Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
JohnnyU

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

None of that is pertinent to Amazon corporate offices. They will pay more than minimum wage in safe office buildings.

It's pertinent to unskilled workers in the garment industry, but it makes sense for most of those jobs to be outside the U.S.

It’s the same principle though. We need to compete, and that means incentives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sand said:

She's spending an imaginary 3B - that 3B would be generated by taxation of Amazon employees and rebated back to them.  So when she talks about "using that money instead..." she's lost a grip on where those funds originate.

$1.8 billion of the tax benefits are in property tax abatements - that is, the property (which is presumably owned by someone else who currently pays property tax) would not be taxed as a result of the deal. 

Over $500 million are in actual cash grants to be paid to Amazon.

Also, the city was prepared to spend $180 million on infrastructure upgrades like sewer and drainage that would be necessary for Amazon to build out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Well we disagree again. Anyhow it’s just not realistic. 

Yea, we disagree and I'll drop it going forward.  Appreciated your responses and even though I disagree with you on quite a few things, you're a reasonable guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is pretty much my thinking as well. 

Then you both need to read up more on deals like this if you think taxes on those jobs is somehow paying the 3 billion.

Or covering the likely cost of living increase.

And I don’t think her statements on spending were outrageous...it was about how things could be better spent than tax incentives to a Corp like Amazon.

Her statement today was well said and not all some crazy far left extreme stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Yea, we disagree and I'll drop it going forward.  Appreciated your responses and even though I disagree with you on quite a few things, you're a reasonable guy.

Same here, back at you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh BTW @wildbill, Chicago Police just arrested 2 people for attacking Smollett. I guess they didn’t realize it was a hoax, they should have checked with your sources...

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s the same principle though. We need to compete, and that means incentives. 

I know I said I'll drop it, but this is where I think you're being short-sighted.  As MT pointed out, there are industries where we are better off as a society by not competing.  We should compete in the global market place by having a wealth of educated and skilled labor and creating an environment that is friendly to do business in.  That last point can get murky on what that entails, but if Amazon could run their business abroad and provide a service to us that is more efficient and costs less then it would benefit everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Why do you hate nearly every professional sports team?

We should all hate cartels that limit the supply of its product in order to extract the maximum from an over-emotional customer base.

We should imprison American sports club owners and confiscate their teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Oh BTW @wildbill, Chicago Police just arrested 2 people for attacking Smollett. I guess they didn’t realize it was a hoax, they should have checked with your sources...

You really don't know that.  Charges have not yet been filed, and they may well be for lying to investigators.  Let's hold off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

You really don't know that.  Charges have not yet been filed, and they may well be for lying to investigators.  Let's hold off.

It was a game of Devil's Triangle that got out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Oh BTW @wildbill, Chicago Police just arrested 2 people for attacking Smollett. I guess they didn’t realize it was a hoax, they should have checked with your sources...

Two Nigerian actors racially attacking another black actor seems odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -fish- said:

It was a game of Devil's Triangle that got out of hand.

It could be a lot of things.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonessed said:

Two Nigerian actors racially attacking another black actor seems odd.

However, two Nigerians attacking a homosexual does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

$1.8 billion of the tax benefits are in property tax abatements - that is, the property (which is presumably owned by someone else who currently pays property tax) would not be taxed as a result of the deal. 

Over $500 million are in actual cash grants to be paid to Amazon.

Also, the city was prepared to spend $180 million on infrastructure upgrades like sewer and drainage that would be necessary for Amazon to build out.

 

I think I read in one of those articles that the city owns it.

ETA: just found it, the state actually owns it.

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why again would we want to give Amazon money to help it kill its competitors? Shouldn't localities be giving money to the smaller business entities instead, the ones who compete against the giants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Why again would we want to give Amazon money to help it kill its competitors? Shouldn't localities be giving money to the smaller business entities instead, the ones who compete against the giants?

I think the argument here would be they are going to build somewhere. Amazon will still exist and will still be competition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

We should imprison American sports club owners and confiscate their teams.

This seems like an overreaction regardless how you feel about Amazon and tax breaks/subsidies, which I disagree with, much like I disagree with public funding of sports stadiums and teams. 

But imprisonment and confiscation is hopefully hyperbole.  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

OK but can we at least do it to the Patriots? 

