Oh and if you don't let Blake win he will stop playing. Brave stance.
Printable View
Oh and if you don't let Blake win he will stop playing. Brave stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
I'm committing to help out AOC, if it helps throw the final death throws into the cult of Hillary, then I'm game.
AOC, you're not stupid, everyone of your colleagues are just condescending, remember that...
Honestly I think if the right embraces her, she'll join the fray.
You don't have to be a hypocrite, if you like nice things, nothing wrong with that, just don't be a hypocrite, that's where Obama killed his legacy....so much potential....
AOC sounds somewhat similar to the NZ Prime minister Jacinda Ardern who jigged together a leftist collation deal to beat the right wing ruling party.
Odd Druff thinks El Trumpo will be in a position to win the presidency in 2020 given Manafort just shipped 19 years in prison and others are waiting to be arrested.
gimmick, you're a complete fuckup and somehow, in a world with mintjewlips, you manage to be the least liked person on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
to your credit, you manage to pull off the seemingly impossible combination of smugness and retardation.
and i don't debate to "win." if i think i'm wrong, i concede it. better yet, i don't reflexively defend someone because they're "on my side." that's a surefire way of ending up taking idiotic positions like, for example, saying that AOC chasing amazon out of NYC was a smart economic move for new yorkers.
just log the fuck off.
keep up the good work gimmick, maybe one day blake will get it
The reason she’s scary, to me, is all about branding. Arguing actual policy is lost on 90% of the population.
We have a country where a great many people wearing MAGA hats will say they hate Obamacare, but don’t want to lose their insurance card provided by the affordable health care act. That is the absurd reality. If you can brand Obama, who was an excellent communicator to the point that simply adding his name to a policy flips it’s approval to that degree, this girl is a huge net negative. You can’t get rid of Trump without winning a coalition of middle aged and older white midwestern voters left behind who traditionally voted Dem and upper middle class suburbanites generally embarrassed by Trump. That her policies might help that first group in many cases will be missed by that group. The second group isn’t that political. They can go either way and talk of 70% tax rates and celebrating job losses will more than turn them off. She’s basically designed in a lab to hurt the voters Dems need most to win, and the right will expertly inflate her importance and essentially put her on the ticket despite being largely irrelevant.
correct. how many times have we seen presidential candidates questioned about AOC's green new deal? her policies have become a litmus test for democrats, as absurd as that may be. wait till you see the debatesQuote:
Originally Posted by BCR
How is it my fault you suck at this?Quote:
Originally Posted by blakegimmick, you're a complete fuckup and somehow, in a world with mintjewlips, you manage to be the least liked person on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
to your credit, you manage to pull off the seemingly impossible combination of smugness and retardation.
and i don't debate to "win." if i think i'm wrong, i concede it. better yet, i don't reflexively defend someone because they're "on my side." that's a surefire way of ending up taking idiotic positions like, for example, saying that AOC chasing amazon out of NYC was a smart economic move for new yorkers.
just log the fuck off.
So where are we now? You gave 3 stupid/extreme things AOC has done/said. 2 of those you gave up immediately (the environment ones) and now you're grasping at the last one.
Hella revolutionary to say that corporate socialism in the form of tax incentives that pit states/cities against each other isn't really a sound policy for a country. Yup. Good luck trying to find economists that even try to sell that shit.
Good thing you aren't tilting about any of this. That would be embarrassing.
Interesting take, when even Fox "news" viewers are voting for the 70%,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, on the 10th million (I love how you guys leave that part out, every time.).
You guys are giving her way too much credit for Amazon.
Most voters back Ocasio-Cortez plan to tax richest Americans up to 70 percent: poll.........FOX "NEWS"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mos...americans-poll
This forum is the epitome of "Arguing actual policy is lost on 90% of the population.
I.E. Druff upset because AOC doesn't dance as well as him, or that him knowing for a fact that Hilary and Chelsea don't get along. Stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickHow is it my fault you suck at this?Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
So where are we now? You gave 3 stupid/extreme things AOC has done/said. 2 of those you gave up immediately (the environment ones) and now you're grasping at the last one.
