jobs provided an economic base that other businesses quickly moved in to serve, which in turn provided an economic foundation supporting more commerce and industry. Result? Providing an initial tax break for a large manufacturing plant has resulted in a thriving, prosperous community and created tens of thousands - probably hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It was an initiative that was win win for all concerned and absolutely promoted the general welfare.

It was good government.

 

[bripat9643]

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

In other words, you don't care if the government pisses on the Constitution. Yeah, we already gathered that.

 

[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

In other words, you don't care if the government pisses on the Constitution. Yeah, we already gathered that.

That is why we have courts fingerboy

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Very true....

and those laws are determined by our Constitutionally elected representatives. If you consider that process to be tyranny, it is your problem

And restricted by the limits set forth in the constitution.. even if the dumb ass representatives make one that is against those restrictions.. the restrictions and law of the constitution trumps the majority will... period

 

[bripat9643]

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

Very true....

and those laws are determined by our Constitutionally elected representatives. If you consider that process to be tyranny, it is your problem

It is tyranny, just as a lynch mob is tyranny. Majority vote doesn't justify everything. The majority could vote tomorrow to expropriate your property and lock you up forever.

 

[bripat9643]

You have your vote and I have mine

In other words, you don't care if the government pisses on the Constitution. Yeah, we already gathered that.

That is why we have courts fingerboy

Anyone who thinks that in a dispute between 'A' and 'B' that if 'A' gets to make the decision to resolve it that it will ever decide in 'B's favor, they are terminally gullible. The Supreme Court is an arm of the federal government. IN any dispute between the people and the government, the court invariably rules in the government's favor.

The Supreme Court is a pathetically ineffective mechanism for protecting our rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's still wrong and furthermore it's unconstitutional. The law should treat everyone equally. No legitimate legal system could ever condone having one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another group of people.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Very true....

and those laws are determined by our Constitutionally elected representatives. If you consider that process to be tyranny, it is your problem

It is tyranny, just as a lynch mob is tyranny. Majority vote doesn't justify everything. The majority could vote tomorrow to expropriate your property and lock you up forever.

Really heavy on the hyperbole aren't ya fingerboy?

Tyranny, lynch mobs.....locking you up forever?
You left out the Nazi comparisons

 

[Redfish]

In other words, you don't care if the government pisses on the Constitution. Yeah, we already gathered that.

That is why we have courts fingerboy

Anyone who thinks that in a dispute between 'A' and 'B' that if 'A' gets to make the decision to resolve it that it will ever decide in 'B's favor, they are terminally gullible. The Supreme Court is an arm of the federal government. IN any dispute between the people and the government, the court invariably rules in the government's favor.

The Supreme Court is a pathetically ineffective mechanism for protecting our rights.

it was not always that way, but it is today. The SCOTUS has become much too political. Lifetime terms were supposed to prevent that, but they do not.

 

[bripat9643]

Very true....

and those laws are determined by our Constitutionally elected representatives. If you consider that process to be tyranny, it is your problem

It is tyranny, just as a lynch mob is tyranny. Majority vote doesn't justify everything. The majority could vote tomorrow to expropriate your property and lock you up forever.

Really heavy on the hyperbole aren't ya fingerboy?

Tyranny, lynch mobs.....locking you up forever?
You left out the Nazi comparisons

Dumbasses like you need extreme examples so you can understand why your opinions are idiotic.

 

[Redfish]

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.

It's still wrong and furthermore it's unconstitutional. The law should treat everyone equally. No legitimate legal system could ever condone having one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another group of people.

very true, right now we have one set of rules for the rulers and a different one for the people. Only congress can vote on their own salaries and benefits.

 

[rightwinger]

In other words, you don't care if the government pisses on the Constitution. Yeah, we already gathered that.

That is why we have courts fingerboy

Anyone who thinks that in a dispute between 'A' and 'B' that if 'A' gets to make the decision to resolve it that it will ever decide in 'B's favor, they are terminally gullible. The Supreme Court is an arm of the federal government. IN any dispute between the people and the government, the court invariably rules in the government's favor.

The Supreme Court is a pathetically ineffective mechanism for protecting our rights.

Fingerboy...

You have obviously never read anything on the Supreme Court. They rule against the Government all the time. Many of their most famous cases have involved siding against the government

 

[bripat9643]

That is why we have courts fingerboy

Anyone who thinks that in a dispute between 'A' and 'B' that if 'A' gets to make the decision to resolve it that it will ever decide in 'B's favor, they are terminally gullible. The Supreme Court is an arm of the federal government. IN any dispute between the people and the government, the court invariably rules in the government's favor.

The Supreme Court is a pathetically ineffective mechanism for protecting our rights.

it was not always that way, but it is today. The SCOTUS has become much too political. Lifetime terms were supposed to prevent that, but they do not.

The current behavior of the Supreme Court was predicted long ago by some of the Founders. It's inevitable for the reason I just listed.

 

[bripat9643]

That is why we have courts fingerboy

Anyone who thinks that in a dispute between 'A' and 'B' that if 'A' gets to make the decision to resolve it that it will ever decide in 'B's favor, they are terminally gullible. The Supreme Court is an arm of the federal government. IN any dispute between the people and the government, the court invariably rules in the government's favor.

The Supreme Court is a pathetically ineffective mechanism for protecting our rights.

Fingerboy...

You have obviously never read anything on the Supreme Court. They rule against the Government all the time. Many of their most famous cases have involved siding against the government

Really? Like when?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't support a small government, I don't support a large government

I support a right sized government as determined by the voters and their constitutionally elected representatives

 

[dblack]

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.

The initiative took not one dime out of the public treasury. The initiative put not one dime into the pocket of Intel owners other than what Intel would subsequently earn. It raised nobody's taxes. It confiscated nobody's property. All it did was make what was a highly unattractive location more attractive.

The initiative resulted some 3,300 hundred very good paying private sector jobs in an area in which unemployment was high and people very much needed the work. Those 3,300 jobs provided an economic base that other businesses quickly moved in to serve, which in turn provided an economic foundation supporting more commerce and industry. Result? Providing an initial tax break for a large manufacturing plant has resulted in a thriving, prosperous community and created tens of thousands - probably hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It was an initiative that was win win for all concerned and absolutely promoted the general welfare.

It was good government.

But you skipped right over FA's point. What it costs us is a fundamental shift in the role of government. It costs us equal rights. You're making essentially the same argument statists do to justify their social engineering projects.

Don't you think there is merit to the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law? Should our rights in general depend on a subjective assessment of how much we contribute to society?

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who thinks that in a dispute between 'A' and 'B' that if 'A' gets to make the decision to resolve it that it will ever decide in 'B's favor, they are terminally gullible. The Supreme Court is an arm of the federal government. IN any dispute between the people and the government, the court invariably rules in the government's favor.

The Supreme Court is a pathetically ineffective mechanism for protecting our rights.

Fingerboy...

You have obviously never read anything on the Supreme Court. They rule against the Government all the time. Many of their most famous cases have involved siding against the government

Really? Like when?

Roe v Wade
Miranda v Arizona
Brown v Board of Education

All cases where the courts sided with the people over the Government

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I don't support a small government, I don't support a large government

I support a right sized government as determined by the voters and their constitutionally elected representatives

Then what you support is mob rule.

 

[Redfish]

I don't support a small government, I don't support a large government

I support a right sized government as determined by the voters and their constitutionally elected representatives

that is inconsistent with the majority of your posts, but no surprise in that. You are not what you claim to be, everyone here knows that.

you are a far leftie pretending to be something else.

you make me