AOC Flunks Economics 101

[georgephillip]

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

The subsidies to Amazon were more corporate welfare to a corporation that paid zero$ income tax.

Corporations and their shareholders have enough wealth:

McKinney: Amazon to NYC was a bad deal; CT shouldn't try to follow suit

"I believe the decision by Amazon to withdraw from the deal is ultimately the right outcome, even it was for the wrong reasons.

"It is time for public-sector leaders to stop throwing money at large private corporations to attract them, or to retain them in their jurisdictions.

"Surrendering taxpayer funds to billion-dollar corporations is toxic.

"Within minutes of Amazon's decision, governors and mayors from around the nation, including Gov. Ned Lamont, have publicly invited Amazon to consider taking their money to open-up shop in their markets.

"It was bad policy in New York City, and it is bad policy everywhere.

"This type of competition among states and cities results in one clear and permanent winner -- the corporation and its shareholders."

And who are the winners now? Amazon and its shareholders are going to continue being rich no matter how nasty and resentful a bunch of no-dog-in-the-fight leftist elites bitch and scream about "toxic", and cheer when they fend off those "eeeeevil" corporations from their town. So Amazon and its shareholders are winners no matter what; Occasional Cortex and her out-of-touch, out-of-their-minds cohort politicians are winners, because they get fawning media attention like this.

I'll be damned if I see anyone else who has won or achieved anything through this.

It's easy to shout, "Bad policy! Take the high road!" when you already have a cushy job writing columns that pretend you have something to say; not so much when you actually need to apply for a job and work for a living.

And who are the winners now? Amazon and its shareholders are going to continue being rich no matter how nasty and resentful a bunch of no-dog-in-the-fight leftist elites bitch and scream about "toxic", and cheer when they fend off those "eeeeevil" corporations from their town

Someone has to stop the "race to the bottom" that enriches parasites like Bezos at the expense of productive workers; the next step is to expand the procedure nationwide, as one of the local politicians who stood up to corporate greed in New York points out:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ronkim/end-the-corporate-subsidy-cage-match

"I propose a more cooperative approach.

"Earlier this month, I introduced legislation in the New York State legislature called the End of Corporate Welfare Act, which would create an inter-state compact that eliminates the practice of giving taxpayer subsidies to individual companies.

"I also started reaching out to legislators outside of New York to persuade them to do the same.

"So far, lawmakers in Illinois, Arizona, Florida, Connecticut and North Dakota have either followed suit or are willing to do so.

"And this is just the beginning.

"For decades, New York and other states have engaged in an economic cage match to see who can offer the most lavish welfare packages to multinational corporations that announce plans to move locations, build new headquarters, or expand operations."

"Corporate executives simply sit back and wait as different locales jostle to make the best offer.

"What transpires is a harmful, zero-sum competition to bundle commercial property tax abatements with an alphabet soup of tax credits and handouts."

Btw, trillion dollar corporations that pay no federal income tax are "eeeeevil."

 

[Cellblock2429]

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

The subsidies to Amazon were more corporate welfare to a corporation that paid zero$ income tax.

Corporations and their shareholders have enough wealth:

McKinney: Amazon to NYC was a bad deal; CT shouldn't try to follow suit

"I believe the decision by Amazon to withdraw from the deal is ultimately the right outcome, even it was for the wrong reasons.

"It is time for public-sector leaders to stop throwing money at large private corporations to attract them, or to retain them in their jurisdictions.

"Surrendering taxpayer funds to billion-dollar corporations is toxic.

"Within minutes of Amazon's decision, governors and mayors from around the nation, including Gov. Ned Lamont, have publicly invited Amazon to consider taking their money to open-up shop in their markets.

"It was bad policy in New York City, and it is bad policy everywhere.

"This type of competition among states and cities results in one clear and permanent winner -- the corporation and its shareholders."

And who are the winners now? Amazon and its shareholders are going to continue being rich no matter how nasty and resentful a bunch of no-dog-in-the-fight leftist elites bitch and scream about "toxic", and cheer when they fend off those "eeeeevil" corporations from their town. So Amazon and its shareholders are winners no matter what; Occasional Cortex and her out-of-touch, out-of-their-minds cohort politicians are winners, because they get fawning media attention like this.

I'll be damned if I see anyone else who has won or achieved anything through this.

It's easy to shout, "Bad policy! Take the high road!" when you already have a cushy job writing columns that pretend you have something to say; not so much when you actually need to apply for a job and work for a living.

