annual interruptus

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
(They've built two in the last two
years...)

I fully understand you being ****ed about this but you really need
to get in line and let them build you an new hotel. If you can't
beat 'em join 'em.

I have to shave this face every morning, and I wouldn't be able to
look my kids in the eye if I accepted welfare.

I know what you mean but I really don't see this as welfare. The people of
the city as represented by the council or whoever is making the decision
to build these hotels and lease them to private organizations. They are
doing it because they are going to get something in return. Increased
tourism, larger tax base, whatever.

Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and create a
new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around the new lake.
Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
(They've built two in the last two
years...)

I fully understand you being ****ed about this but you really need
to get in line and let them build you an new hotel. If you can't
beat 'em join 'em.

I have to shave this face every morning, and I wouldn't be able to
look my kids in the eye if I accepted welfare.

I know what you mean but I really don't see this as welfare. The
people of the city as represented by the council or whoever is
making the decision to build these hotels and lease them to private
organizations. They are doing it because they are going to get
something in return. Increased tourism, larger tax base, whatever.

Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around the
new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways. If a government
entity decides that having more people stay in hotels in their location will
be of benefit then there are only so many things they can do to get more
people to open and run hotels.

Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote tourism, help
create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and if one city or state
is doing it the others have to do it to compete.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around the
new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways.

Yes.

If a government entity decides that having more people stay in hotels in
their location will be of benefit then there are only so many things they
can do to get more people to open and run hotels.

That's one form.


Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote tourism,
help create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and if one city or
state is doing it the others have to do it to compete.

So, your answer to my second question is "yes"?

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around
the new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways.

Yes.

If a government entity decides that having more people stay in
hotels in their location will be of benefit then there are only so
many things they can do to get more people to open and run hotels.

That's one form.


Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote
tourism, help create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and
if one city or state is doing it the others have to do it to compete.

So, your answer to my second question is "yes"?

No it isn't. Welfare, at least in my mind, pay people or companies to do
nothing or pays them more for something than it is worth.

If a city spends $1,000,000 today in the hope of earning $10,000,000 in
taxes and other income over the next 10 years that's not welfare that's
investment.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around
the new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate welfare?

Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways.

Yes.

If a government entity decides that having more people stay in
hotels in their location will be of benefit then there are only so
many things they can do to get more people to open and run hotels.

That's one form.


Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote
tourism, help create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and
if one city or state is doing it the others have to do it to compete.

So, your answer to my second question is "yes"?

No it isn't. Welfare, at least in my mind, pay people or companies to do
nothing or pays them more for something than it is worth.

If a city spends $1,000,000 today in the hope of earning $10,000,000 in
taxes and other income over the next 10 years that's not welfare that's
investment.

That's the typical political bull**** definition of investment. Think: RISK.
Also, think: proper function of government.

No small wonder the welfare state is out of control: it's adherents are on
both sides of the aisle, and both are so adept at making BS excuses that
should make an adolescent cringe. Thank you, public
education/indoctrination.

I expect that all your comments about Chicago's Daley have just crashed.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around
the new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate
welfare? Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways.

Yes.

If a government entity decides that having more people stay in
hotels in their location will be of benefit then there are only so
many things they can do to get more people to open and run hotels.

That's one form.


Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote
tourism, help create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and
if one city or state is doing it the others have to do it to
compete.

So, your answer to my second question is "yes"?

No it isn't. Welfare, at least in my mind, pay people or companies
to do nothing or pays them more for something than it is worth.

If a city spends $1,000,000 today in the hope of earning $10,000,000
in taxes and other income over the next 10 years that's not welfare
that's investment.

That's the typical political bull**** definition of investment.
Think: RISK. Also, think: proper function of government.

No small wonder the welfare state is out of control: it's adherents
are on both sides of the aisle, and both are so adept at making BS
excuses that should make an adolescent cringe. Thank you, public
education/indoctrination.

I expect that all your comments about Chicago's Daley have just
crashed.


Matt, chill down it's Friday for God's sake. As I said you can argue that
promoting tourism, helping create jobs, ect, isn't the job of government.
But as I also said in the real world that is exactly what they are doing and
if a competing communittee fails to do it that communittee is going to loose
out.

I'm going to give you an example. Our city of 20some thousand has Murphy Oil
Corp based here. They just donanted $50,000,000 to pay for the college
education of every student that graduates from the El Dorado Public School
system for the next 18 to 20 years. (Hurray for me I just saved enough to by
a plane with.)

The sourrounding communities don't have a Murphy Oil that can do that for
them. Several are scrambling right now figure out a way to compete. The idea
of a sales tax to create a similar but publicly supported program. Should
public monies be spent for this type of program? It's not up to me to tell
the next town over how to spend thier money.

BTW.... Daley's act was criminal by just about any way you want to define
it.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...


BTW.... Daley's act was criminal by just about any way you want to define
it.

He was promoting tourism and other ventures, thus making Chicago
competitive.

(As long as one's own ox isn't gored).

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
Let's say the Corp of Engineers were to build a dam somewhere and
create a new lake and went looking for hotels to be built around
the new lake. Would that be welfare?

How is that any different from any other form of corporate
welfare? Have Americans become such whores?


You can define corporate welfare in a lot of different ways.

Yes.

If a government entity decides that having more people stay in
hotels in their location will be of benefit then there are only so
many things they can do to get more people to open and run hotels.

That's one form.


Now you can argue that it isn't the governments job to promote
tourism, help create jobs, ect... but in the real world they do and
if one city or state is doing it the others have to do it to
compete.

So, your answer to my second question is "yes"?

No it isn't. Welfare, at least in my mind, pay people or companies
to do nothing or pays them more for something than it is worth.

If a city spends $1,000,000 today in the hope of earning $10,000,000
in taxes and other income over the next 10 years that's not welfare
that's investment.

That's the typical political bull**** definition of investment.
Think: RISK. Also, think: proper function of government.

No small wonder the welfare state is out of control: it's adherents
are on both sides of the aisle, and both are so adept at making BS
excuses that should make an adolescent cringe. Thank you, public
education/indoctrination.

I expect that all your comments about Chicago's Daley have just
crashed.


Matt, chill down it's Friday for God's sake. As I said you can argue that
promoting tourism, helping create jobs, ect, isn't the job of government.
But as I also said in the real world that is exactly what they are doing
and if a competing communittee fails to do it that communittee is going to
loose out.

That's a fabricated world. So, again, your answer to my second question?
(Recall the basis of tax monies).