Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

You can slice and dice this think any way you want.

Bottom line……it is 20,000 jobs.

Out of state workers…are now instate workers that are taxable (and what is the difference between bringing in out of state workers and out of country jobless immigrants)

Big tax breaks … lead to more taxable people

Yada, yada, yada,

Try talking to your governor about a project that will bring 20,000 jobs to the state…he'll listen.

If you are trying to justify losing 20,000 jobs … it pretty much cannot be done.

But keep trying

---

No, I've lived in a few towns where they actively fought against corporate stores opening and bringing jobs.

It's not just about jobs. It's about the community as a whole. They rather keep local small business owners strong rather than corporate.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

Me and Sluggo had a long discussion where we went over why AOC would very reasonably be against Amazon coming to her district bc it would not benefit her constituents. He disagreed with her but understood the perspective. he likes to forget these things so he can rail about how she is an idiot bartender


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Good to know. I really don’t get why Bezos wouldn’t pick someplace where they could be the town like Walmart in Bentonville. They could make the infrastructure as they specifically wanted and get a big red state PR win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

AOC represents people who live there who don’t want to see the cost of living go up and their already busy transportation infrastructure be further taxed. Unemployment in NYC isn’t the problem it is in other parts of the country. So it’s reasonable that the people in her district would have seen amazon coming to their area as a net negative. Of course Cuomo in Albany loves more jobs in his state but that doesn’t mean AOC shouldn’t be looking out for her constituents.

---

Yea, I think Amazon not going to New York is a net positive for America as a whole, so I dont see the big deal. Better to have those jobs somewhere else.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

AOC represents people who live there who don’t want to see the cost of living go up and their already busy transportation infrastructure be further taxed. Unemployment in NYC isn’t the problem it is in other parts of the country. So it’s reasonable that the people in her district would have seen amazon coming to their area as a net negative. Of course Cuomo in Albany loves more jobs in his state but that doesn’t mean AOC shouldn’t be looking out for her constituents.

---

The vast majority of anyone (regardless of where they live) have no idea as to the impact of "their already busy transportation infrastructure" and how they would "be further taxed"…no clue.

And as far as unemployment in NYC…more jobs just increases everyone's wages. Supply and Demand. Tampa, where I live, is a great example. Unemployment is virtually non-existent (before the virus) yet the economy is booming with new buildings going up, new businesses coming in, new apartments being built. More jobs means it's good for everyone.

20,000 jobs at minimum wage is around $500 million a year. And the end amount would have been a lot more than that. Nice work for a freshman congressional. Of course, she's "for the people." (how many people that she represents do you think realize the magnitude of the numbers.)

It is interesting how people are defending someone who cost her district 20,000 jobs. Losing jobs used to be the kiss of death (any amount of jobs, and this idiot cost 20,000 of them). I guess things have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

She is less than half my age.

And what has se accomplished??? She was elected by a few thousand votes and hasn't really done anything in congress other than get publicity.

That's not accomplishing all that much.

And blowing the Amazon deal (20,000 jobs) … I guess that's an accomplishment in a sense. Not too many could do that. Sort of like winning the lottery, then losing the ticket.

---

This just makes his burn even better. She's still accomplished twice as much as you, so if she hasn't accomplished all that much, how little have you accomplished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

The vast majority of anyone (regardless of where they live) have no idea as to the impact of "their already busy transportation infrastructure" and how they would "be further taxed"…no clue.

And as far as unemployment in NYC…more jobs just increases everyone's wages. Supply and Demand. Tampa, where I live, is a great example. Unemployment is virtually non-existent (before the virus) yet the economy is booming with new buildings going up, new businesses coming in, new apartments being built. More jobs means it's good for everyone.

20,000 jobs at minimum wage is around $500 million a year. And the end amount would have been a lot more than that. Nice work for a freshman congressional. Of course, she's "for the people." (how many people that she represents do you think realize the magnitude of the numbers.)

It is interesting how people are defending someone who cost her district 20,000 jobs. Losing jobs used to be the kiss of death (any amount of jobs, and this idiot cost 20,000 of them). I guess things have changed.

---

New York State would have provided $3 billion in tax incentives (i.e. Amazon doesn't pay taxes) and New York City would have provided a further $1.3 billion.