And who are the winners now? Amazon and its shareholders are going to continue being rich no matter how nasty and resentful a bunch of no-dog-in-the-fight leftist elites bitch and scream about "toxic", and cheer when they fend off those "eeeeevil" corporations from their town

Someone has to stop the "race to the bottom" that enriches parasites like Bezos at the expense of productive workers; the next step is to expand the procedure nationwide, as one of the local politicians who stood up to corporate greed in New York points out:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ronkim/end-the-corporate-subsidy-cage-match

"I propose a more cooperative approach.

"Earlier this month, I introduced legislation in the New York State legislature called the End of Corporate Welfare Act, which would create an inter-state compact that eliminates the practice of giving taxpayer subsidies to individual companies.

"I also started reaching out to legislators outside of New York to persuade them to do the same.

"So far, lawmakers in Illinois, Arizona, Florida, Connecticut and North Dakota have either followed suit or are willing to do so.

"And this is just the beginning.

"For decades, New York and other states have engaged in an economic cage match to see who can offer the most lavish welfare packages to multinational corporations that announce plans to move locations, build new headquarters, or expand operations."

"Corporate executives simply sit back and wait as different locales jostle to make the best offer.

"What transpires is a harmful, zero-sum competition to bundle commercial property tax abatements with an alphabet soup of tax credits and handouts."

Btw, trillion dollar corporations that pay no federal income tax are "eeeeevil."

/——/ Corporations pass taxes on to the consumer you moron.

 

[georgephillip]

Amazon would have been exempted from $3 billion in taxes.

How long would it take for 25,000 low paid workers to make up the difference from their income taxes?

A loooooooong time.

Tax expenditures are a fucking disaster for this country. They are costing the federal government $1.4 trillion a year. This results in higher federal tax rates and massive deficits.

It's tards like you, easyt, who are idiots when it comes to economics.

NY was still going to be receiving an estimated 27 Billion over 25 years and now they wont. Now they wont be getting any of that revenue and contractors doing 5 billion worth of upgrades wont be getting jobs or creating more tax revenue. SO again, how is giving Amazon a 3 Billion tax break costing the federal government anything in that case? Where is OAC going to get that 3 billion from to invest?

NY was still going to be receiving an estimated 27 Billion over 25 years and now they wont. Now they wont be getting any of that revenue and contractors doing 5 billion worth of upgrades wont be getting jobs or creating more tax revenue. SO again, how is giving Amazon a 3 Billion tax break costing the federal government anything in that case? Where is OAC going to get that 3 billion from to invest?

What would prevent Amazon's promises to New York to turn out the same way Foxconn's pledges to Wisconsin did?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

"Inside Wisconsin’s Disastrous $4.5 Billion Deal With Foxconn
A huge tax break was supposed to create a manufacturing paradise, but interviews with 49 people familiar with the project depict a chaotic operation unlikely to ever employ 13,000 workers.

"

 

[Brain357]

Government making special deals with private business is not capitalism. Cronyism.

No shit, Dick Tracy.....True as that is, there's still no $3 billion for the economic nitwit AOC to redistribute to the sainted pooooooor.....That is the reason that she stated for opposing the deal.

Sounded like cash payments to me.

Let's pretend you own a toll road and you charge $10 to cross. Now let's say I come along and say "I need to cross 8 times a day 5 days a week over 5 years. At the regular rate you charge that would cost me $80 a day 5 days a week 52 weeks out of the year for 5 years or $20,800 a year for 5 years.

Now let's suppose I say to you. I will make a deal with you, I'll use your road guaranteed 8 times a day , 5 days a week for 5 years , at $7 a pop for 5 years . Or $14,560 a year for 5 years. If you take that deal , are you out $6K a year in cash?

Now suppose you are a trucking company. Your a small trucking company so you get no deal. Now suppose the big trucking company you compete with gets a great deal. Now they run you out of business. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.

 

[Brain357]

Blows my mind how many people seem to have no clue what Amazon actually is.

It's not just some warehouse company delivering packages.

Amazon is a tech giant.

They're huge in ecommerce, cloud computing and have an increasing presence in the entertainment space. They just invested 700 million in a startup to compete with Tesla. They've got their fingers in all kinds of shit.

These weren't warehouse jobs these stupid fuckers chased out if town, they were skilled, good paying jobs of the new economy.

Sounds like they don’t need special tax breaks.

/——/ NYC was competing for the HQ you blithering idiot.

Do you trust politicians so much you want them making deals like this? The same politicians who have put us $22 trillion in debt? Oh the right is so funny. Not so much for that small government thing anymore eh? Well you threw away the fiscally responsible thing, mine as well throw away capitalism too.

 

[Brain357]

These things always hose the taxpayer.
Foxconn doesn’t meet Wisconsin jobs benchmark for 2018 – Twin Cities

 

[Brain357]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

 

[Cellblock2429]

Blows my mind how many people seem to have no clue what Amazon actually is.

