116th Congress

[thethe]

In NYC? You think?

The 3B that he is speaking about - Yes, because its based on a tax break from FUTURE operations. Amazon is not going to take 3B and cancel the project. They are going to generate 100's of billions of taxable revenues over the next 10+ years. The 3B is a drop in the bucket. Without Amazon it not only doesn't exist - The coffers for infrastructure projects just got much more shallow.

 

[thethe]

the $3B I sighted would have been the tax incentive for our local construction.

that money as Cobb County is learning doesn't come out of this air

Apologies - Did not realize that you were continuing your Atlanta conversation with the NY figure.

 

[57Brave]

ask Cobb County how that is working

 

[thethe]

ask Cobb County how that is working

Trying to compare a mostly residential are in Georgia to the capital of the world is a fools game.

Do you know what the Barclays center did for downtown Brooklyn?

 

[sturg33]

Weird. That’s just a slightly different formulation of the same objection that the opponents of the deal had.

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you the same thing over and over.. but here goes.

My objection was not to the opponents of the deal, but rather the complete and utter lack I'd understanding of the economics if the deal

 

[thethe]

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you the same thing over and over.. but here goes.

My objection was not to the opponents of the deal, but rather the complete and utter lack I'd understanding of the economics if the deal

This is so obvious and clearly what we are talking about. Its important to dwell on this issue because so many are willing to turn over the economic future to a movement that has no clue how economics work.

 

[goldfly]

Public money should never be used to build a stadium/arena etc

 

[Julio3000]

Dude. She is wrong. It's not an opinion. She is wrong.

You are wrong.

It's been explained to you and you still post misinformation.

That's kinda like lying.

I’m not sure how your position and hers are substantively different. Perhaps you could explain to me how “other citizens having to pay more or get less benefits” is materially different? You’re both objecting to public funds being spent to the benefit of flush private interests. The difference is that AOC is dumb, and a socialist, and you’re a brain genius libertarian. I mean, when you say “benefits,” you mean public spending, right? Like the kind that pays teachers and firefighters?

 

[sturg33]

I never said she was right or wrong , never weighed in on Amazon NYC--- you can look it up
I did and do find it ridiculous the amount of time you spend sifting the sands of a first termer
Case could be made for the analogy of fiddling while Rome burns. But Fox News gave you guys a new shiney thing -- a woman --- a brown skinned woman.
That dont take no sht from Tikibois

She's got you attention does she ?

Damn right she's got my attention. As 50 said, she's probably the most influential person in politics right now.

Fox news, as always, has nothing to do with it.

Her gender or her race, as always, has nothing to do with it.

The fact that she got 5 presidential candidates to support something a 5th grader might write has something to do with it.

The fact that she was key in influencing NYC to go back on their deal costing them 25k jobs worth $150k each has something to do with it.

The fact that she, based on nothing but her own public words, is unimaginably incompetent when it comes to fiscal issues has something to do with it.

I may be misreading the environment, but I'm pretty comfortable saying she is God's gift to Trump and the GOP

 

[sturg33]

I’m not sure how your position and hers are substantively different. Perhaps you could explain to me how “other citizens having to pay more or get less benefits” is materially different? You’re both objecting to public funds being spent to the benefit of flush private interests. The difference is that AOC is dumb, and a socialist, and you’re a brain genius libertarian. I mean, when you say “benefits,” you mean public spending, right? Like the kind that pays teachers and firefighters?

Holy **** dude. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I'm talking about the fact that AOC said that NYC can now use the $3b in public funds they just saved and invest it in their blah blah blah.

She hasn't the slightest idea how tax subsidies and abatements work.

She's on the finance committee

 

[50PoundHead]

There isn't a saturation point for NY. Whats happening in Queens/Brooklyn and even the Bronx now is a result of the overflow from Manhattan. Amazon or no Amazon there is tremendous development taking place in this region. Amazon would have just accelerated that process but it will happen nonetheless.

