Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Mercer]

Amazon was offered some hefty corporate tax cuts to move part of their corporate headquarters out of Seattle, and into Queens NY. These corporate tax cuts did not include the payroll taxes, for well paid positions moving here. Even offering the corporate tax cut, the move here would have increased tax revenues significantly anyway, not just because of increased commerce, tax revenue increased both net, and the average payroll taxes collected in Queens. One department head, or VP could be pulling the weight, or tax burden of 30 people already living here, not paying much.

 

At least theoretically (Government will probably waste it) the actual funding for government services everyone uses increases in a much greater proportion to the burden. Queens is perfect for this, nobody commutes from out of State to a job in Queens. These weren't low paid positions, and on the real many of the residents already here are net tax recipients, we need all the funds we can get, convincing Amazon to open up shop here, even if they didn't hire a single person locally would have been a gain. There are several large corporations already operating in NY state virtually tax free, most notably General Electric, because state leadership usually understands these basic economic principals of whats a net gain/loss in tax revenue.

 

On the other side, there's this attitude here that's sometimes even held by upper middle class transplants themselves, that "well of people moving in will only gentrify the place, and drive up the rent" without accounting for all the benefits of economic advancement. There's also a racial factor to it at play in some circumstances, an inverted reflection of the white flight of the 50's and 60's with pumpkin spice jokes thrown around. In this case with Amazon moving in it's clearly more of a class war, than a race war.

 

With that said, the war heated up when Amazon tried to move HQ here, and people were hilariously visibly upset that a bunch of high paying jobs were moving into the neighborhood. Which sort of makes sense when you think of how short sighted we are. I mean if you're not a local business owner, it's hard to imagine how this move could benefit you personally, and truth be told it might not. For the vast majority here though, it would have meant more employment opportunities, and driven wages up in their respective sectors whether people benefit directly, and indirectly,  realize it, or not.  At the very least, it meant much more tax revenue here. Both payroll taxes, and taxes on the increased commerce the move would have brought.

 

So AOC & comrades whipped the public into a frenzy over the tax breaks NY offered to entice Amazon into moving here, which is nothing new, and the political backlash made Amazon reconsider, then decide to move the North Carolina.

 

AOC Claiming Victory"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/c/aoc-on-amazon-canceling-nyc-campus-i-think-its-incredible/vp-BBTBbcq

 

 

 

In her victory she claims:

Quote

 

"If we were willing to give away 3 billion dollars for this deal, we could invest those 3 billion dollars in our district ourselves if we want to. We can hire out more teachers, we can fix our subways."

 

 

 

Sorry, but that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.

 

There was no 3 billion dollars to begin with. There was only the potential for an additional 3 billion dollars of corporate taxes moving here, plus the corporate taxes not included in that 3B that would have also moved here, plus the payroll taxes, increased commerce, job opportunities, etc. Your dumb ass ideology  just fucked your district out of all that opportunity, and taxes revenue, which would have totaled way more than that 3 billion dollar break.

 

Now there'll be less funding for teachers, subways, and investing into our district. Making it obvious why Socialism/Communism has always lead to lower living standards for people living under it when compared to people in free(er) economies. BTW she's got a degree in economics, lol.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Mercer

[Kults]

"It doesnt matter so much if youre factually correct, only that you are morally correct"

 

This is what you get from that. What a dunce lol

[One Man Banned]

Meh?  Since when is the Oontz or 'Merica against telling corporate America to go fuck itself?   Even if her thinking or idealogy is unclear I can't feel bad about that happening.  And as you already said, there's no guarantees that came with Amazon moving in.  There are already many big corporations in NYC so in theory everyone should be well employed, city should have money, blah blah blah.  Not the case.  Hard to believe this one company is going to make/break NYC, or Queens.  Whole city has continued to gentrify in a disgusting manner.  Not pro or con AOC.

[One Man Banned]

Forgot to say relevant to taxes- Howard Stern was on a rant about this a few weeks ago on how NY/NYC pays a disproportionate amount of fed taxes compared to what it gets in return

[Kults]

2 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

Meh?  Since when is the Oontz or 'Merica against telling corporate America to go fuck itself?  

Since we grew up...

 

Half kidding

[Mercer]

13 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

Meh?  Since when is the Oontz or 'Merica against telling corporate America to go fuck itself?