It's not just some warehouse company delivering packages.

Amazon is a tech giant.

They're huge in ecommerce, cloud computing and have an increasing presence in the entertainment space. They just invested 700 million in a startup to compete with Tesla. They've got their fingers in all kinds of shit.

These weren't warehouse jobs these stupid fuckers chased out if town, they were skilled, good paying jobs of the new economy.

Sounds like they don’t need special tax breaks.

/——/ NYC was competing for the HQ you blithering idiot.

Do you trust politicians so much you want them making deals like this? The same politicians who have put us $22 trillion in debt? Oh the right is so funny. Not so much for that small government thing anymore eh? Well you threw away the fiscally responsible thing, mine as well throw away capitalism too.

/——/ Thanks to AOC, Queens gets zip zilch nada. Is that better than $25 Billion? Idiot socialists.

 

[Brain357]

Blows my mind how many people seem to have no clue what Amazon actually is.

It's not just some warehouse company delivering packages.

Amazon is a tech giant.

They're huge in ecommerce, cloud computing and have an increasing presence in the entertainment space. They just invested 700 million in a startup to compete with Tesla. They've got their fingers in all kinds of shit.

These weren't warehouse jobs these stupid fuckers chased out if town, they were skilled, good paying jobs of the new economy.

Sounds like they don’t need special tax breaks.

/——/ NYC was competing for the HQ you blithering idiot.

Do you trust politicians so much you want them making deals like this? The same politicians who have put us $22 trillion in debt? Oh the right is so funny. Not so much for that small government thing anymore eh? Well you threw away the fiscally responsible thing, mine as well throw away capitalism too.

/——/ Thanks to AOC, Queens gets zip zilch nada. Is that better than $25 Billion? Idiot socialists.
View attachment 247300

These deals always hose the taxpayer. Tell me, when did you become a socialist?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

translation~ company's flee high tax blue states to red states.



.

 

[Brain357]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

translation~ company's flee high tax blue states to red states.



.

Seems you can't read very well.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Blows my mind how many people seem to have no clue what Amazon actually is.

It's not just some warehouse company delivering packages.

Amazon is a tech giant.

They're huge in ecommerce, cloud computing and have an increasing presence in the entertainment space. They just invested 700 million in a startup to compete with Tesla. They've got their fingers in all kinds of shit.

These weren't warehouse jobs these stupid fuckers chased out if town, they were skilled, good paying jobs of the new economy.

Sounds like they don’t need special tax breaks.

/——/ NYC was competing for the HQ you blithering idiot.

Do you trust politicians so much you want them making deals like this? The same politicians who have put us $22 trillion in debt? Oh the right is so funny. Not so much for that small government thing anymore eh? Well you threw away the fiscally responsible thing, mine as well throw away capitalism too.

/——/ Thanks to AOC, Queens gets zip zilch nada. Is that better than $25 Billion? Idiot socialists.
View attachment 247300

These deals always hose the taxpayer. Tell me, when did you become a socialist?

liar..........the upstate of South Carolina was a real life back water deliverance movie, with just low pay farm jobs, today it is a manufacturing diverse power house.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

translation~ company's flee high tax blue states to red states.



.

Seems you can't read very well.

Seriously you think you can bull shit a Chicago guy like me?

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like they don’t need special tax breaks.

/——/ NYC was competing for the HQ you blithering idiot.

Do you trust politicians so much you want them making deals like this? The same politicians who have put us $22 trillion in debt? Oh the right is so funny. Not so much for that small government thing anymore eh? Well you threw away the fiscally responsible thing, mine as well throw away capitalism too.

/——/ Thanks to AOC, Queens gets zip zilch nada. Is that better than $25 Billion? Idiot socialists.
View attachment 247300

These deals always hose the taxpayer. Tell me, when did you become a socialist?

liar..........the upstate of South Carolina was a real life back water deliverance movie, with just low pay farm jobs, today it is a manufacturing diverse power house.

Oh is it? Do tell what sweet deals they made. Please be specific.

 

[Brain357]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

translation~ company's flee high tax blue states to red states.



.

Seems you can't read very well.

Seriously you think you can bull shit a Chicago guy like me?

Ah Chicago, then you love corruption. That explains it. Why do you think red states are more socialist and handing out more tax dollars?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

translation~ company's flee high tax blue states to red states.



.

Seems you can't read very well.

Seriously you think you can bull shit a Chicago guy like me?

Ah Chicago, then you love corruption. That explains it. Why do you think red states are more socialist and handing out more tax dollars?

explain what?

I told my story on year a bunch of times, born and raised in Chicago, moved to South Carolina when I was 38 years old and just retired this year in Wyoming @ 53 years old.


