Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 189 of 548 FirstFirst ... 89139179187188189190191199239289 ... LastLast
Results 2,821 to 2,835 of 8217
  1. #2821
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    62,939
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    I was making light of one of her gaffes in which she didnít know the difference. Also and side note- this is different than a gaffe. All politicians (or people who speak for a living) make stupid gaffes that need to be corrected. This wasnít a gaffe. She obviously and quite clearly doesnít know the difference between a tax break and a government handout. She believes the government can still spend money it will no longer generate.
    Tax breaks for corporations are often referred to has "corporate welfare" and welfare is what people think of when they think of a gov't handout. I was not familiar with this incident til now but on its face her choice of words doesn't brother me. If you think she was responsible or partially responsible for NYC losing out on a business deal that would have been positive that's is a legit criticism and seems possible. ON the other hand, your dig at her choice of words seems petty to me
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  2. #2822
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,059
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Tax breaks for corporations are often referred to has "corporate welfare" and welfare is what people think of when they think of a gov't handout. I was not familiar with this incident til now but on its face her choice of words doesn't brother me. If you think she was responsible or partially responsible for NYC losing out on a business deal that would have been positive that's is a legit criticism and seems possible. ON the other hand, your dig at her choice of words seems petty to me
    What people refer to tax breaks as and what tax breaks really are is for the masses that donít need to know the difference. As a paid US congressperson, Iíd expect that she at least understand that the government never had that 3 billion dollars to give out but apparently she believes otherwise. How anyone can take her seriously afterwards she is mind blowing.

  3. #2823
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    62,939
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    What people refer to tax breaks as and what tax breaks really are is for the masses that donít need to know the difference. As a paid US congressperson, Iíd expect that she at least understand that the government never had that 3 billion dollars to give out but apparently she believes otherwise. How anyone can take her seriously afterwards she is mind blowing.
    petty
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  4. #2824
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,566
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    I have not seen takes on this amazon controversy/reversal that did not seem knee jerk. What is your take?
    I'm generally against municipalities giving money to corporations, but from everything I've read the city was going to get far more in return than the $3B break they were giving. Over $1B a year in taxes, tens of thousands of jobs, Amazon sponsored tech education programs for New Yorkers, and more. The big problem New Yorkers I know had with it was that it would "change the city" and I get that. But to argue that it was a money loser for the city is really really wrong.

  5. #2825
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,566
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    petty
    It is petty, but I think it's important that a politician trying to communicate an issue to their constituents needs to be totaly clear. Her error actually seems to have made some New Yorkers believe the city wrote a $3B check to Amazon.

  6. #2826
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    62,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I'm generally against municipalities giving money to corporations, but from everything I've read the city was going to get far more in return than the $3B break they were giving. Over $1B a year in taxes, tens of thousands of jobs, Amazon sponsored tech education programs for New Yorkers, and more. The big problem New Yorkers I know had with it was that it would "change the city" and I get that. But to argue that it was a money loser for the city is really really wrong.
    Thanks Scoots. This story interests me a little so I'll probably read up on it more. Intuitively it seems like it would have been a good investment for NYC. I hadn't considered any cultural implications
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  7. #2827
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,566
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Thanks Scoots. This story interests me a little so I'll probably read up on it more. Intuitively it seems like it would have been a good investment for NYC. I hadn't considered any cultural implications
    One thing that seems to come up with NY, LA, SF and other "name" and "culture" cities is that they feel they can make it hard and expensive to do business in them because of the other value the city itself brings. There is something to that, there are things that make NY special ... but the costs of trying to build and start something in NY is so high it almost precludes smaller companies from even trying.

    New Yorkers like the mom and pop feel but it is crazy expensive to live there and that's got to be a factor in how they are going to get big employers to come. AOC didn't kill the Amazon deal, they had spent years jumping through hoops and being called names, AOC was just part of the final push that made them realize it was not worth it.

    I have a friend who lives in LA. He was going to get a pool installed, got quotes, went for the $60k pool. When it reached $45k in city requirements before any pool parts had been installed he cut his losses and just filled the hole with dirt. I don't know if cities do it out of greed or stupidity, but it's crazy.