I know to you tax breaks for the rich and corporations aren't a bad thing, but to a lot of people, they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

This just makes his burn even better. She's still accomplished twice as much as you, so if she hasn't accomplished all that much, how little have you accomplished?

---

But;……again………you haven't told me what her accomplishments are.

Is it just getting elected by a few thousand votes??? Is that it??? That's not all that impressive.

We been through all this Amazon crap before. It’s done, over and out. Just remember that Ms Ocasio-Cortez most certainly did not cause Bezos to renege.

I brought it up more to point out what the Democratic leadership is up to (whether you like it or not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Bold…She created so much bad publicity for Amazon that they went elsewhere.

And the governor has far more weight. However, Amazon doesn't need the potential headache. Who wants trouble??? I (and anyone) could see AOC and all her buds who are out there "for the people." protesting everything Amazon does. First protest would be over what they feel is low wages. Who needs it??? Certainly not Amazon.

Amazon is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla here. They came to the district bearing gifts. Anywhere in the US needs Amazon more than they need anywhere in the US. Cities are falling over themselves to get a leading company that provides jobs to come to their community. They're going to go where they are appreciated. Who needs the grief when others are much more accommodating???

In terms that you can understand…Sort of like the Mets saying they want to leave NYC. A dozen cities will fight for that pearl. But if some city has a mouthy councilperson that bad mouths the community spending $$$$ to bring them there, whining that the $$$ could be better spent elsewhere, no stadiums for billionaires etc. (and this gains publicity)…that city would be out of the running.

I don't know how you can't see that.

---

Again she has no power to make such a thing happen period, she can make all the bad publicity all she wants, but she is not the reason why they pulled out. Their was tons of people opposed to it not just her, even if she was not opposed it would have fallen through because that’s how unpopular it was from the get go. The citizens living there hated more than anything because they feared it was going to drive their housing and rent way.

But yeah let’s make her the sole reason why it fell through.


Lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

New York State would have provided $3 billion in tax incentives (i.e. Amazon doesn't pay taxes) and New York City would have provided a further $1.3 billion.

I know to you tax breaks for the rich and corporations aren't a bad thing, but to a lot of people, they are.

---

Also the district’s economy was already growing. A lot of jobs were being created there. Less jobs and jobs that pay less but jobs the people who voted for AOC could actually benefit from. They weren’t going to get the 6 figure jobs Amazon was going to create and could have been priced out of there own neighborhood. For someone that runs on Main Street over Wall Street it completely made sense for AOC to have issues with Amazon moving into her district


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GasMan did a fantastic job summarizing why Amazon was a bad idea.

NYers are tired of these big *** multi million dollar real estate/corporations coming in and subsequently driving the price up. I could go on a while tangent about gentrification but there’s really no point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

Me and Sluggo had a long discussion where we went over why AOC would very reasonably be against Amazon coming to her district bc it would not benefit her constituents. He disagreed with her but understood the perspective. he likes to forget these things so he can rail about how she is an idiot bartender


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Here is the thing though, that plant was not going to be in her district. It was going to be in LIC which is not part of her district.

But again their is zero credence that she was the reason they pulled out. It was an unpopular thing for most people living there and that’s the main reason why it fell through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

New York State would have provided $3 billion in tax incentives (i.e. Amazon doesn't pay taxes) and New York City would have provided a further $1.3 billion.

I know to you tax breaks for the rich and corporations aren't a bad thing, but to a lot of people, they are.

---

Bolded… Wrong again. That is not true at all. Iw we could get rid of all tax incentives, then I would be all for it. I've said that elsewhere.

Until that happens…these are the rules of the game. Like it or not and as unfortunate as it may be…these arew the rules of the game.

As such, NYC and NYS offered what others offered and made the sale. That is until some idiot "standing up for taxpayers rights" screwed up the deal and cost 20,000 jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

No, I've lived in a few towns where they actively fought against corporate stores opening and bringing jobs.

It's not just about jobs. It's about the community as a whole. They rather keep local small business owners strong rather than corporate.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

I mean yeah, their is a reason why Walmart is not in nyc and that’s why communities have said they don’t want them there period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

Good to know. I really don’t get why Bezos wouldn’t pick someplace where they could be the town like Walmart in Bentonville. They could make the infrastructure as they specifically wanted and get a big red state PR win.

---

Because NY was giving them a ****ing sweetheart deal where they were not going to pay any damn taxes.