.

 

[Brain357]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

translation~ company's flee high tax blue states to red states.



.

Seems you can't read very well.

Seriously you think you can bull shit a Chicago guy like me?

Ah Chicago, then you love corruption. That explains it. Why do you think red states are more socialist and handing out more tax dollars?

explain what?

I told my story on year a bunch of times, born and raised in Chicago, moved to South Carolina when I was 38 years old and just retired this year in Wyoming @ 53 years old.


.

Didn't ask your life story. Again, you don't read very well...

 

[Wyatt earp]

/——/ NYC was competing for the HQ you blithering idiot.

Do you trust politicians so much you want them making deals like this? The same politicians who have put us $22 trillion in debt? Oh the right is so funny. Not so much for that small government thing anymore eh? Well you threw away the fiscally responsible thing, mine as well throw away capitalism too.

/——/ Thanks to AOC, Queens gets zip zilch nada. Is that better than $25 Billion? Idiot socialists.
View attachment 247300

These deals always hose the taxpayer. Tell me, when did you become a socialist?

liar..........the upstate of South Carolina was a real life back water deliverance movie, with just low pay farm jobs, today it is a manufacturing diverse power house.

Oh is it? Do tell what sweet deals they made. Please be specific.

specific?? it would be a huge book, with Boeing, Michelin, all the Chineese, German companies you look it up and quit bull shitting.

 

[Crepitus]

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

First, nobody who thinks tariffs are a good idea has a leg to stand on criticising anyone else's understanding of economics, and don't even get me started on the trickle down myth.

Second, NYC was gonna give them $3 billion in tax breaks. It would have taken them many decades to recoup that investment if they ever did.

It was a bad deal. You can't buy jobs, just like you can't spend your way outta debt.

 

[Oddball]

The right used to be smart....

What’s Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
The above examples illustrate that corporate welfare comes in many flavors. “Crony capitalism” is another name for the problem. These subsidies have many negative effects:

1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

2. They harm consumers and businesses. Corporate welfare aids some businesses, but it harms other businesses and consumers. Federal import barriers on sugar, for example, raise sugar prices and cost U.S. consumers about $2 billion a year. Some U.S. food companies that use sugar in their products have moved their production abroad to access lower-priced sugar.

3. They create an uneven playing field. Businesses receiving federal subsidies have an unfair advantage over unsubsidized competitors in their industries. Corporate welfare can also have unfair effects on businesses in other industries. As an example, the Export-Import program has subsidized jet purchases by foreign airlines, but that has given the foreign airlines an advantage over U.S. airlines that pay the full prices for their jets.

4. They duplicate private activities. Corporate welfare often duplicates activities that are already available in private markets, such as insurance, loans, marketing, and research. USDA’s Risk Management Agency, for example, says that its mission is to help farm businesses “through effective, market-based risk management tools.” But if these services are “market-based,” then Congress can end this $8 billion agency and let the private marketplace provide the tools.

5. They foster corruption. Corporate welfare fosters political corruption as businesses looking for handouts try to gain the support of politicians and federal officials. A 2011 Washington Post investigation into green energy subsidies was titled, “Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs.” The investigation found that the business people behind firms receiving green subsidies were often Obama campaign donors, that Solyndra’s corporate decisionmaking was driven by political considerations, and that a major Democratic fundraiser and frequent visitor to the Obama White House, George Kaiser, held a one-third stake in Solyndra through his family foundation. Federal taxpayers lost half a billion dollars on the failed solar company, Solyndra.

6. They weaken the private sector. Corporate welfare draws talented people away from productive pursuits and into wasteful subsidy activities. Companies that take government subsidies often become weaker, less efficient, and distracted from serving their customers. They take on riskier projects, they make decisions divorced from market realities, and they substitute lobbying for innovation. Federal export subsidies, for example, induced Enron Corporation to partake in failed overseas projects that helped pull the company down. And in chasing federal green subsidies, the utility Southern Company has spent more than $6 billion on a disastrous “clean coal” power plant that has doubled in cost.

7. They damage trust in government and business. Public opinion polls show plunging support for politicians and big businesses over the years. Gallup polls find that just one-fifth of Americans have “confidence” in big business, and they find that about three-quarters of people think there is “widespread corruption” in American government. The recent rise of populist politicians partly stems from the feeling that the “system is rigged” in favor of special interests, such as big businesses. Business and political leaders would garner more respect if they cut their ties to each other by ending corporate welfare.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

You're desperately trying to change the subject from Occasional Cortex's rank stupidity to crony corporatism...And you're failing.

Just STFU and start a thread on crony corporatism, if that's what you want to bellyache about.