When it's a government handout for something you believe in.
Conservatives have castigated the Black community for "relying on government handouts." However, those same conservatives, for the most part, support the idea of giving money to Black churches, and churches in general, to fund programs that the church may offer.
Personally, I really don't have a problem with the idea. It should be up to the individual church to decide if they want to deal with the regulations involved with getting money from the government.
But, rhetorically speaking, I find it interesting that NOW it's okay to accept the government handout.
"Government handouts" goes intot he same category as "judicial activists" when it comes to conservatives, corporatists and Republicans. Those labels only apply when to a policy or program they disagree with.
The fact is that the Republicans govern in much the same way that Democrats did for 40 years; they hand out goddies to their friends and supporters to keep them marking the name with an "R" next to it. They are just slightly better at pretending this isn't the case. But why else would Bush have to push for tax cuts when they deficit is ballooning? Why else would his SOTU begin with a litany of handouts to the voters watching?
If it's a contract to deliver goods or services - I don't see it as a handout.
If it's a payoff to prevent untoward behavior, it's a different story - isn't it?
But a true conservative would ask: is the payment - the contract - a proper function of government, as defined by the Constitution?
Posted by: True_Liberal at February 7, 2005 02:56 PMIs giving Ford a tax abatement to keep it from moving a plant out of Michigan an example of paying someone off to prevent untoward behavior?
Posted by: Lester Spence at February 7, 2005 03:15 PMIs giving Ford a tax abatement to keep it from moving a plant out of Michigan an example of paying someone off to prevent untoward behavior?
Moving a factory is not "untoward behavior", is it? A corporation ought to have the option of opening or closing wherever it finds the best opportunity.
Like I said, it depends on whether you're a true conservative. Tax abatements are - in one sense - a recognition by one government that it is competing with another government; and said taxes may not be wise (or even constitutional) in the first place.
Posted by: True_Liberal at February 7, 2005 05:59 PMOf course it's untoward behavior. A true conservative should take an old school approach here. Corporations are designed to serve private AND PUBLIC interests.
Ask Flint Stones whether GM leaving was untoward behavior.
So the question is--are tax abatements preventing this behavior payoffs or what?
Posted by: Lester Spence at February 7, 2005 06:51 PM
Render under Caesar's, and so on. ;-)
Posted by: allaboutgeorge at February 6, 2005 06:22 PM