Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Narcissus ShruggedApple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives
We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?
So don't give them incentives , guess you don't like jobs and revenue.
You must be one of the few Koch paid posters left.
Apple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives
We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?
Only a liberal would call tax breaks a subsidy as if the government has a right to any amount of money an individual or company makes. I'm no economist but more people working means more people paying taxes means more revenue. Liberals had rather see people on welfare than a company get a tax break and create jobs. Its fucking disgusting.Apple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives
We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?
"We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"
Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?
The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies."We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"
Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?
Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.
Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?
The problem is there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies."We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection"
Where was this enthusiasm when the Obama administration was giving actual subsidies in the billions to the solar industry ?
Much of it was here. I've been making the same argument for years.
Building millionaire playgrounds is immoral, but pitting one group of citizens over the other is even more immoral. If you want a tax paid stadium and put it to a vote, fine with me, but let the taxation be on everybody--not just political enemies.
Agreed.
Of course, this contradicts your earlier posts in this thread, but hey - it's Hypocrisy Day on USMB! Let's all celebrate!
How did it contradict my earlier post?
I'm not going to chase you around the mulberry bush of equivocation and denial, but it seems you're fine with welfare as long as it's going to people you like.
Sorry, never collected welfare in my life.
Very nearby my home, Amazon is taking the land of one of our closed down malls and creating a state of the art distribution center. When it first opened in the 70's, it was the largest mall in the entire US.
I pay property taxes, and I'm probably paying a higher rate of tax than Amazon. I don't care because it doesn't affect me. I could care less if Amazon pays no property taxes. They are bringing technology and jobs to the area, so that's good for all of us. If they decide not to build there, I'm still paying the same rate of property taxes as if they would build there.
Amazon is not opening that place out of the goodness of their heart.
"They are providing jobs". No , we the consumers are providing jobs because amazon sells their crap to us .
But the cons never want to cut the working stiff consumers a break, those breaks go to the big corporation coming to town who IRONICALLY will be using up our roads and other public services .
Why should my taxes enable you to play slave wages ?You have no business now Ray. Your people all work for me rather than starve whilst working for you.I don't know about where you live, but in the USA, people have choices. You have the choice to make crap money, you have the choice to become middle-class, you have the choice to do better if you really desire.
As for business, many don't have the choice of paying a living wage. If they pay their employees a living wage, their competitors who don't pay a living wage will put them out of business.
You and I both own widget factories. In my factory, I pay my employees only what they are worth. In your factory, you pay your employees much more than they are worth. Because of my lower labor costs, I can sell more of my widgets than you. After a while, I start taking your customers away because my product costs less than yours. If you allow that to continue, I eventually put you out of business.That's the way it works.
As for the worker, we are only worth what an employer can find somebody else to do the exact same job for with the exact same quality. If you stock shelves for a living, anybody can do that job, so your worth to employer is very little since he (or she) can find anybody to do that job. If you want to make yourself worth more money, you need to be able to do a job that less people can do. The less people that can do a particular job, the more money you can make doing that job. That's why engineers, registered nurses, architects, computer IT people make much more than a living wage. They got training and experience to do jobs many others cannot do.
Ok Ray, lets just expand your analogy here. Rays Crazy Widgets are able to pay less because the government will subsidise their low wages through some form of welfare. The employee still gets x amount.
Because of this crafty Ray can undercut Tommys Top Widgets because Tommy is a good employer and pays a decent wage without government subsidies.
So Tommy can either go bust and Ray can pick up his business or he can follow Ray and pick up some corporate welfare.
The government has created a distorted market and penalised the good employer. If they refused to subsidise Ray then he would have to raise his wages as nobody would work for him.
And that's the way it should be. Government should only pass out social goodies to those who were responsible enough to not put themselves in a bad position in life, but somehow ended up there through no fault of their own.
I'm the employer. I have nothing to do with social programs. It's none of my business. Those programs are between my employee and the government--not between me and the government. I could care less if my employees are on social programs or not.
If we did get rid of social programs, then my employees would want to work more hours, and that's good for me since I would not have to hire more workers.
If that were the case all jobs would pay "living" wage, now wouldn't they?
But the truth is people do take lower paying jobs all the time. If your factory is 60 miles from mine, nobody is going to travel that far every morning to work at yours.
Depends on whether or not they can tell the difference between welfare and investment.
Afraid to answer? How do you see it?
You didn't ask a question of me.
I can tell the difference between welfare and an investment. It's really easy to tell the difference.
You're almost as good as waffling and equivocation as our Dear Leader.
It's ok. I understand why you don't want to answer. It's Hypocrisy Day!
It's OK. I understand why you can't tell that I did. It's your usual stupidity.
Yeah. I'm pretty dim.
Alright, I'll play your little game. Do you support the corporate welfare posted in the OP? Yes or no please, no more equivocation.
I am not real thrilled about tax credits, subsidies, and abatements to entice corps to build a factory somewhere, especially at the federal level but sometimes maybe it's the right thing to do. You want that factory in Iowa or do you want it in Mexico, or maybe not exist at all? To me it comes down to economic sense, for those who are paying for whatever the incentives are. Never mind the political crap, is the deal going to make financial sense over the long run or not? Or its it political payola to the well-connected of one person or party at the expense of everyone else? We elect our political leaders to do what's best for all of us, and it's on us to kick their sorry asses out of office if they don't.