Hella revolutionary to say that corporate socialism in the form of tax incentives that pit states/cities against each other isn't really a sound policy for a country. Yup. Good luck trying to find economists that even try to sell that shit.
Good thing you aren't tilting about any of this. That would be embarrassing.
fine, but would you at least concede that you've got a unique blend of smug retard going?
and of course, gimmick being gimmick, he won't even concede that.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 2 guests)
blake, BCR, JimmyG_415
bcr i'd like you to chime in on this debate.
the debate being whether gimmick gives off a smug retard vibe
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
To be perfectly honest, I’ve never thought that at all. I enjoy both your contributions here and I find that increasingly rare these days. It probably doesn’t hurt that I generally agree with him and he’s usually arguing against posters I disagree with.
On this issue though, I agree with you in a broad sense. He tends to argue these issues in an academic manner. For instance, I could know a ton about somewhere and be educated, but that misses the nuance of living somewhere and putting faces on people you know she turns off. Like I know a hundred people she’s going to turn off who won’t give a single fuck about the actual issue. I’m sure you know a hundred suburban Philly people who are going to cringe every time she speaks, and they’re not going to dive into the minutiae of the argument, they’ll just sit it out or vote Trump again. We both live in battleground states and it’s easy to feel.
Like I agree that fighting these tax incentive battles is likely detrimental to the country as a whole, but that’s viewing the US as some cohesive country. We’re not. When Trump neeesed to find his tax cuts, he targeted the deduction that would hit people in blue states. She’s elected to represent NY, and should be serving their interests. So I can see both your points, but facts don’t matter in American politics, and I agree with you she’s toxic because I’m seeing people who didn’t know her name two months ago already forming opinions and facts are irrelevant.
I’m not trying to be wishy washy and placate both of you. I’ve never been annoyed by either of you. I have thought at times he misses a few things, naturally, that are easier to know if you live here about the people behind the numbers.
I guess that's a tactic. Not much of a follow-up when you start the day by bringing out the big guns. The good 'ol nobody likes you.
Just general wondering, why would i concede again?
You didn't really back your argument in any way. It's pretty clear i disagreed with your first assessment and after 20 posts you hadn't brought anything new to the table.
Fairly sure i answered all your questions and you answered none of mine.
Just making many posts isn't an argument. It doesn't ad any validity to your initial claim. Maybe it's an education thing. Americans seem to believe worthless points and arbitrary amount of words have intrinsic value. It's just wasting everyone's time.
Anyways AOC is totes the worst because reasons. Thank you for your participation.
so to reiterate, you've read his arguments against me and don't think he gives off a smug retard vibe?Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
To be perfectly honest, I’ve never thought that at all. I enjoy both your contributions here and I find that increasingly rare these days. It probably doesn’t hurt that I generally agree with him and he’s usually arguing against posters I disagree with.
On this issue though, I agree with you in a broad sense. He tends to argue these issues in an academic manner. For instance, I could know a ton about somewhere and be educated, but that misses the nuance of living somewhere and putting faces on people you know she turns off. Like I know a hundred people she’s going to turn off who won’t give a single fuck about the actual issue. I’m sure you know a hundred suburban Philly people who are going to cringe every time she speaks, and they’re not going to dive into the minutiae of the argument, they’ll just sit it out or vote Trump again. We both live in battleground states and it’s easy to feel.
Like I agree that fighting these tax incentive battles is likely detrimental to the country as a whole, but that’s viewing the US as some cohesive country. We’re not. When Trump neeesed to find his tax cuts, he targeted the deduction that would hit people in blue states. She’s elected to represent NY, and should be serving their interests. So I can see both your points, but facts don’t matter in American politics, and I agree with you she’s toxic because I’m seeing people who didn’t know her name two months ago already forming opinions and facts are irrelevant.
I’m not trying to be wishy washy and placate both of you. I’ve never been annoyed by either of you. I have thought at times he misses a few things, naturally, that are easier to know if you live here about the people behind the numbers.
i feel like i need to ask that again cause your answer shocks me.
what's funny is that deep down, i believe you agree with me as absurd as that may appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
let's blame me for poorly stating it (although i obv didn't).
once again, my general sentiment is that new york losing amazon will cause new york to lose out on tens of thousands of jobs and billions of tax dollars.
i'm not making any other point right now.
just that one.
no strawman arguments.
no red herrings.
that is my only point.
i know you agree with this.
why say you disagree, just to fuck with me?
if you really disagree, ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeso to reiterate, you've read his arguments against me and don't think he gives off a smug retard vibe?Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
i feel like i need to ask that again cause your answer shocks me.
