Your attempt to equate the two is laughable and remarkably ignorant. Your Marxist economic notion that all economic output is the property of the State and any time the State does not consume as much of the output as possible equals a “taxpayer subsidies” is pure economic nonsense.
In our system, the consent of the governed allows the state certain revenues for the collective good. The property of the individuals (ie their tax money which in this case the shareholders of Carrier), is theirs until granted to that Government. It is their, not the States, money. It is no way a “subsidy” if the State, for the collective good, decides to collect less her in exchange for a public good. (i.e keeping 1100 well paying jobs). If voters are displeased with this decision. They will have the chance to voice their displeasure at the next election.
A “subsidy” is what was done under Obama. Taxpayer money, either by direct grants, or through “loan guarantees” was taken OUT of the Public Treasury and give to favored individual.
There is nothing wrong with what the Democrats did there.It was wholly in keeping with our political system. The consent of the Peoples Representatives was granted in giving these subsides and the voters were allowed to voice their views on those decisions in 2010, 2012, 2014 and now in 2016,
I think you fail to realize that “intellectualism” requires actual though, fact and an understanding of the subject, not just a rote recitation of economic and political dogmas you have read around the internet.
You been a very good parrot here. Your Professors must be so proud. Pity they didn't teach you reason instead of recitation.
Yes. In this case it's spelling.
When I'm charged less then everyone else yet I use the same services it's a subsidy.
The rest of your argument seems to be that both approaches are legitimate, and I don't disagree.