 

You're straw manning my disdain of taxes, government counter-productivity, into being pro corporate. I don't have the same knee jerk reaction to hating corporations that I did when I was a kid. I like that my neighbors and I have jobs, and I'm mature enough to see the basic economic realities that will improve/lower my standard of living.

 

I'm fairly indifferent to corporations now, as long as they're not fraudulent, or violating the rights of individuals it's not my concern. What is my concern is she's been on the job just a couple of months, and already cost my district 25,000 jobs. Then bold face lying about it claiming she/they saved us 3B, when she/they cost us 27B.

 

If I wanted to tell Amazon to go fuck itself (in a way that actually matters to them), I could stop ordering shit.

Can't do that with a government, either follow their commands or eventually you'll end up room temperature, or locked up in a box.

I just see the government as the bigger problem.

 

Quote

 Even if her thinking or idealogy is unclear I can't feel bad about that happening.

Her ideology is  clear as day, she conveniently has the word "socialist" in her title so there's no confusion. Unless you're a fan of what's going on in Venezuela now, you have to see there's a problem here with government strangling it's best economic assets and costing the public 25,000 jobs.

 

Quote

And as you already said, there's no guarantees that came with Amazon moving in.

 

No, I never said that. In fact, there was a 100% guarantee of 25,000 jobs moving here for the deal to take effect,  and a guarantee of additional 27 billion in taxes revenue after the break.

 

When I said "no guarantee" (go back and read) I was referring to the unlikely possibility that amazon brought 25,000 out of towner's here to fill all those positions, in an effort to point out that (even if that happened) it would still be a huge net gain anyway for the residents here. 

 

Quote

There are already many big corporations in NYC so in theory everyone should be well employed, city should have money, blah blah blah.  Not the case.  Hard to believe this one company is going to make/break NYC, or Queens.  Whole city has continued to gentrify in a disgusting manner.  Not pro or con AOC.

This is the statement that I have the most trouble understanding. I'll have to unpack this later, but the basic idea here is Socialists tend to always drive their economies into the ground with this line of thinking. What's "good enough" for one person a hundred miles away, who isn't paying over $3000 a month in rent, may not be good enough for the people actually facing the situation.

 

Who decideds what's "good enough" for the next man? If so I think the amount of money the government already steals is good enough.

 

If someone seizes your money via threat of violence, wasted the majority of it "buying votes",  and gave a small percentage to some well intentioned, yet ineffective public service, you'd probably still dislike that theft. If that concept doesn't bother you, send me some money, and I'll donate an unknown portion of it into any ineffective charity program of your choosing.

 

Gentrification is a term linked to reverse racism/classism, where people are discouraged from moving into certain areas because of either their race, or higher economic productivity.  Improving the living standard, and quality of undesirable neighborhoods is what I want. It's hard to find an upside to being surrounded by crime.

 

The rest of the world doesn't have to stop growing economically to suit the needs of a small group. Even if we did this, the conditions of the poor would deteriorate to an even worse state if we sacrificed enough productive economic activity to facilitate a 0 rise in their cost of living. This is the socialist illusion.The difference between being poor under communism/socialism, and poor under capitalism is life and death. Communist/Socialist revolutions have time and time again lead to famine, and starvation. Again, not a single Socialist intended to fuck Venezuela's economy, but it's the inevitable outcome every time.

 

The government, even under the best intentions cannot magically create  more of anything, they can only redistribute what others have created. Things like health care services won't increase because of government intervention, (without enslaving all medical workers and forcing longer hours), it takes economic forces to increase supply. So it stands that what they stolen from one place, to put into the other always carries a net loss, than i does net gain economically. This is a perfect example of that in place. Zero gain, a 27B loss, and still somehow claiming a victory to the cheers of the economically illiterate.

[Mercer]

13 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

Forgot to say relevant to taxes- Howard Stern was on a rant about this a few weeks ago on how NY/NYC pays a disproportionate amount of fed taxes compared to what it gets in return

We all do, the fact is there are multiple forces at play that make anything a government agency does always cost more than if the same task were taken on by a privately. One of these forces is the overwhelming tendency to punish the more productive groups, and reward less productive groups. The motives in play that drive a private entities decisions, when compared to a public entities are very different and even the mechanisms for spending always provide significantly less value..

 

Like if I take 40% of the money everyone makes, and instead of allowing that 40% to be spent by the people who earn it on what suits them best, I decided to spend it on whatever I thought would be best for all involved, there will always be a net loss.

