NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

2. The government can reward those companies who voluntarily
choose not to exploit their workers and the environment, to
help them meet their competitions' prices and remain in
business. And those corporations that voluntarily develop
innovative means of responsibly reducing costs should also
receive a government incentive.

I'm more than a little uneasy with the government rewarding "good"
behavior, as the definition of "good" changes from administration to
administration, but the mechanism for rewards remains in place.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

2. The government can reward those companies who voluntarily
choose not to exploit their workers and the environment, to help
them meet their competitions' prices and remain in
business. And those corporations that voluntarily develop
innovative means of responsibly reducing costs should also
receive a government incentive.


I'm more than a little uneasy with the government rewarding "good"
behavior, as the definition of "good" changes from administration to
administration, but the mechanism for rewards remains in place.

Jose

Its called social engineering and it breeds corruption and the
affording of 'special favors" to certain groups and favored
businesses by various politicians.

I'm more than a little uneasy with the government rewarding "good" behavior, as the definition of "good" changes from administration to administration, but the mechanism for rewards remains in place.
Jose
Its called social engineering and it breeds corruption and the
affording of 'special favors" to certain groups and favored
businesses by various politicians.

True. But just to play the other side for a moment, this same social
engineering (through tax incentives) has made it easier for Americans to
own their own homes. Or so I'm told. Actually, in the Dominican
Republic, where we sponsor several impoverished children, even the very
poor own their own homes. Outright. Granted, they are not the same
quality of home as we have here, but they are owned, where here in the
US, the less well off rent.

Maybe government zoning and construction laws have something to do with it.

And public libraries are nothing more than a communist or socialist
wealth redistribution mechanism too, but I wouldn't be without them.

The issue is not as simple as either side paints it.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:49:16 -0400, Jose
wrote:

I'm more than a little uneasy with the government rewarding "good" behavior, as the definition of "good" changes from administration to administration, but the mechanism for rewards remains in place.
Jose
Its called social engineering and it breeds corruption and the
affording of 'special favors" to certain groups and favored
businesses by various politicians.

True. But just to play the other side for a moment, this same social
engineering (through tax incentives) has made it easier for Americans to
own their own homes. Or so I'm told. Actually, in the Dominican
Republic, where we sponsor several impoverished children, even the very
poor own their own homes. Outright. Granted, they are not the same
quality of home as we have here, but they are owned, where here in the
US, the less well off rent.

Renting isn't necessarily confined to low or even middle class/income
families here. A great many upper middle class rent as well.

OTOH I'd much rather rent a good quality home or apartment than own
lesser quality. Owning a home is not necessarily every ones goal.
Here a good percentage own to build wealth through equity usually
gained through an increase in value. Also, it's typically cheaper in
the long run to own a modest home rather than rent.

Now it depends on your location. In many areas you can make more
money by investing it rather than paying off a home. If I pay 5%
interest, and my home gains 3% per year I'm far better off letting
that money work at 12 to 14% return, or more


Maybe government zoning and construction laws have something to do with it.

And public libraries are nothing more than a communist or socialist
wealth redistribution mechanism too, but I wouldn't be without them.

The issue is not as simple as either side paints it.

Jose

In many areas you can make more
money by investing it rather than paying off a home. If I pay 5%
interest, and my home gains 3% per year I'm far better off letting
that money work at 12 to 14% return, or more

This is true, sort of. In any case, those who would make that decision
(rather than fall into it) are savvy enough to figure it out. Most
people are not, and owning their own home is the most security they will
get.

Owning also gives one a stake in the neighborhood that renting does not,
and this is (seen as) a societal good which should be encouraged (to the
extent that any should). So I'm not opposed to tax incentives to
encourage home ownership here. However, I am aware of (though have not
analysed) the other (governmental) things which work against it.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger (K8RI) writes:

Now it depends on your location. In many areas you can make more
money by investing it rather than paying off a home. If I pay 5%
interest, and my home gains 3% per year I'm far better off letting
that money work at 12 to 14% return, or more

There is virtually no investment that will consistently return 12 or 14
percent, and making plans on the basis of finding one may be imprudent.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose wrote:


The issue is not as simple as either side paints it.

Jose

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive (i.e like income taxes
and other government programs). I think some tax credits _are_
a good idea because they encourage people or businesses to
produce things (generally).

But to your point, If I were a strict Constitutionalist (which
I am not really) I would oppose all of that stuff. Some positive
social engineering can be good but too much of it (which is
really where we are no I believe) is a very bad thing.

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive

.... and others may disagree on which ones are regressive and which ones
are not. So, I'm in favor of the light touch, but I'm not necessarily
in favor of no touch.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive


... and others may disagree on which ones are regressive and which ones
are not. So, I'm in favor of the light touch, but I'm not necessarily
in favor of no touch.

Jose

Too much of anything tends to negate ther benefits. Right now
we have far too much "government" in every aspect of our lives,
and I'm afraid it won't get any better. There are a lot of people
like Larry out there that believe in big government solutions.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive (i.e like income taxes
and other government programs). I think some tax credits _are_
a good idea because they encourage people or businesses to
produce things (generally).


So some tax credits are good. Which ones? Do you suppose other people
might have a different idea about which tax breaks are good and which are
bad? Do you suppose this might explain in part why there are hordes of
lobbyists trying to influence Congress?

Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?



But to your point, If I were a strict Constitutionalist (which
I am not really) I would oppose all of that stuff. Some positive
social engineering can be good but too much of it (which is
really where we are no I believe) is a very bad thing.


So when should the federal government adhere to the Constitution and when
should it not?