I'm all for it, as long as the coach and quarterback get nabbed in the sweep. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really understand why people would be upset about people opposing a deal like this. These deals are often regretted well after the fact. Sports stadium deals almost never work out as expected. These big outlays just aren't usually winners and become much more like ebay purchases where people have fear of losing, rather than desire to win. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This seems like an overreaction regardless how you feel about Amazon and tax breaks/subsidies, which I disagree with, much like I disagree with public funding of sports stadiums and teams. 

But imprisonment and confiscation is hopefully hyperbole.  

I took it as tongue-in-cheek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dickies said:

I took it as tongue-in-cheek

Yeah, I figured. But roadkill1292 can be pretty out there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

We should imprison American sports club owners and confiscate their teams.

I agree, as long as we replace "American sports club" with "Boston-area football team."

Edit: Dammit tim beat me to it.

Edited by IvanKaramazov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I think I read in one of those articles that the city owns it.

ETA: just found it, the state actually owns it.

So they're giving up land in New York City for it?  That seems worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

So they're giving up land in New York City for it?  That seems worse.

I am a little unclear about how it will work since the state owns it and they will pay rent to the city. They will not pay property taxes but will instead pay half of what property taxes would be if it werent state owned property into a city fund and then half into a fund specific for infrastructure improvements around the proposed location. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I dont really understand why people would be upset about people opposing a deal like this. These deals are often regretted well after the fact. Sports stadium deals almost never work out as expected. These big outlays just aren't usually winners and become much more like ebay purchases where people have fear of losing, rather than desire to win. 

 

Look what thread we are in...people that would normally oppose this are likely speaking up because it was her that oppossed it.

Trump is probably conflicted by his want to talk about socialism and his dislike for Bezos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

I think the argument here would be they are going to build somewhere. Amazon will still exist and will still be competition. 

Yes, the argument is easy to see. Amazon is huge and the possible payback for a community more of a sure thing than it would be with one or more of Amazon's competitors. I'm not sure that wooing Amazon is a particularly good thing in the long run. Let's help the guys who force Amazon to compete and innovate. We all benefit from that but I also understand that this is not the reality we live in. The reality we live in often sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

It’s the same principle though. We need to compete, and that means incentives. 

No, cities don't need to compete with each other on the basis of giving handouts to specific companies.

Suppose you and I are standing on a street corner and a fellow approaches and explains: "I have $50 that, for reasons I won't go into, I have to give to someone right now. Can I give it to you, Tim?"

And then I chime in, "Hey, if you give it to me, I'll give you $5 of it back." Then you offer $10, I offer $20, and we keep bidding against each other until one of us offers $50, or arbitrarily close to it.

You and I would both be better off in the long run if we agreed that anytime someone needs to throw some money at us, neither one of us will offer anything in return for it. When we bid against each other, we're hurting ourselves.

Cities should not be giving away the $50 to Amazon. Whichever city gets it should use it for the public good. 

Some city should get it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

No, cities don't need to complete with each other on the basis of giving handouts to specific companies.

Suppose you and I are standing on a street corner and a fellow approaches and explains: "I have $50 that, for reasons I won't go into, I have to give to someone right now. Can I give it to you, Tim?"

And then I chime in, "Hey, if you give it to me, I'll give you $5 of it back." Then you offer $10, I offer $20, and we keep bidding against each other until one of us offers $50, or arbitrarily close to it.

You and I would both be better off in the long run if we agreed that anytime someone needs to throw some money at us, neither one of us will offer anything in return for it. When we bid against each other, we're hurting ourselves.

Cities should not be giving away the $50 to Amazon. Whichever city gets it should use it for the public good. 

Some city should get it.

Oh for crying out loud.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

No, cities don't need to complete with each other on the basis of giving handouts to specific companies.

Suppose you and I are standing on a street corner and a fellow approaches and explains: "I have $50 that, for reasons I won't go into, I have to give to someone right now. Can I give it to you, Tim?"

And then I chime in, "Hey, if you give it to me, I'll give you $5 of it back." Then you offer $10, I offer $20, and we keep bidding against each other until one of us offers $50, or arbitrarily close to it.

You and I would both be better off in the long run if we agreed that anytime someone needs to throw some money at us, neither one of us will offer anything in return for it. When we bid against each other, we're hurting ourselves.

Cities should not be giving away the $50 to Amazon. Whichever city gets it should use it for the public good. 

Some city should get it.

As @parasaurolophus pointed out, it then turns into paying $60 to prevent someone else from getting $50. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sand said:

Cows fart CO2?  You seem to have some gas confusion here.