 

It's easy to point to a government service and say see, this is what those taxes are paying for. What's impossible, is pointing out what we would have gained if every business suddenly became 40% more profitable. The lost private revenue benefits cannot be quantified, but that doesn't change the fact that knowingly choosing a less productive method to spend that 40% is going to be a loss.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Mercer

[Mercer]

This guy is a socialist/redistributionist in my book, and one of the biggest proponents of the welfare state in NYC.

 

 Let's look at his take on the situation HQ2/AOC :

 

 

[Hua Guofang]

She is petty hot, though.

 

 

[Kults]

4 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

She is petty hot, though.

 

 

Not even remotely close. To each their own though.

[Mercer]

3 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

She is petty hot, though.

I heard she makes you put on a Stalin mask for dome,  and elaborate capitalist firing squad role plays if you want to smash.

[Hua Guofang]

I think she should be about the redistribution of her clothing to I don’t give a fuck where else. 

[Mercer]

Begging for a revolutionary to seize her means of (re)production.

[TheoHuxtable..]

 

[Hua Guofang]

She really wishes she was in a Gang Of Four.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Mercer]

FUCK IS YOU TALKING ABOUT AOC AND CAPITALISM FOR, IS YOU STUPID? THERE WAS ONLY ONE NIGGA ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH THAT COULD PROMISE MORE FREE SHIT THAN THIS BITCH RIGHT HERE. THE NIGGA NAME WAS CHAVES, WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE THE ALL THE FREE COME UPS HIS PEOPLES GOT.

 

BANKRUPSY BREADLINES  BERNIE IN 2020!!!

[misteraven]

https://fee.org/articles/new-york-state-budget-director-on-the-fundamental-ignorance-that-killed-the-amazon-deal/

[+plus+]

She did a great job being concise yesterday. Straight to the point without all the grandstanding that the GOP was doing.

It is almost like the GOP doesn't understand public relations at all... 

I loved how that Jordan guy who was being a cunt just got in trouble for covering up sexual abuse...what a wanker. 

[Mercer]

AOC:

Wells Fargo is responsible anything they help finance.

 

My Lawyer:

This receipt proves my client is innocent, the money for this spray paint was borrowed using a Wells Fargo credit card account. Clearly the bank is the one responsible for any criminal wrongdoing.

 

 

 

[One Man Banned]

On 2/27/2019 at 10:59 AM, misteraven said:

https://fee.org/articles/new-york-state-budget-director-on-the-fundamental-ignorance-that-killed-the-amazon-deal/

Clicked when posted, then went to their web page to see what it's all about, maybe learn something.  Clicked random article that stated see, we told you a raise in minimum wage would be bad economically and bad stuff did happen.  Read article which at end stated we have no data to support the claim that the raise in wage caused bad stuff to happen.  Problem is that pretty much makes it an opinion piece being presented as factual, economically educational info.  Was a little disappoint.

[One Man Banned]

16 minutes ago, Mercer said:

AOC:

Wells Fargo is responsible anything they help finance.

 

My Lawyer:

This receipt proves my client is innocent, the money for this spray paint was borrowed using a Wells Fargo credit card account. Clearly the bank is the one responsible for any criminal wrongdoing.

 

 

 

Hmm.  Again, not a supporter, but interesting point at least on the first part.  

Not as firm on the CSPAN part below however I did enjoy seeing people protest TD bank a few years ago for where they chose to place some of their investments.

 

Anyhow you hate AOC but do you think the oil company can exempt itself from having to fix its own mess?

 

 

[Mercer]

 

21 minutes ago, One Man Banned said:

Hmm.  Again, not a supporter, but interesting point at least on the first part.  

Not as firm on the CSPAN part below however I did enjoy seeing people protest TD bank a few years ago for where they chose to place some of their investments.

 

Anyhow you hate AOC but do you think the oil company can exempt itself from having to fix its own mess?

 

 

First of all, I don't hate AOC, I think she's hot, and honestly think she's trying to do something good here. My position is Socialism in general is dumb, and leads to famine, the entire philosophy has no basis in reality or economics and is only appealing on an emotional level. It never works. Secondly, protesting is a good way to draw negative attention to financial institutions loaning money for bad shit. 

 

Here's what I'm saying:

 

Holding a lending company responsible for what is done by another organization that borrowed money from, or transacted with it would collapse our entire finance system. They'd need to insure every loan, and the cost would outweigh the interest that could be charged to loan/finance industry. Very basic common sense.

