The Democrat Utopia

nic said:
If her constituents are happy with her choices, so be it. The tax breaks happen all the time, at least at first to attract the business. Amazon will just go somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it's right, or good for society.

BigRedBuster said:
I disagree.

I do some work in economic development in our community.  I see what happens from community to community.  I've seen many situations where communities give benefits to a company to locate there and it works out great for that community.  The company gets a break for maybe 5 years, they are invested and there a lot longer than that and the employment and tax base goes up from there.

However, we have all seen the well reported on disasters where communities or states do it completely wrong.  Unfortunately, that's what people remember.

The devil is in the details, just like any negotiation.  
Click to expand...
Probably very true; but in this case most of these cities were talking about tax breaks from half a billion to over a billion dollars. On top of that they would be shelling out money to Amazon, and potentially upgrading infrastructure for Amazon on the tax payer's dime. That's a terrible plan.

A company as large and as wealthy as Amazon shouldn't need cities to whore themselves out like that. They could spend their own money. In 2018 Amazon was around 2k per share. You make a plan to cash out 500k stocks and that's a billion dollars right there. I know it's not that simple, but they have the means to fund their own projects and they should.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it's right, or good for society.

Probably very true; but in this case most of these cities were talking about tax breaks from half a billion to over a billion dollars. On top of that they would be shelling out money to Amazon, and potentially upgrading infrastructure for Amazon on the tax payer's dime. That's a terrible plan.

A company as large and as wealthy as Amazon shouldn't need cities to whore themselves out like that. They could spend their own money. In 2018 Amazon was around 2k per share. You make a plan to cash out 500k stocks and that's a billion dollars right there. I know it's not that simple, but they have the means to fund their own projects and they should.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that.  I'm specifically talking about the comment that tax breaks to corporations to move to a city are NEVER worth it.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I don't doubt that.  I'm specifically talking about the comment that tax breaks to corporations to move to a city are NEVER worth it.
Click to expand...
And Hitler did a couple good things while he was Chancellor too. /S   :lol:

But seriously, you're right. On the small to medium business scale I think incentives are probably a wonderful thing, especially for a home grown businesses. For major corporate America (i.e. Fortune 500) they should be able to fund things themselves, or at a minimal expense to tax payers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
But seriously, you're right. On the small to medium business scale I think incentives are probably a wonderful thing, especially for a home grown businesses. For major corporate America (i.e. Fortune 500) they should be able to fund things themselves, or at a minimal expense to tax payers.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you.  Especially when it comes to a fortune 500 company being able to afford it themselves.  What you have though, is one city or state giving out incentives, and they end up with all the new investment, new jobs and growth.  Meanwhile, you have states and cities who refuse to do it, and they don't get it.

The important thing is that it needs to be incentive based.  OK, you want to buy this building for 1,000,000 and put 2,000,000 into it....and you want TIF for 5 years.  OK.....we will give you the TIF for 5 years as long as you maintain XXX number of new jobs, have the investment completed in the first 18 months....etc.  If any of that doesn't happen, you lose the TIF.

The city and state get taxes on the original 1,000,000 building, in 5 years they get taxes on the additional 2,000,000.  3,000,000 total.  Meanwhile, more people have moved into the community for jobs, built homes, opened other businesses....etc.  If they decide to shut down after 5 years, the city and state are still going to get taxes on the completed 3,000,000 property.  Scale that to someone like Amazon and you have billions in stead of millions....but, the result is the same.

But, then you have states and cities that do absolutely stupid things like what happened in Wisconsin a few years ago (can't remember the company name).  The city and state spent billions with the company, only to have the company never come to Wisconsin.  That's just plain stupid.

 
nic said:
How about an LA Times article?

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-02-10/whats-the-matter-with-portland-urban-ills-tests-citys-progressive-strain

Over the last three years, the number of unhoused people in the metro area has jumped from about 4,000 to at least 6,600. Shootings in the city have tripled. Homicides climbed from 36 in 2019 to 97 last year — a record. Lower-level crimes have spiked too: More than 11,000 vehicles were stolen in 2022, up from 6,500 in 2019.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with Walmart closing?

 
20 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Didn't you say you didn't watch any of the hearings?  They didn't watch a minute of video huh?  

Click to expand...
“Prior to the testimony”.  

Bennie Thompson was quoted in the tweet I posted :thumbs   one would assume he would know whether they watched the security footage or not and he said they hadn’t. 

 
Archy1221 said:
“Prior to the testimony”.  

Bennie Thompson was quoted in the tweet I posted :thumbs   one would assume he would know whether they watched the security footage or not and he said they hadn’t. 
Click to expand...
What are you even rage farming about now? Are you saying there's some evidence in the security video that they hadn't seen that is somehow going to minimize the mountain of overwhelming evidence the committee did present? 

The Jan 6th committee had more than enough evidence to present their report.  Did any defense lawyers or judges ask to see the video in the cases of those charged with their roll in the events of Jan 6th?  If they did was it withheld?  McCarthy says that defendants had access to video if requested.  I'm pretty sure that enough video evidence was available at those trials that the judges were satisfied.  So what again is your rage crop? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scarlet said:
What are you even rage farming about now? Are you saying there's some evidence in the security video that they hadn't seen that is somehow going to minimize the mountain of overwhelming evidence the committee did present? 

The Jan 6th committee had more than enough evidence to present their report.  Did any defense lawyers or judges ask to see the video in the cases of those charged with their roll in the events of Jan 6th?  If they did was it withheld?  McCarthy says that defendants had access to video if requested.  I'm pretty sure that enough video evidence was available at those trials that the judges were satisfied.  So what again is your rage crop? 
Click to expand...
What specifically do you consider to be raging?  
 

Why are you bringing up defendant trials?   :lol:
I don’t believe the Jan 6 commission is running those.  
 

I found it a bit strange that the commission members in charge of figuring out all things Jan6th hadn’t watched a minute of the security footage prior to a production company putting the reels together.  Maybe that’s normal procedure in Gov.  If so, we should elect the staffers and production companies instead.  

 
Archy1221 said:
What specifically do you consider to be raging?  
 

Why are you bringing up defendant trials?   :lol:
I don’t believe the Jan 6 commission is running those.  
 

I found it a bit strange that the commission members in charge of figuring out all things Jan6th hadn’t watched a minute of the security footage prior to a production company putting the reels together.  Maybe that’s normal procedure in Gov.  If so, we should elect the staffers and production companies instead.  
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to figure out what you're even talking about.  Obviously the committee members watched a lot of video just not necessarily the entirety of the 40,000 hours of security video that security officials would have preferred not be released.  You know the video that McCarthy decided to release to that fountain of truth, Tucker Carlson.  I'm sure they had staffers comb through the most banal of the evidence as it would be physically impossible for an individual to go through it all.  Besides if they were doing that you'd be a frothy about them not attending to their other duties.  

We get it.  You're trying to drive the narrative that the Jan 6th committee was some kind of kangaroo court.  They provided a mountain of evidence in their hearings and submitted a report.  I don't see the problem.  

 
Back
Top