It's difficult to say really which is the lesser of two evils. If North Carolina had not given the tax breaks to Dell, then Dell would not have brought the 1500 jobs to North Carolina recently. After the mills closed down North Carolina was in a sorry state for jobs. Add to it that most factories now employ illegals here and avoid the cost of benefits and somehow manage to bus them in from Mexico directly and not pay fines or get shut down. Go figure! Dell would have located somewhere else. In essence, NC would not have received the taxes anyway and on top of that, would have lost the 1500 jobs to another state. The debate comes when you figure in the public costs of Dell moving here. Who pays for the water, sewer, electricity, etc costs in the building of the site? The roads? Possibly the smaller companies who don't employ many but do pay taxes. The mom and pop shops are in essence funding Dell. Some of whom may actually go out of business if they are in anyway in direct competition with Dell although I doubt that. Now in the situation where it is a large retailer that is entirely possible. Mom and pop companies foot the public bill of Walmarts, Home Depots, et al all the time and end up losing their customers to the new larger retailer and going out of business.





>>>Because the primary purpose of government is the well-being and comfort of the people governed.
>>
>>Not necessarily true, unless you perform your own liberal interpretation of the text. It depends on your government. In the U.S., our constitution clearly states that the purpose of government is to:
>>
>>"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." In order to achieve this purpose the Founding Fathers established three main principles on which our Government is based:
>>
>>Inherent rights: Rights that anyone living in America has;
>>Self Government: Government by the people; and
>>Separation of Powers: Branches of government with different powers.
>>
>
>Hmmmm. Seems to me that I could put emphasis on the "promote the general welfare" and "blessings of liberty" parts to support my statement.
>
>>
>>It is our individual responsible to chose our path in life. That path cannot be determined by government and should not be. When there is no incentive to study, learn, excel, or even be a good citizen, many fail to take the initiative themselves to do so. That is the individual's choice and he has the freedom to make that choice. In most cases, the government should not step in and fix the economic problems a citizen has created. No where does it state that 'promoting the general welfare' is to guarantee welfare via entitlements. It does not state 'guarantee' or 'ensure' but only promote.
>>
>>Now, realistically I have no problem with my tax dollars paying for medical care, food, housing, et al (the basic necessities) for those citizens who cannot work for medical reasons. Especially our elderly and the infirm of all ages. Primarily those individuals whose medical problems (in this case citizen or not) are due to service in our armed forces, the peace corps, or civic support or service. However, I believe confirmed medical diagnosis in writing (from more than one source) are required to substantiate such benefits. I also think they are benefits and NOT entitlements.
>
>Seems to me we are in agreement. I think the word "entitlements" is a loaded one. I'd bet that none of the legislations creating any of the programs now called entitlements actually use the word "entitlement". In fact it is far more likely that the word "benefits" is used in their connection.
>We (Canada) and you (the U.S.) have several programs that are now called "entitlements", but you can bet your bottom dollar that none of them include the corporate handouts that cost us billions of $$$ each year. Handouts that rarely, NOW, involve job creation AT HOME. Handouts that now basically increase corporate profits while doing little or nothing for the average Joe.
>Let's see the corporate handouts enumerated and ended before "entitlements" are put under the microscope.
>There have always been problems with freeloaders taking advantage of the system, and we do need ways to ferret them out. But again the biggest freeloaders are the corporations who spend lavishly on officials and get all kinds of perks as a result. End that stuff before attacking (personal) entitlements.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>The problem becomes one of serious debate when children are involved. Each child deserves the basic necessities of life because they are not legally responsible nor normally capable of providing it themselves. It is up to their parents to provide for them, to make good decisions, and to train them to provide for themselves in the future and be a good citizen. When parents fail to take care of their children, then what? Do you support the parent in order to take care of the child? Do you remove the children from the household? Do you support the child while teaching the parent? It is a serious issue that has not been resolved well in any of our states. We train for free those who have committed crimes and reside in our prison system but we invest so much less in our free citizens who make poor (but not illegal) choices. It is a conundrum.