Lol. I just kind of skimmed them so I’ll read them again. I don’t fashion myself an experrt on tax breaks and tax revenue so I don’t know who is neccearuly right, but I’ll Look for smugness. He’s arguing in another language. One he knows very well, but I’ll reread them.
bcr, gimmick disagrees with my assessment that amazon leaving new york (or deciding not to go there) will cost new yorkers jobs and cost new york tax revenue. it has been reported that amazon relocating there would result in 60,000 additional jobs in ny, and a net of $24,000,000,000 over the next couple of decades. these facts are undisputed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
Lol. I just kind of skimmed them so I’ll read them again. I don’t fashion myself an experrt on tax breaks and tax revenue so I don’t know who is neccearuly right, but I’ll Look for smugness. He’s arguing in another language. One he knows very well, but I’ll reread them.
despite this, gimmick will not say that he agrees with my assessment that amazon leaving new york (or deciding not to go there) will cost new yorkers jobs and cost new york tax revenue. (cause if he does, he'll be conceding my entire argument).
do you feel you need to be a tax break or economics expert to have an opinion as to what i'm saying is true?
From the country's viewpoint "driving" Amazon away from NY doesn't cost any jobs. In all likelihood a good amount of positions that open somewhere else are going to be filled by the same people they would have been in NY.
From just a general viewpoint of jobs, Amazon destroys more jobs than it creates. It's just the nature of the way Amazon does business. You can say it isn't really anyone's fault. It's just automation and certain things that give an edge to larger companies.
From the viewpoint of NY we don't really know how it even would have played out. There are "items" that were promised to Amazon without an exact cost. We also don't know how much this would have costed NY in the long run. Sometimes in these type of deals there are additional incentives that are added down the line.
From viewpoint of race to the bottom it favors players that are willing to pay when there's very few of them out of all the possibilities. When everyone is paying the end result is just the cost of tax incentives. NY might have gotten jobs because of this now, but they likely lost jobs to the same system when someone else outbid them before.
From the viewpoint of the constitution this whole system is so retarded that it's mentioned in it. Because of lobbying it's doubtful you'll ever get a precedent, but this isn't a new issue. The old timey shit is mostly because of tariffs that states put up for each other, but the principle is the same.
AOC isn't exactly only one that disagreed with this deal. Say former mayor Bloomberg among others.
gimmick, i'm trying not to debate 1000 different points at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
as much as loathe your arguing style, i'll probably end up agreeing with half or even 75% of the substance of what you are saying. this is probably why i don't debate many of the points you're making. i likely agree with them, and won't just play devil's advocate.
the concept of corporate welfare and the government picking winners and losers has real problems, which i fully acknowledge.
i really don't want to come off as the Koch Brothers frontman, championing all things capitalism. this is why i am trying to focus on the one question i asked.
fair enough to say we don't know how it would have played out. we do know, however, that amazon would have only gotten the $3 billion in tax credit if new york received over $27,000,000,000 in tax revenue. the fact that the $3 billion was a tax credit and not a down payment is important. amazon only gets paid if it benefits new york.
It's possible NY would have "gained" something in the short run. Neither one of us actually knows how much. There are things that didn't play out that effect the end result. In the long run states/cities just lose to this system.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakewhat's funny is that deep down, i believe you agree with me as absurd as that may appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
let's blame me for poorly stating it (although i obv didn't).
once again, my general sentiment is that new york losing amazon will cause new york to lose out on tens of thousands of jobs and billions of tax dollars.
i'm not making any other point right now.
just that one.
no strawman arguments.
no red herrings.
that is my only point.
i know you agree with this.
why say you disagree, just to fuck with me?
if you really disagree, ok.
That wasn't really your argument though. I think your argument was that AOC is stupid/extreme for opposing this. I don't agree with that. Her position in this is economically sound. Going along with this system is just delaying the inevitable.