 

There's zero logic in her statement, yet it's message is emotionally moving. Are we pissed about the pipeline risking the drinking water of thousands of natives? 100%, at least most of us are. Do I give a fuck about protecting Wells Fargo, of course I do not. Am I dumb enough to suggest crippling our entire economic system would benefit anyone? No, only someone economically illiterate enough to wish for the economic conditions that come with Communism/Socialism would want to do that.

 

Quote

do you think the oil company can exempt itself from having to fix its own mess?

 

Yes, the OIL COMPANY has to be responsible, but not everyone they transact with. This is the problem, my position requires logic, and not an immediate emotional response. Emotions blind people to the point where people think I'm advocating for oil companies to pollute freely or something.

 

This modern phase of politics dumbing down may have started on the right with Trump's dumb ass, but don't think there aren't destructive forces growing on the left.

[Mercer]

If you watch her, and don't have any basic knowledge of, or education in economics, it's impossible not to get fooled by the emotional appeal.

 

 

[Kults]

Apparently old school Dems woke up and are scheming to get her and her progressive ilk out. They're running other candidates in their districts with serious financial backing. 

[One Man Banned]

11 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

First of all, I don't hate AOC, I think she's hot, and honestly think she's trying to do something good here. My position is Socialism in general is dumb, and leads to famine, the entire philosophy has no basis in reality or economics and is only appealing on an emotional level. It never works. Secondly, protesting is a good way to draw negative attention to financial institutions loaning money for bad shit. 

 

Here's what I'm saying:

 

Holding a lending company responsible for what is done by another organization that borrowed money from, or transacted with it would collapse our entire finance system. They'd need to insure every loan, and the cost would outweigh the interest that could be charged to loan/finance industry. Very basic common sense.

 

There's zero logic in her statement, yet it's message is emotionally moving. Are we pissed about the pipeline risking the drinking water of thousands of natives? 100%, at least most of us are. Do I give a fuck about protecting Wells Fargo, of course I do not. Am I dumb enough to suggest crippling our entire economic system would benefit anyone? No, only someone economically illiterate enough to wish for the economic conditions that come with Communism/Socialism would want to do that.

 

Yes, the OIL COMPANY has to be responsible, but not everyone they transact with. This is the problem, my position requires logic, and not an immediate emotional response. Emotions blind people to the point where people think I'm advocating for oil companies to pollute freely or something.

 

This modern phase of politics dumbing down may have started on the right with Trump's dumb ass, but don't think there aren't destructive forces growing on the left.

First, the Seinfeld episode of Elaine dating a commie was on last night, totally thought of you no homo/no pinko.

Second, so what you think she's hot, you trash her every chance you get.  Hypothetically I get you 2 hours alone in a nice hotel room with her.  You making sweet love to her, or hatefucking?

Insuring every loan is far different from having some degree of being responsible/selective.  On the other hand though, as a consumer, this is where it's my responsiblity to do my homework on my bank, and if I don't like what they do or with who, to put my money elsewhere.

[misteraven]

3 minutes ago, One Man Banned said:

Insuring every loan is far different from having some degree of being responsible/selective.  On the other hand though, as a consumer, this is where it's my responsiblity to do my homework on my bank, and if I don't like what they do or with who, to put my money elsewhere.

People need to be accountable for their own actions. This is one of the largest issues I see plaguing America and probably most of modern society worldwide. To Mercer's point, we've somehow ended up in a place where emotion rules all debate rather than logic. Same way you don't sue Ford cause some dumbass decided to speed or drive drunk and kill a busload of kids, you don't hold a lender accountable because they financed someone that fucked something up. There's zero logic to it. Not to say if the person that borrowed the money and fucked up gets slammed and collapses that the bank is out its money, but to think they should be accountable is retarded. Just think of how much invasion of privacy it would lead to when the lender not only needs to know what you plan to do with the money, but also needs to hire an army of investigators to follow up with you at every single turn to ensure you aren't doing something stupid or potentially damaging, thereby risking them as well. In practice, it cant even work.

 

Also believe its wishful thinking to bank elsewhere, for the most part. Granted most states and especially major cities within them have a pretty fair selection of banks. But there are some states, like New Hampshire and Montana where the laws are such that the major players stay out of the region. There is no Citibank, Chase or Bank of America where I live. Literally the only national chain is Wells Fargo. Other than that its small local banks and credit unions. There's some benefit to banking with guys like that, as well as a ton of drawbacks. Among the drawbacks is rudimentary online banking and a mobile app that hardly functions. 

 

Just my two cents.

 

And yeah, AOC is just another embarrassment in a long string of embarrassments that is our current state of politics. Honestly feels like the Twilight Zone sometimes. Glad I live in the woods, deep in the mountains where I'm geographically isolated from most everyday stupidity.

 

[Hua Guofang]

I'm not big on economics but have worked in politics and security for the majority of my adult life. So I can't say socialist economics is good or bad in any way. However, I Can say that in the majority of socialist countries where things turned to shit, it wasn't just the economics that did it. Chavez, for instance, was what any normal person would call corrupt, manipulative, megalomaniac, dictatorial, etc. etc. Mao was the same, Stalin was the poster boy, etc. etc. They, and their ilk are authoritarians and despots, they did  shit load more than just implement economics. They murdered opposition, manufactured truths, started wars of revenge and national prestige, they committed genocide, they implemented retarded farming techniques, they killed off scientists and experts and replaced their school curriculum with ideology and retarded the intellectual growth of their populations for generations (I've travelled extensively through rural China and it is mind blowing how you can see the ripples of the revolution and cultural revolution pulsing through the family trees and the community)

 

I don't always read the walls of text on these matters as I often get left behind, and I do this shit for work and couldn't be arsed in my spare time. But I get the feeling that you cats are only focused on part of the picture. Sure, socialist economics may be fucked, I wouldn't know. But it's only part of the picture and I sense that you cats simplify it by making out it is THE single point of failure in the cases you cite.

[One Man Banned]

Mercer and Raven both mentioned emotion over logic- hope that's generalizing people and not directed at me.  If it is, have to remind you I have no dog in this fight so little emotion here.  Again, I think most politicians are ass clowns, it's amusing to see you guys single out the new guy when there are dozens to choose from who have been that way for years.  Also ideas like if one of these socialists was in charge that it would run the country into the ground.  Arguably, we have the most inept leader of our time in office and while we could always be in better shape, the country still stands.  This is not an endorsement of her/their ideas either.

 

@misteravenI don't want to distract from AOC bashing but on banks... I have a few friends who went the small bank/credit union route for different reasons and were happy with it, so I have def considered.  Even then though, still have to research them.  And I'd never do a bank transaction online or on a phone (whenever I get a 'smart' one).  You're right I wouldn't sue Ford like I wouldn't sue the gun manufacturers (know you're watching that).  But the bank is really a different issue.  On an uber simplistic level, they're holding my money for me yes, but they're not doing that as a free service for me or my benefit. More simplistic, if I see someone doing shit I don't like, I don't fuck with them.  Brain fading for now because I have other shit to do so will end with being an informed/responsible consumer, acountability, responsibility, etc., etc.  

 

[Mercer]

15 hours ago, misteraven said:

Also believe its wishful thinking to bank elsewhere, for the most part. Granted most states and especially major cities within them have a pretty fair selection of banks. But there are some states, like New Hampshire and Montana where the laws are such that the major players stay out of the region. There is no Citibank, Chase or Bank of America where I live. Literally the only national chain is Wells Fargo. Other than that its small local banks and credit unions. There's some benefit to banking with guys like that, as well as a ton of drawbacks. Among the drawbacks is rudimentary online banking and a mobile app that hardly functions. 

I also have a Wells Fargo, it's an add on to mom's account with them so it's free, but I never use it for anything. With check deposits done over apps now, and 100% ATM fee rebates I use Schwab attached to my brokerage account for checking, and Marcus by Goldman Sachs for savings with get's you 2.5% interest, best in the business. The Schwab account is free, and comes in handy with no foreign transaction fees.

 

Honestly, and back to the point here banks are ultimately operating in their own best interests here, just like myself, and even AOC. I bet she does have a bank account with a major bank, and credit cards etc. I'd prefer to transition into a predominantly crypto economy like many others have already, and ultimately free myself of banks. Memorizing a 12 word passphrase is so much more secure than trusting a bank/government to secure my funds for me.

[Mercer]

4 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

Mercer and Raven both mentioned emotion over logic- hope that's generalizing people and not directed at me.  

 

In general, I'm describing the theme/point of Socialism, not you. It's an emotionally based philosophy, and my original point was exactly that. Holding Wells Fargo responsible for the deeds of anyone they do business with would require the failure of our current finance system. In the past, well meaning Socialist leaders would attempt to put state run finance systems in place which always ended in disaster.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Mercer