how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
415 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Smart Move
Qwest probably saw what happened to GM, Chrysler and the numerous banks on the dole and decided that having government as a majority shareholder is not a good idea.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|  dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Smart Move I don't like the idea of corporate welfare either- compete or die as far as I'm concerned.
However, if the government is offering to throw some taxpayer cash around, you can hardly blame anyone for wanting a piece of the action- unless it comes with too many strings attached. | |
|  needforspeed59Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ | said by pnh102:No private business has any place taking taxpayer money for nothing under any circumstances. Qwest probably saw what happened to GM, Chrysler and the numerous banks on the dole and decided that having government as a majority shareholder is not a good idea. Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
--
Great success! High five! | |
| chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| That's what the strings are for. It basically amounts to the government paying these companies to build out networks to their specs in order to serve this countries citizens. Sort of like when power companies are paid to build lines and water companies are paid to build pipes. | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by pnh102:Qwest probably saw what happened to GM, Chrysler and the numerous banks on the dole and decided that having government as a majority shareholder is not a good idea. Whats so wrong with that other than a new CEO? | |
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Smart Move said by patcat88:Whats so wrong with that other than a new CEO? In the case for most of the banks currently on welfare, the management structure hasn't changed (as far as I know). In fact, I am pretty sure that the government has only pushed out the head of GM and replaced him with someone else. Of course, as a majority shareholder in a company, it has the right to do this.
But on top of that, why are we rewarding failure? If I make a series of bad financial decisions and end up screwing myself, I won't get a bailout. Yet, I am expected to pay my taxes to support worthless companies that continue to make poor business decisions. And to add insult to injury, the guy who oversees that collection process is himself a tax cheat.
Furthermore, even though the Constitution is for all practical purposes null and void at this point, where does the US government have any authority to give any tax money to any private company for this reason?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Smart Move said by pnh102:[Furthermore, even though the Constitution is for all practical purposes null and void at this point That's a pretty ridiculous statement. The 4th Amendment is well along to being null and void, but don't see how the rest is in much danger.where does the US government have any authority to give any tax money to any private company for this reason?
Articles 1 & 2. Congress passes laws authorizing expenditures, for any any reason they see fit; such laws are signed by the president (or Congress overrides a veto). In this particular case, expeditures to targetted to advance U.S. Policy as enacted in another law, the 1996 Telecomm Act.
Or such is the case in the Real World. In some fantasy Anarchist/Libertarian world that doesn't exist, maybe not. | |
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Smart Move said by PDXPLT:That's a pretty ridiculous statement. The 4th Amendment is well along to being null and void, but don't see how the rest is in much danger. Care to tell me how it is wrong? Where in the Constitution is it authorized that taxpayers are supposed to bail out private companies that make poor business decisions that ultimately lead to their demise? Where is it listed in the Constitution that taxpayers are to pay for the living expenses of the poor? Where is it listed in the Constitution that government is supposed to provide health care to people?
said by PDXPLT:Articles 1 & 2. Congress passes laws authorizing expenditures, for any any reason they see fit; such laws are signed by the president (or Congress overrides a veto). In this particular case, expeditures to targetted to advance U.S. Policy as enacted in another law, the 1996 Telecomm Act. Uh no. While Congress does in practice throw money at anything it wishes, the Constitution, if it were being followed, would not allow for most of the spending that is currently going on.
So you care to tell me again where it is listed in the Constitution that government is supposed to subsidize consumer broadband?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Smart Move said by pnh102:While Congress does in practice throw money at anything it wishes, the Constitution, if it were being followed, would not allow for most of the spending that is currently going on. There's not a single clause in the Constitution that prohibits it. Can you point to a single sentence that isn't "being followed" by such practices?
The Preamble states that the Consitiution was established to, among other things, "promote the general welfare". Article 1, Section 8 explicitly states that Congress is authorized to do so, and gives almost complete latitude to Congress as to how to go about doing that.
You won't find a court that says otherwise. | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Smart Move said by PDXPLT:There's not a single clause in the Constitution that prohibits it. Can you point to a single sentence that isn't "being followed" by such practices? Ahhh, so you believe that the Constitution lets the federal government do anything it wants to unless it is expressly prohibited. There's your first mistake.
said by PDXPLT:The Preamble states that the Consitiution was established to, among other things, "promote the general welfare". Article 1, Section 8 explicitly states that Congress is authorized to do so, and gives almost complete latitude to Congress as to how to go about doing that. The preamble is not a granting of powers, that is what Article 1 is. There is also nothing in Article 1, or anywhere in the Constitution, that authorizes Congress to cut checks to private businesses for the hell of it.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | |
| |
|