Getting Amazon to NY in this system is roughly equivalent to winning a pot. It tells very little if playing the game is profitable. You obv lose jobs as well and every time you win you pay the rake (maybe 3.4bil). Fun part in this game is that players have partially shared bankroll.
blake j'adore but you seem to be cherry picking perspectives on this amazon thing despite being offered a wealth of opinions from people with boots on ground that this deal was trash and should never have happened at all.
bro, that was 100% my position, which i actually had to restate 1,000,000 times. but that's fine. we were talking past each other. i also agree with your assessment that i think aoc was stupid (extreme may not be the best word)Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIt's possible NY would have "gained" something in the short run. Neither one of us actually knows how much. There are things that didn't play out that effect the end result. In the long run states/cities just lose to this system.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
That wasn't really your argument though. I think your argument was that AOC is stupid/extreme for opposing this. I don't agree with that. Her position in this is economically sound. Going along with this system is just delaying the inevitable.
Getting Amazon to NY in this system is roughly equivalent to winning a pot. It tells very little if playing the game is profitable. You obv lose jobs as well and every time you win you pay the rake (maybe 3.4bil). Fun part in this game is that players have partially shared bankroll.
is 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in additional revenue a perspective? look, if you're telling me those numbers are flawed, then fine. those are the only numbers i've heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
if you're telling me that new york has a better plan that is even more advantageous to its citizens, ok but i haven't seen it reported.
i'm only going by what i'm reading.
however... i get the argument that the amazon headquarters would have made subway life unbearable or cause similar infrastructure problems, or raised rents (i.e., gentrified the neighborhood).
those are legit bases for objection, if true. i was really only dwelling on the job/tax revenue loss aspect of it as it's all that i've seen reported.
Your position was this...Quote:
Originally Posted by blakebro, that was 100% my position, which i actually had to restate 1,000,000 times. but that's fine. we were talking past each other. i also agree with your assessment that i think aoc was stupid (extreme may not be the best word)Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
"aside from her batshit crazy position that NY was subsidizing those amazon jobs, which is flatout embarrassing, some of her other stated reasons for opposing amazon were because it would cause gentrification and because she is against large companies getting taxpayer subsidies. those are bad policy positions"
...sure you mentioned some numbers that aren't actually accurate and it's pretty hard to even estimate when you ad all that shit up what were looking in the end.
It's a form of subsidizing jobs. And i'm not in favor of these type of subsidies. I don't think AOC stupid or extreme. She does look at times like she's putting in 12 hours days 6 days week, so it's not given everything always goes smoothly.
There's also the part, if this show where Amazon had 238 monkeys dancing at it's whim, would have gone without a hitch where we would be. That was kinda public negotiation with terrorists. Who knows how much this would have boldened corporations in the future.
if $24B is indeed the correct number, that sure as shit fixes a lotta things if it's not squandered...
not saying there wouldn't be growing pains and all that shit, but you can do a whole lotta shit with $24B...
Oh yea and i doubt there was all that many jobs for people that voted AOC. Maybe a cafeteria worker or two. If all had gone good there was some chance no one would've been driven away from their neighborhood.
The few things that are scarce for Amazon are talent and certain type of real estate. They value that very high. I think Maryland offered 7.5bil more than VA or something stupid like that. They were always going to choose one of handful sites. The show surrounding this was just to hike up the prize they would get for going where they were going in the first place. Oh and they got valuable information about 1000-2000 sites and 238 cities.
Come on man.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickYour position was this...Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
"aside from her batshit crazy position that NY was subsidizing those amazon jobs, which is flatout embarrassing, some of her other stated reasons for opposing amazon were because it would cause gentrification and because she is against large companies getting taxpayer subsidies. those are bad policy positions"
...sure you mentioned some numbers that aren't actually accurate and it's pretty hard to even estimate when you ad all that shit up what were looking in the end.
It's a form of subsidizing jobs. And i'm not in favor of these type of subsidies. I don't think AOC stupid or extreme. She does look at times like she's putting in 12 hours days 6 days week, so it's not given everything always goes smoothly.
