Originally Posted by blake
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.
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 think his debate style is academic on this issue. You were both pretty sure you’re right but you’re arguing different things. You’re arguing what’s best for NY while he’s arguing what’s best for the US and what might also not be a great deal for NY. He’s arguing there is x amount of jobs. It’s all a losing game subsidizing jobs and one state loses what another gains. I don’t agree or disagree on the argument. I’m not qualified to assess the value as a nation of having these mega corporations be American corporations and what value that provides us on a global scale. Like Amazon doesn’t fit the bill but if we were subsidizing some technology with crossover military applications, how do you quantify that?
I agree with him in a theoretical sense on a lot of it, but I’m no expert at this, but I do know playing the smartest game as he describes it requires some country that is free of corruption and lobbying and protectionist in a way we never will be free of those things. By the rules of the game we play here in America, NY lost a whole lot of jobs and taxes and I don’t think 3.4 billion in incentives to any other business will provide the windfall Amazon would. I don’t know that, but I’d be seriously surprised if the bottom line for some coalition of smaller business would generate the salaries and taxes of an Amazon. There may be other problems that come along with Amazon that make it a bad deal.
When I call her stupid I’m talking about her politics. You can be right on an issue in politics and lose and wrong on everything and win. I don’t think celebrating the loss of that many jobs is ever smart even if you don’t concede the jobs are lost. Most will view them as lost jobs. I think we have a president that shows that reality is irrelevant. I believe strongly she’s a net negative politically. She cultivates progressives in a demographic that’s already blue and mostly in urban areas. They are also traditionally the most unreliable voters and take their ball and not even play voters in our electorate if they don’t get their way, I don’t trust them to show up at the polls at all. Like whomever she likely backs for President is probably someone who won’t emerge from the primaries and her supporters will largely sit it out. The animus she generates on the other side is stronger and she plays worst in areas that decided that last election.
Like positive polling where they ask specifically if you approve of taxing the first dollar after $10 million at 70% doesn’t convince me of anything. It won’t reach the masses in that way. She’ll just be the chick they heard talking about 70% taxes and a general caricature of a crazy brown chick talking socialism.
Reply With Quote