And that development is already pushing people out of their homes as the area gentrifies. There's no need for Amazon. People tend to see urban development as a non-zero sum game and it really isn't. Countless efforts have been made to update the downtowns in Minneapolis and St. Paul and it really hasn't worked. There are a lot of corporate offices (and rising vacancies especially in St. Paul), but on a non-game/non-event night, the downtowns in both cities are virtual morgues.

 

[57Brave]

I may be misreading the environment,

Obviously you don't understand the function of a House Resolution or for that matters the the legislative process.
Every bill / initiative I know of started exactly the way this was rolled out.


Perhaps if you would listen to her speak to this "5th Grade" writing .
Rather than the Hannity filters interpretation

Which brings me to ...
As far as Fox, you parrot the Fox line and have for years.
............................

you are misreading the environment, poster after poster has been trying to tell you
............

as to her appointment to Finance.
Speaker Pelosi does not suffer fools

 

[sturg33]

Yes, this is her speaking about taking the $3B and investing it elsewhere

[Tw]1096181157316780037[/tw]

Here's some more spoken words

[Tw]1096168960062439425[/tw]

She doesn't understand how it works. She doesn't understand basic math or economics. She's proven this time and time again since she's made it on the national stage... and y'all are lining up to allow her to completely overtake the US economy with the GND

 

[sturg33]

as to her appointment to Finance.
Speaker Pelosi does not suffer fools

I suppose that is why Pelosi left her off the climate change committee and mocked her "green dream"

 

[Julio3000]

Holy **** dude. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I'm talking about the fact that AOC said that NYC can now use the $3b in public funds they just saved and invest it in their blah blah blah.

She hasn't the slightest idea how tax subsidies and abatements work.

She's on the finance committee

But wouldn’t tax abatements, per you, be a good thing, taxes being theft, and all?

And why would you object to tax incentives and the putative lost public benefits, as you just did, if you didn’t think that the economic costs outweighed the benefits. But wait, you said that you thought it would be a net benefit, yet you still opposed it. So I’m genuinely confused.

thethe is arguing that the economic benefits outweigh the costs, which might or might not be right—but using publicly-funded sports stadia as an example might not be the most efficacious way of proving that point. Either way, it seems like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If you think the deal costs taxpayers directly and in terms of lost future benefits, you agree in substance with the left critique of the deal. You’re trying to to play the “AOC is stoooopid” card while fundamentally supporting her argument. I mean, you didn’t say it subverted the free market, or anything, but rather expressed your position in the same terms that left opponents do. So, are you actually for it or against it?

 

[nsacpi]

Actually I think that $3B should be considered money they have available to make policy regardless of whether Amazon is part of the picture or not.

The way I think about it is this. NY is constantly in competition with other areas. Just look across the river at NJ and you see all sort of buildings that have gone up the past 20 years and are occupied by businesses that were lured from NY. NY could take that $3B and offer it to some of the businesses that would otherwise leave the next few years. On a bang for the buck basis, I bet that is a better "job creator" or "job saver" than using that same money to bribe Amazon. It costs less to persuade businesses already in NY but thinking of leaving to stay. But politicians prefer to chase after the bright shiny new thing than do the boring stuff that makes for a better environment for businesses and families that are already there.

 

[sturg33]

But wouldn’t tax abatements, per you, be a good thing, taxes being theft, and all?

And why would you object to tax incentives and the putative lost public benefits, as you just did, if you didn’t think that the economic costs outweighed the benefits. But wait, you said that you thought it would be a net benefit, yet you still opposed it. So I’m genuinely confused.

thethe is arguing that the economic benefits outweigh the costs, which might or might not be right—but using publicly-funded sports stadia as an example might not be the most efficacious way of proving that point. Either way, it seems like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If you think the deal costs taxpayers directly and in terms of lost future benefits, you agree in substance with the left critique of the deal. You’re trying to to play the “AOC is stoooopid” card while fundamentally supporting her argument. I mean, you didn’t say it subverted the free market, or anything, but rather expressed your position in the same terms that left opponents do. So, are you actually for it or against it?