There's also the part, if this show where Amazon had 238 monkeys dancing at it's whim, would have gone without a hitch where we would be. That was kinda public negotiation with terrorists. Who knows how much this would have boldened corporations in the future.
"no one was more in favor of amazon coming in, per polling, than black and hispanic communities, who saw the potential for good jobs. as for taxpayer subsidies, on principle, she rejected $27,000,000,000 in tax revenue because amazon wanted an offset of $3.4 billion. this is a terrible policy position and caused real harm to new yorkers. i'd say this is an extreme position and reflects a failure to even understand market forces, economics and capitalism."
This was literally in the same post you quoted my position on. But i guess you're not being dishonest cause you noted "sure you mentioned some numbers that aren't actually accurate."
What the fuck, my next 869 posts related to the $27 billion in tax revenue and 60,000 jobs lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakejesus christ gimmick, you're being deliberately argumentative on things you don't even disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
new york (not the US in general) lost out on 60,000+ additional jobs (better?) and $24,000,000,000 in additional tax revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeif you wanted 60,000+ additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in additional revenue, you bow to their demands, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
that would have been an unbelievably great deal for new york
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeok you're trolling me. i know you're not just suggesting new york can create $24,000,000,000 in additional tax revenue out of thin air.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
if they could, why haven't they been doing this for decades? why doesn't every state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakegod you love these word games. i guess that means you agree with my general sentiment. but i'll indulge youQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
let's say "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."
should we call it a day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeyou disagree with this sentence? "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeYou’re making a different point than i am. In your hypothetical, one person would have gained $60,000. All I’m saying is New York did not gain the jobs and revenue it could have. Please ignore whether it “lost” jobs and revenue. That is a red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakethis doesn't make any sense. if new york was capable of snapping its fingers and adding $24 billion in tax revenue and increasing 60,000 jobs without amazon, it already would have.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakei don't get this. are you trying to get me to say that amazon didn't lose jobs, it simply didn't gain them?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
sure, i'm fine with that. are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakei wonder if the new yorkers who lost out on all those jobs or those people reliant on government tax dollars and services will applaud AOC's heroic stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
but seriously, how did i guess you wouldn't concede it? you are somehow spinning the fact that new york will lose out on 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue as a positive for new york.
our debate ends here. i will never get you to concede, but i did persuade everyone else reading. thanks for playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakewhat's funny is that deep down, i believe you agree with me as absurd as that may appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
let's blame me for poorly stating it (although i obv didn't).
once again, my general sentiment is that new york losing amazon will cause new york to lose out on tens of thousands of jobs and billions of tax dollars.
i'm not making any other point right now.
just that one.
no strawman arguments.
no red herrings.
that is my only point.
i know you agree with this.
why say you disagree, just to fuck with me?
if you really disagree, ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakebcr, gimmick disagrees with my assessment that amazon leaving new york (or deciding not to go there) will cost new yorkers jobs and cost new york tax revenue. it has been reported that amazon relocating there would result in 60,000 additional jobs in ny, and a net of $24,000,000,000 over the next couple of decades. these facts are undisputed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
despite this, gimmick will not say that he agrees with my assessment that amazon leaving new york (or deciding not to go there) will cost new yorkers jobs and cost new york tax revenue. (cause if he does, he'll be conceding my entire argument).
do you feel you need to be a tax break or economics expert to have an opinion as to what i'm saying is true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakegimmick, i'm trying not to debate 1000 different points at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
as much as loathe your arguing style, i'll probably end up agreeing with half or even 75% of the substance of what you are saying. this is probably why i don't debate many of the points you're making. i likely agree with them, and won't just play devil's advocate.
the concept of corporate welfare and the government picking winners and losers has real problems, which i fully acknowledge.
i really don't want to come off as the Koch Brothers frontman, championing all things capitalism. this is why i am trying to focus on the one question i asked.
fair enough to say we don't know how it would have played out. we do know, however, that amazon would have only gotten the $3 billion in tax credit if new york received over $27,000,000,000 in tax revenue. the fact that the $3 billion was a tax credit and not a down payment is important. amazon only gets paid if it benefits new york.