This particular deal in Iowa is mostly about tax abatements, approx $10 mil/yr for 20 years. Over the short term, maybe not so good but long term? What if it drives up the local economies and associated employment beyond what the company itself provides? Presumably this deal was approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor, and unless some illegal methods or payments were used to get the deal done then I got no problem with what Iowa does with it's state revenue. But I would also say that no federal money ought to be part of the deal.
Sure, because not every place is business suitable, therefore cities and states have to find a way to draw businesses there somehow.
Ever hear of the Farm Bill ?
Yep. Another abysmal example of corporatism.
The farm bill started in helping family farms, but thanks to Republicans it's morphed into a huge corporate loophole.
It's a common pattern. Democrats propose laws that expand government; and Republicans show us why it was a bad idea.
Republicans show us why it was a bad idea by morphing it to expand corporate profits while screwing workers and consumers?
Government screws workers and consumers, not capitalism. Just look at all the immigrants government is importing into the country. Everyone of them takes an American job. You can't screw the American worker any worse than that.
Sure, because not every place is business suitable, therefore cities and states have to find a way to draw businesses there somehow.
Do you think encouraging businesses to move to a place that's not business suitable is a good idea?
There's no such thing as corporate welfare.
Ever hear of the Farm Bill ?
Yep. Another abysmal example of corporatism.
The farm bill started in helping family farms, but thanks to Republicans it's morphed into a huge corporate loophole.
When did that happen and why didn't the Democratic congress and Democratic president change it back in 2009?
How did it "eat itself?" Capitalism produced all the miracles Americans enjoyed at the turn of the century. The automobile, electric lights, refrigeration, telephone, radio.Thats just your prejudice at work.
When capitalism fails, as it does every few years, there needs to be a safety net for those who are the victims.
If you cant see that then I truly wonder.
Look at it this way. You arent going to sit back and watch your kids starve so society needs to provide or face the consequences.
Capitalism never fails. Government is what fails.
Capitalism eats itself if unchecked . We've seen that in the early 1900s .
Competition is central to capitalism. Yet every business seeks to eliminate competition. When they succeed , capitalism collapses .
Capitalism is also a situation where people take advantage of breaks that allow them to capitalize.
How did it "eat itself?" Capitalism produced all the miracles Americans enjoyed at the turn of the century. The automobile, electric lights, refrigeration, telephone, radio.Capitalism never fails. Government is what fails.
Capitalism eats itself if unchecked . We've seen that in the early 1900s .
Competition is central to capitalism. Yet every business seeks to eliminate competition. When they succeed , capitalism collapses .
Capitalism is also a situation where people take advantage of breaks that allow them to capitalize.
Wouldn't that be Unchecked Capitalism? A perfect example of the healthcare insurance/health provider monopoly.
Ever hear of the Farm Bill ?
Yep. Another abysmal example of corporatism.
The farm bill started in helping family farms, but thanks to Republicans it's morphed into a huge corporate loophole.
It's a common pattern. Democrats propose laws that expand government; and Republicans show us why it was a bad idea.
Republicans show us why it was a bad idea by morphing it to expand corporate profits while screwing workers and consumers?
Exactly, yes! Democrats seem to imagine only their heroes running things when they vote to expand government power. But then Republicans take over and use the power for their own ends. What the hell did the Democrats think would happen?
Welfare is a necessity for when capitalism fails.Welfare is when the government takes money from working people and hands it out to people who dont work. Its that simple. Now you can add all the adjectives you want..."corporate" or whatever. Different animal. But I dont think the confusion liberals try to sow with it work anymore. Since Obama came into office welfare spending (look up welfare at Wikipedia if you still dont know what it is) has risen 25% to over 900,000,000,000. LINK That is a lot of zeros. How to do it? Well for eight years you fund your pet liberals in corporations...then you whine that "corporate welfare" means you cant stop the welfare spending. neat trick!
Doesn't matter if liberal at Apple got some money, or Tunisia, or the National Weather Service. Welfare is breaking us. And there is no connection. If you want to cut welfare there is no tie to cutting off sewer funding to insurance agencies in Omaha. It is a liberal scam. "We cant cut welfare because "fill in the blank" welfare....
Bogus.
But more than that it ensures that Democrats can continue their handouts to corporations. it makes corporations complicit in the general theft. To lose that straw man "corporate welfare" would be catastrophic for corp[orate boards, democrat politicians and welfare vote farms.
Welfare is a necessity when people fail--not capitalism.
Welfare is necessary when employers don't pay a living wage.
Why is welfare needed because of what employers pay? Welfare is a benefit to individuals--not employers.
How did it become the employers responsibility to provide a living wage to employees who's work is not worth a living wage? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the employee?
I have some very disappointing news for you. People do not start businesses to pay a living wage. They do not start (or maintain) a business to provide great benefits. People start companies to create a product or service for profit. That's where their responsibility ends. If government decides to subsidize people for being failures in life, that's not the fault of the employers--that's the fault of our government and people who become slaves to the government.