I'm not the one that seems to think methane is the only greenhouse gas, so, you've got that going for you, I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Oh BTW @wildbill, Chicago Police just arrested 2 people for attacking Smollett. I guess they didn’t realize it was a hoax, they should have checked with your sources...

I think you forgot the 83 on the moniker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

No, cities don't need to compete with each other on the basis of giving handouts to specific companies.

Suppose you and I are standing on a street corner and a fellow approaches and explains: "I have $50 that, for reasons I won't go into, I have to give to someone right now. Can I give it to you, Tim?"

And then I chime in, "Hey, if you give it to me, I'll give you $5 of it back." Then you offer $10, I offer $20, and we keep bidding against each other until one of us offers $50, or arbitrarily close to it.

You and I would both be better off in the long run if we agreed that anytime someone needs to throw some money at us, neither one of us will offer anything in return for it. When we bid against each other, we're hurting ourselves.

Cities should not be giving away the $50 to Amazon. Whichever city gets it should use it for the public good. 

Some city should get it.

I’m just not buying into this analogy. Amazon isn’t offering $50; they’re offering to change your life. If they come into the city, the potential is unlimited. Not $50, not 3 billion dollars. Unlimited. So yeah I’m going to bid against you to get them, and if it gets high, so be it. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m just not buying into this analogy. Amazon isn’t offering $50; they’re offering to change your life. If they come into the city, the potential is unlimited. Not $50, not 3 billion dollars. Unlimited. So yeah I’m going to bid against you to get them, and if it gets high, so be it. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. 

It's not unlimited, obviously. The economic activity that the Amazon headquarters would have generated is finite.

In any case, New York is crowded. Amazon's place will be taken by that of other companies. It may be a hundred other companies rather than just one, but that space isn't going to sit empty.

And now the economic activity that occurs will be taxed instead of untaxed, which is probably a win for the city overall 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m just not buying into this analogy. Amazon isn’t offering $50; they’re offering to change your life. If they come into the city, the potential is unlimited. Not $50, not 3 billion dollars. Unlimited. So yeah I’m going to bid against you to get them, and if it gets high, so be it. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. 

This isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It doesn't have to be a street corner. We could be hanging out anywhere.

As long as it's not around me.  I hate it when people are crying out loud near me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m just not buying into this analogy. Amazon isn’t offering $50; they’re offering to change your life. If they come into the city, the potential is unlimited. Not $50, not 3 billion dollars. Unlimited. So yeah I’m going to bid against you to get them, and if it gets high, so be it. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. 

I sometimes forget you were a Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There just is no way this can be spun as anything but a loss for NYC and ultimately for AOC. At the end of the day, Amazon will go somewhere else and continue to make billions and billions of dollars. There are 25k high-paying jobs not coming NYC's way and the resulting taxes, new restaurants, entertainment options that would have been a direct result of these 25k jobs are not coming back. Further, you have the fall out from all the peripheral real estate deals that are going to go away as well  MSN was reporting on all the million dollar real estate deals that were set to be signed that now just disappeared.  

So I get MT's point that this area will ultimately become occupied with other businesses, but how long will that take? The biggest misrepresentation is to presume that they just saved 3 billion dollars by not doing this deal like AOC seems to want people to believe.  It wasn't like she was writing a 3 billion dollar check to Amazon. It was tax breaks--it was land deals. Yet she somehow wants her voters to believe that she will now be able to spend this money on things for them--which is a bold face lie.  She can now answer to the couple living paycheck to paycheck or the single mother who could have really used one of these jobs and tell them, "Wow we showed them." 

Worse yet, she has now crossed a pretty powerful Democrat in Cuomo and she has already earned the ire of Pelosi. 

I like her enthusiasm. I am all for more government intervention in environmental projects. We need to start getting things done now. So I have nothing against her on those fronts. I have this sinking feeling that she is being allowed to run around and do this stuff because the established old guard likes to see how much she bugs Trump. Here is the problem, we are less than two years of Trump probably being gone and at that point she will have outlived her usefulness. Tim is right the GOP is going to use the progressive platform against the Dems, which is ultimately going to see more Dems go to the middle and that leaves her as the outlier within her own party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

There just is no way this can be spun as anything but a loss for NYC and ultimately for AOC. At the end of the day, Amazon will go somewhere else and continue to make billions and billions of dollars. There are 25k high-paying jobs not coming NYC's way and the resulting taxes, new restaurants, entertainment options that would have been a direct result of these 25k jobs are not coming back. Further, you have the fall out from all the peripheral real estate deals that are going to go away as well  MSN was reporting on all the million dollar real estate deals that were set to be signed that now just disappeared.  