Right gimmick, my "position" that we were debating had nothing to do with new york losing jobs or tax revenue, but was really about gentrification.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeis 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in additional revenue a perspective? look, if you're telling me those numbers are flawed, then fine. those are the only numbers i've heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
if you're telling me that new york has a better plan that is even more advantageous to its citizens, ok but i haven't seen it reported.
i'm only going by what i'm reading.
however... i get the argument that the amazon headquarters would have made subway life unbearable or cause similar infrastructure problems, or raised rents (i.e., gentrified the neighborhood).
those are legit bases for objection, if true. i was really only dwelling on the job/tax revenue loss aspect of it as it's all that i've seen reported.
Are you aware this is all in writing? Jesus christ, talk about intellectual dishonesty.
This particular post is a perfect example of what debating you is like. We had a dozen posts debating whether new york "lost" 60,000 jobs and $24 billion in tax revenue or whether it just didn't gain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickNot at all. By your logic every state that loses the bid loses whatever they offered in relation what they would have gained. NY is just one of those. You can explain why you think NY is special among losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
That literally happened. All substantive discussion ended. We debated the meaning of the word "lost."
Fuck my life.
But bcr sees no problem with your debate style so maybe it was just me. You'd make a fine attorney.
I was kinda trying to highlight that in my opinion you thought opposing this was stupid of AOC. I didn't think that. Is that controversial?
I don't really think that few inaccurate numbers are important. Or the most important point. This all obv started in relation to AOC.
There might be slight paranoia about my intentions. I'm not trolling you or gaslighting you for my own perverse amusement. I could, but i'm not. I'm nice like that.
I did think that opposing the amazon deal was stupid of AOC, so all good to debate that with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
But... for thinking those few "inaccurate" (i didn't make them up ftr) numbers were unimportant, we sure did spend 87 hours debating them. Or more accurately, 57 hours debating them and 30 hours debating the definition of various words.
87 hours later and i swear we still agree on 99% of this.
This is mostly just about 2 things that run here.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeThis particular post is a perfect example of what debating you is like. We had a dozen posts debating whether new york "lost" 60,000 jobs and $24 billion in tax revenue or whether it just didn't gain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
That literally happened. All substantive discussion ended. We debated the meaning of the word "lost."
Fuck my life.
But bcr sees no problem with your debate style so maybe it was just me. You'd make a fine attorney.
The jobs NY "lost", some other state "won".
In this system in the long run NY breaks even with jobs and tax revenue minus the tax incentives. You can say NY gains when it steals jobs with incentives from another state. And NY loses when other states steal jobs with incentives from NY. It just evens out. Only real way to win is to stop playing the game.
Also the reason i mentioned rake few times isn't because i enjoy corny poker references, but because it's very similar to how these tax incentives work. It doesn't matter when it's collected. It's just as real and it's money that can be used for other things.
And if i can seque to a more important point -- the first one i made in this thread -- i am still concerned that AOC will get trump elected.
Trump has been calling the democrats "job killers" forever. That's been an effective attack on democrats for as long as i can remember.
The amazon thing doesn't help imo.
Oh i'm not saying you made them up or anything. It's just the nature of these deals that a lot is buried in the small print and some of it is hard to even estimate. Like can they get additional federal money to this or the property they rented for 99 years being valued properly. All the items that were promised without exact cost starting from small things like helipad etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeI did think that opposing the amazon deal was stupid of AOC, so all good to debate that with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
But... for thinking those few "inaccurate" (i didn't make them up ftr) numbers were unimportant, we sure did spend 87 hours debating them. Or more accurately, 57 hours debating them and 30 hours debating the definition of various words.
87 hours later and i swear we still agree on 99% of this.
Is Amazon viewed favorably by anyone? I honestly don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
I also don't know how numbers are today with undecided voters. Like is that a big voting block in relation to tribal voters.
I haven't seen Trump camp growing at all. On the other hand AOC is growing the left populist vote.
You could say Bernie bros were maybe lefts equivalent to tea party in the last election. There wasn't a real left counterpart to "new" voters Trump lit up. AOC is kinda first to get those on the left move.
shout out to one of blakes favorite skatz smilies :wargamesQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick