annual interruptus

"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.