You continue to confound my personal opposition to corporate welfare with AOC's lack of understanding of tax subsidies. At this point, I'm convinced it's because you fell for her nonsense at first and are trying walk it back.

I am against all welfare, personal and corporate. I am against the government picking winners and losers as a matter of principle... that's not to say that they always pick losers, so I think Amazon would probably be a net gain, but that doesn't mean I think other businesses and individuals should be forced to subsidize Amazon.

If we must have welfare, then yes I would much rather it be in the form of tax breaks for businesses and citizens. But just like I don't believe in child tax credits (why should I have to subsidize a decision someone else made?), I also don't believe in corporate subsidies that result in other people having to (essentially) pay more than Amazon for the same benefits.

------------------

Now, for the 7th time - and I'm confident you're going to get it this time - I do not have a problem with AOC opposing the deal... I have a problem with why she opposes it. She doesn't understand what the deal is, what the deal means, etc. She simply is anti big business and then squawks about teachers and firefighters. She made it uber clear that she thought the city was taking a $3b check and handing it over to Amazon... she doesn't understand that that the tax subsidy is on future tax revenue that Amazon will generate.

Why this is so challenging for you to grasp is beyond me... but you've gone full socialist since her arrival so maybe she's got you bending over backwards to defend her at all turns.

 

[nsacpi]

You continue to confound my personal opposition to corporate welfare with AOC's lack of understanding of tax subsidies. At this point, I'm convinced it's because you fell for her nonsense at first and are trying walk it back.

I am against all welfare, personal and corporate. I am against the government picking winners and losers as a matter of principle... that's not to say that they always pick losers, so I think Amazon would probably be a net gain, but that doesn't mean I think other businesses and individuals should be forced to subsidize Amazon.

If we must have welfare, then yes I would much rather it be in the form of tax breaks for businesses and citizens. But just like I don't believe in child tax credits (why should I have to subsidize a decision someone else made?), I also don't believe in corporate subsidies that result in other people having to (essentially) pay more than Amazon for the same benefits.

------------------

Now, for the 7th time - and I'm confident you're going to get it this time - I do not have a problem with AOC opposing the deal... I have a problem with why she opposes it. She doesn't understand what the deal is, what the deal means, etc. She simply is anti big business and then squawks about teachers and firefighters. She made it uber clear that she thought the city was taking a $3b check and handing it over to Amazon... she doesn't understand that that the tax subsidy is on future tax revenue that Amazon will generate.

Why this is so challenging for you to grasp is beyond me... but you've gone full socialist since her arrival so maybe she's got you bending over backwards to defend her at all turns.

I think what you are missing is that those $3B in tax subsidies might be more efficiently deployed to help keep the businesses that might otherwise leave. It could be via the usual corporate pork. But it could also be used to make it more attractive to keep people in the city via various public services. Businesses know it is easier to hold on to employees or expand in an area where people want to live and send their kids to school. Those kinds of considerations are looked at by businesses all the time.

 

[sturg33]

I think what you are missing is that those $3B in tax subsidies might be more efficiently deployed to help keep the businesses that might otherwise leave. It could be via the usual corporate pork. But it could also be used to make it more attractive to keep people in the city via various public services. Businesses know it is easier to hold on to employees or expand in an area where people want to live and send their kids to school. Those kinds of considerations are looked at by businesses all the time.

But that money isn't created out of thin air.

The $3B available to be handed out here is after the city captures $30B in tax revenue.

 

[nsacpi]

btw NY city has a much bigger high tech sector than it did 20 years ago...the likes of Google have expanded enormously in the city...i imagine they got some tax breaks but the main reason they have come here is because of the quality of the workforce