Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Mercer

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Recommended Posts

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

 

image.png.7d4ef222711ca13d929ccea7aaac997b.png 

 

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 by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :

 

 

Share this post


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

She is petty hot, though.

 

 

Not even remotely close. To each their own though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • LOL! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

1947160455_ScreenShot2019-03-15at6_20_41AM.png.7234a996d66f68831324749352543a29.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 10:59 AM, misteraven said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

1947160455_ScreenShot2019-03-15at6_20_41AM.png.7234a996d66f68831324749352543a29.png

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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×