[semimojo]

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).

You're missing the piont that the money given by the taxpayers to the state is in exchange for a set of services. It's a compact.

Once that deal is struck, if one party stops paying yet continues to use the services, that party is being subsidized by the other taxpayers.

This subsidy may well be for the public good and is certainly legitimate under our system of government, but to quibble over what it's called is silly.

If a public university chooses to charge one class of students - say FReepers - less for the same education as all other students would you object if that was called a subsidy?

[elhombrelibre]

Yours is a good point. And if CARRIER gets special treatment, then why not its competitors?

[Elsie]

This subsidy may well be for the public good and is certainly legitimate under our system of government, but to quibble over what it's called is silly.

No; it is NOT 'silly'!

Re-defining things today is an art form; done by those who wish to mask the TRUE nature of that being re-defined.

Undocumented workers? Illegal aliens?
No; border invaders.

Alternate lifestyle? LGBT 'rights'?
No; SIN.

Choice? Unwanted woman's tissue?
No; death of a HUMAN being.

There are many more; but you get my drift; I hope.