So I get MT's point that this area will ultimately become occupied with other businesses, but how long will that take? The biggest misrepresentation is to presume that they just saved 3 billion dollars by not doing this deal like AOC seems to want people to believe.  It wasn't like she was writing a 3 billion dollar check to Amazon. It was tax breaks--it was land deals. Yet she somehow wants her voters to believe that she will now be able to spend this money on things for them--which is a bold face lie.  She can now answer to the couple living paycheck to paycheck or the single mother who could have really used one of these jobs and tell them, "Wow we showed them." 

Worse yet, she has now crossed a pretty powerful Democrat in Cuomo and she has already earned the ire of Pelosi. 

I like her enthusiasm. I am all for more government intervention in environmental projects. We need to start getting things done now. So I have nothing against her on those fronts. I have this sinking feeling that she is being allowed to run around and do this stuff because the established old guard likes to see how much she bugs Trump. Here is the problem, we are less than two years of Trump probably being gone and at that point she will have outlived her usefulness. Tim is right the GOP is going to use the progressive platform against the Dems, which is ultimately going to see more Dems go to the middle and that leaves her as the outlier within her own party.

 

Oh man, I hope New York City can survive this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dickies said:

This isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

Yes it is. This is Amazon. I don’t think you guys are getting it. NYC turned down the Oompa Loompas, the golden ticket, the Great Glass Elevator. They blew it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I sometimes forget you were a Republican.

To paraphrase a certain favorite President of mine, I never left the Republican Party. They left me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

To paraphrase a certain favorite President of mine, I never left the Republican Party. They left me. 

Apparently as recently as 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It's not unlimited, obviously. The economic activity that the Amazon headquarters would have generated is finite.

In any case, New York is crowded. Amazon's place will be taken by that of other companies. It may be a hundred other companies rather than just one, but that space isn't going to sit empty.

And now the economic activity that occurs will be taxed instead of untaxed, which is probably a win for the city overall 

No doubt that New York will be fine. It’s New York. 

But better off? A win? Oh hell no. This is a defeat. Joe DiMaggio just struck out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Oh man, I hope New York City can survive this.

Oh I know man. I think they will somehow be okay after this. I just find it funny all the articles trying to make it seem like they won this one and Amazon is the one who will regret this. 

But I do think a bigger point is the demonization of rich people/companies that is kind of the calling card of the Progressives. I thought this was a brief, but interesting take on that.   MSN article  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Courtjester said:

 Oh I know man. I think they will somehow be okay after this. I just find it funny all the articles trying to make it seem like they won this one and Amazon is the one who will regret this. 

 But I do think a bigger point is the demonization of rich people/companies that is kind of the calling card of the Progressives. I thought this was a brief, but interesting take on that.   MSN article  

Ohhh I guess I misread your post. Yeah, I agree. In fact, I thought the NYC/Amazon combination seemed the worst possible. NYC is the last city that needs Amazon and Amazon can push around any other city easier and probably would cultivate their new host instead of merely residing there. A far as Charlie Munger, he's going to have to make a better argument than "they keep your hospitals full" as to why we should not tax rich people. You are aware that people aren't driving out rich people in a mob, right? They just want them to pay taxes, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

 

But I do think a bigger point is the demonization of rich people/companies that is kind of the calling card of the Progressives. 

I was going to mention this. In the interview I heard with AOC, she referred to Bezos as “The richest man on Earth”. It was NOT meant as a compliment. In fact it was an attack, as if his wealth makes him guilty. That really bothered me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Ohhh I guess I misread your post. Yeah, I agree. In fact, I thought the NYC/Amazon combination seemed the worst possible. NYC is the last city that needs Amazon and Amazon can push around any other city easier and probably would cultivate their new host instead of merely residing there. A far as Charlie Munger, he's going to have to make a better argument than "they keep your hospitals full" as to why we should not tax rich people. You are aware that people aren't driving out rich people in a mob, right? They just want them to pay taxes, you know.

They may not be physically driving them out--but the whole tax the rich mantra that AOC and her types support sure doesn't help matters;

Rich people fleeing NYC in droves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.