  8. #2828
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Iíll ask you (like Iíve asked numerous others ó not one of whom has answered): who is your go-to leader? Who is is that youíd care to support and defend?
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Go to leader? The leader of the country is the president. IMO, you donít have to agree with the president to support them.
    Fair enough. Trump, as the duly elected leader of the country, is ex officio worthy of our support.

    Which begs the question: at this juncture do you support his re-election to the office? In other words, is your support enough to support him further?

    Just curious.
    Last edited by Crovash; 04-01-2019 at 10:44 AM.

  9. #2829
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,059
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    petty
    Petty would be to make fun of the plenty of gaffes sheís made- messing up red v blue states, the rounding area one, etc. Thatís the same type of stuff people made fun of Sarah Palin for fyi. This wasnít a gaffe. She actually believes this. It would be like saying that any republican sayinginv their ďpro-lifeĒ is just a gaffe.

  10. #2830
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Fair enough. Trump, as the duly elected go-to leader of the country, is ex officio worthy of our support.

    Which begs the question: at this juncture do you support his re-election to the office?
    It depends who actually runs against him. I see politics as sport so I enjoy how much trump irritates the left but if there was a worthy candidate that more represents my views and if those views outweigh trumps accomplishments so far. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. If thereís a legit 2020 libertarian candidate, I might vote for them. Of the current dems running, none would get my vote.

  11. #2831
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    By all estimates, Amazon would have created thousands of jobs for the area with the averages salary of $150k and generated 27 billion dollars in tax revenue over 10 years. Amazon only wanted to pay 24 billion in taxes. The city lost out. To your earlier point about how NYC doesnít need the money, in her district that it does and thatís her main responsibility, her district.

    FYI, instead of NYC, Amazon went to crystal city, VA which is directly next to the most affluent county in the entire country, Loudoun county. So the rich get richer thanks to AOC and friends.
    Sure, again is this necessarily bad? Allowing an Amazon center, much like allowing a Walmart or target, isn't always necessarily good.

    You made it sound like she cost people jobs, all she did was not strike a deal with Amazon.

  12. #2832
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I'm generally against municipalities giving money to corporations, but from everything I've read the city was going to get far more in return than the $3B break they were giving. Over $1B a year in taxes, tens of thousands of jobs, Amazon sponsored tech education programs for New Yorkers, and more. The big problem New Yorkers I know had with it was that it would "change the city" and I get that. But to argue that it was a money loser for the city is really really wrong.
    This is kinda what I was getting at. I'm sure there are plenty of people in that neughbirhood/area who are happy that Amazon isn't coming..

  13. #2833
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,059
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Sure, again is this necessarily bad? Allowing an Amazon center, much like allowing a Walmart or target, isn't always necessarily good.

    You made it sound like she cost people jobs, all she did was not strike a deal with Amazon.
    This wasnít an amazon center. This was an Amazon HQ that would have produced 25k jobs that averaged $150k per year and over 20 billion in tax revenue over 10 years. Yes, she cost people in NYC jobs. I canít see specifically why she did it but by her own claim it was to ďsaveĒ the government $3 billion which is not factual. The government lost over $20 billion.

  14. #2834
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,059
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    This is kinda what I was getting at. I'm sure there are plenty of people in that neughbirhood/area who are happy that Amazon isn't coming..
    Those people are not informed in the very least. This is an example of whatís wrong with our society.

  15. #2835
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    This wasnít an amazon center. This was an Amazon HQ that would have produced 25k jobs that averaged $150k per year and over 20 billion in tax revenue over 10 years. Yes, she cost people in NYC jobs. I canít see specifically why she did it but by her own claim it was to ďsaveĒ the government $3 billion which is not factual. The government lost over $20 billion.
    Yes, she did not want to give in to the tax breaks. If 50 companies come to NY and generate that much revenue they would be paying much higher taxes. If Amazon doesn't open a hq there there are still plenty of jobs there. I'm not seeing what she did as necessarily bad. Trump defunding the federal end of the California high speed rail is definitely much more economically devastating than this Amazon hq deal.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •