So you are opposed then to state gov'ts giving slot money to racetracks, then? Because that's a very clear example of a subsidy.

i was talking about the federal govt, not the states. that's why i referenced andrew jackson, with the discussion going on about the vote by the feds.

What's the difference? It's still government.

there really isn't one, is there? i hadn't ever thought about it on a state case, only on the federal level. the federal govt was never supposed to become this bloated monster it's become. if it had stuck only to the areas it was supposed to, how would things be now? we'd have more of our tax dollars remaining locally and regionally, where it could be better managed-where the local and state govts have a far more realistic view of what their states wants/needs are. if the state populace decided they wanted to subsidize a local/state business, they'd be within their rights to do so.

on the face of it, no, no government should be subsidizing a business. after all, how does a govt decide what business they should favor, and which they should not? we all know the answer to that. is it the governments place to do that? no. it wasn't when the eric canal was first put into planning, nor when the first toll roads were put into place.
the federal govt. was never planned as a monolith to take and take, and then redistribute. local, regional and state are dependent on their citizens to decide all that, as it was meant to be and should be.

But the majority of "we", as the owners of that government, want an EPA, an FDA, a standing army, a CDC, an education department, and earned benefits that protect us in retirement.

Not to get *too* technical, but it is NOT a subsidy to NOT collect more tax from a company or citizen.

That's how I've heard this oil thing described. Is that correct or not? That the government is "giving" them a tax break - not collecting a larger amount of taxes.

i don't know, i'd have to look into the particulars of that case.