AOC Flunks Economics 101

[georgephillip]

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.

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

Corporations would not even exist without their government charter.
Corporations use the courts far more than the average individual; they should pay the cost for that privilege.
Transnational corporation rely on the US Navy to protect their sham "free trade" economy.

In the 1950s, the corporate income tax was 25% of federal outlay. It is now about 5%. If you compared all corporate income tax paid to all corporate welfare (like Foxconn and Amazon), the aggregate would likely be zero tax paid.

That puts the burden on wage labor, which is exactly what both major political parties have been doing over the last five decades.

Never Trump Establishment Loses Again as MAGA Keeps Rising at Ballot Box | Breitbart

Who got rich from that?

/——-/ Nice attempt to dodge the question and change the subject. I repeat, corporations pass taxes onto the consumer ——in the form of higher prices.

/——-/ Nice attempt to dodge the question and change the subject. I repeat, corporations pass taxes onto the consumer ——in the form of higher prices

So consumers pay corporations a few dollars more for goods and services they buy.

What do they receive in exchange?

Lower taxes.

More public services.

Rich citizens, natural and artificial, don't need more wealth.

They need to pay their fair share of society's opportunity costs.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

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

Corporations would not even exist without their government charter.
Corporations use the courts far more than the average individual; they should pay the cost for that privilege.
Transnational corporation rely on the US Navy to protect their sham "free trade" economy.

In the 1950s, the corporate income tax was 25% of federal outlay. It is now about 5%. If you compared all corporate income tax paid to all corporate welfare (like Foxconn and Amazon), the aggregate would likely be zero tax paid.

That puts the burden on wage labor, which is exactly what both major political parties have been doing over the last five decades.

Never Trump Establishment Loses Again as MAGA Keeps Rising at Ballot Box | Breitbart

Who got rich from that?

/——-/ Nice attempt to dodge the question and change the subject. I repeat, corporations pass taxes onto the consumer ——in the form of higher prices.

/——-/ Nice attempt to dodge the question and change the subject. I repeat, corporations pass taxes onto the consumer ——in the form of higher prices

So consumers pay corporations a few dollars more for goods and services they buy.

What do they receive in exchange?

Lower taxes.

More public services.

Rich citizens, natural and artificial, don't need more wealth.

They need to pay their fair share of society's opportunity costs.

/——-/ I already pay enough for stuff. If you feel so guilty, then write a check to the Treasury Dept every week to pay down the debt.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

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

Corporations would not even exist without their government charter.
Corporations use the courts far more than the average individual; they should pay the cost for that privilege.
Transnational corporation rely on the US Navy to protect their sham "free trade" economy.

In the 1950s, the corporate income tax was 25% of federal outlay. It is now about 5%. If you compared all corporate income tax paid to all corporate welfare (like Foxconn and Amazon), the aggregate would likely be zero tax paid.

That puts the burden on wage labor, which is exactly what both major political parties have been doing over the last five decades.

Never Trump Establishment Loses Again as MAGA Keeps Rising at Ballot Box | Breitbart

Who got rich from that?

/——-/ Nice attempt to dodge the question and change the subject. I repeat, corporations pass taxes onto the consumer ——in the form of higher prices.

/——-/ Nice attempt to dodge the question and change the subject. I repeat, corporations pass taxes onto the consumer ——in the form of higher prices

So consumers pay corporations a few dollars more for goods and services they buy.

What do they receive in exchange?

Lower taxes.

More public services.

Rich citizens, natural and artificial, don't need more wealth.

They need to pay their fair share of society's opportunity costs.

/——/ And where you you get the moral authority to decide how much wealth others can have? I’m sure there are people in 3rd world countries who think you’re filthy stinking rich - by their standards. Send them some money.

 

[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

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.

Awe, sorry but you make no sense. Turning against cronyism is a good thing.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Fail...
US News Best States List: South Carolina Ranks No. 42

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——/ I grew up in upstate SC- Greenville. It was not a backwater deliverance. You don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about. It was the textile center of the world until the IRS and EPA chased the factories overseas. greenville sc textile center of the world at DuckDuckGo

 

[AntonToo]

generating tens of billions in new tax revenue.

Thats total bullshit.

Amazon will move ten more times before it pays hardly any state and local tax on the corporate level and taxes on taxes on their workers will hardly make up all the insfrastructure costs to the state.

 

[Rustic]

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'.

.

 

[Rustic]

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'.

.

You think special tax incentives is good capitalism? You fail economics.

 

[Cellblock2429]

generating tens of billions in new tax revenue.

You are an idiot if you buy that bullshit.

/——/ Stop making excuses for the moron AOC. NY lost out big time.

 

[Brain357]

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'.

.

Still using that even though Hayek would greatly disagree with what Trump is doing? Funny.

 

[Brain357]

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'.

.

You think special tax incentives is good capitalism? You fail economics.

Don't you claim to be a small government conservative? Some wisdom:

 

[Rustic]

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'.

.

Still using that even though Hayek would greatly disagree with what Trump is doing? Funny.

Lol
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing, But the fact remains socialism is an dead end... history has proven that countless times.

 

[danielpalos]

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.



.

the Third World is even Cheaper than red States.

 

[Brain357]

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'.

.

Still using that even though Hayek would greatly disagree with what Trump is doing? Funny.

Lol
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing, But the fact remains socialism is an dead end... history has proven that countless times.

I don't disagree, but special tax deals for big business is much closer to socialism than capitalism.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

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'.

.

You think special tax incentives is good capitalism? You fail economics.

Don't you claim to be a small government conservative? Some wisdom:

 

[Brain357]

And yet so many here on the right trust government to make these special deals with corporations. It's complete nonsense.

 

[Rustic]

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'.

.

Still using that even though Hayek would greatly disagree with what Trump is doing? Funny.

Lol
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing, But the fact remains socialism is an dead end... history has proven that countless times.

I don't disagree, but special tax deals for big business is much closer to socialism than capitalism.

capitalism is the only offset for an overbearing government

 

[Brain357]

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'.

.

You think special tax incentives is good capitalism? You fail economics.

Don't you claim to be a small government conservative? Some wisdom:

Then why in the world would anyone trust government to make these special deals with corporations?