Can we all agree Ocasio-Cortez is fencepost dumb or nuts?

This is a great example of what I'm talking about.

Today she claimed re the tax incentives offered to Amazon: “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."

See, now either she's aware she's lying her ass off, or she's dumber than a fencepost.

B/c tax incentives are monies you don't charge someone in taxes, i.e. they get a tax break versus what they would normally pay as incentive to come to a certain area. But you aren't giving them money from somewhere else, you're simply not charging them full price. The incentive money doesn't exist. It's revenue you don't take from a company coming and bringing jobs and revenue you can then tax. You just don't tax it as much.

Now I'm confident that explanation isn't necessary for a single person on this board.

It's obvious stuff really, I think we'd all agree. So either she's full of crap, using this as a way to convince people who have no clue on Earth about anything that she's really doing a good thing for them, or she really thinks she's doing a good thing.

The reality is that Amazon was going to bring so much money to the area they were willing to not charge them full rate.

this is a normal business practice. Lots and lots of businesses offer discounts on rates for volume or higher dollar business. AOC, having never actually done anything in business ever, of course doesn't know this is normal practice and a smart one.

So is she knowingly spewing this nonsense or is she just that stupid?

I've not read this thread so apologies if this is a different direction.

But AOC has convinced one of the most hardcore democrats I've ever known to start leaning toward to the republican party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Today she claimed re the tax incentives offered to Amazon: “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."

See, now either she's aware she's lying her ass off, or she's dumber than a fencepost.

---

Dumber than a fence post.

Granted, the 3 billion looks really bad as most do not understand what you explained IMO. And even to me, 3 billion seems like quite a break to Amazon. But still: 25,000 jobs is 25,000 jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KentuckyWildcat

Dumber than a fence post.

Granted, the 3 billion looks really bad as most do not understand what you explained IMO. And even to me, 3 billion seems like quite a break to Amazon. But still: 25,000 jobs is 25,000 jobs.

---

It's a big break, but New York (albeit likely with padded numbers) was estimating something like $27 billion in added tax revenue from Amazon's presence. So you're kicking in $3 billion to basically fund them building their campus, but then they have a huge cost of exit in the area and you are getting all that tax revenue on the salaries and multipliers.

And you aren't actually spending $3 billion. You're just getting $27 billion from them and the move rather than $30 billion.

Now those numbers are likely generous as the politicians in Albany wanted the deal, but it was still going to be a boon for that area.

People did the same thing to Martha Lane when she went after Toyota in Georgetown. People made the same argument against giving tax breaks to a wealthy company. Now Georgetown and that area has gone from a sleepy bedroom community of Lexington to an active town, and dozens of other companies sprang up to support Toyota, if not hundreds.

Over the years that move has paid back huge for Kentucky b/c it's not like Toyota will just up and move the plant on a whim. The provided thousands of good reliable jobs, they donate millions to local groups, the multiplier effect for Kentucky tax revenue has been 10s if not 100s of millions over these years.

The idea New York was raising $3 billion and just giving it to Bezos is a complete falsehood. Everything she said was wrong.

And I'm with you, I think she just may be that stupid, which maybe makes her more dangerous than if she was just a conman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

It's a big break, but New York (albeit likely with padded numbers) was estimating something like $27 billion in added tax revenue from Amazon's presence. So you're kicking in $3 billion to basically fund them building their campus, but then they have a huge cost of exit in the area and you are getting all that tax revenue on the salaries and multipliers

---

You take the deal for 25,000 jobs if the estimated revenue was 1/3 of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KentuckyWildcat

I've not read this thread so apologies if this is a different direction.

But AOC has convinced one of the most hardcore democrats I've ever known to start leaning toward to the republican party.

---

Are you talking about Nancy, Chuck or Barrach?

This situation is replicating itself in California too. Illinois faces it as well. Taxing business out of your state....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KentuckyWildcat

Dumber than a fence post.

Granted, the 3 billion looks really bad as most do not understand what you explained IMO. And even to me, 3 billion seems like quite a break to Amazon. But still: 25,000 jobs is 25,000 jobs.

---

The point is that the money was not money lost. NY didn't have the 3 billion to spend other places because they didn't have the 3 billion to start with. The money was in tax breaks and the idea that it was the already NY's money. NY never had that money, and you can't spend money you don't have......well, the government can....but you can't suggest that the money we don't have would have been spent elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

This situation is replicating itself in California too. Illinois faces it as well. Taxing business out of your state....

---

and if things continue, we will be taxing the "they don't pay their fair share" rich out of the country. See where that gets us.

and just more dumbness

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...to-berlin-wall

Of course I knew eventually some democrat was going here, just waiting to see which one.

I truly believe the progressive left will split the Democratic Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

and just more dumbness

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...to-berlin-wall

Of course I knew eventually some democrat was going here, just waiting to see which one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

and just more dumbness

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...to-berlin-wall

Of course I knew eventually some democrat was going here, just waiting to see which one.

---

Big difference between walls meant to keep people in and walls meant to keep people out. Not that many don't miss such minor details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

I truly believe the progressive left will split the Democratic Party.

---

I honestly hope so b/c the alternative is them following along down the road to what has unveiled itself this year to be unbridled socialism, and in combination with the social justice warriors and PC police will end up being some kind of Maoist communism.

I keep hoping for a 90 degree rotation in political parties in this country, where we get one that is "out of my wallet and my bedroom", i.e. real Libertarianism. A majority of americans still generally feel that way, but they have no political home. I know many hard core Democrats who would vote GOP if not for social issues such as abortion. A true party of limited government, where states decide social issues and the feds provide for defense and foreign policy and that's it, would win a lot of elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Big difference between walls meant to keep people in and walls meant to keep people out. Not that many don't miss such minor details.

---

And its funny that a socialist would miss that distinction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

And its funny that a socialist would miss that distinction

---

it has a certain delicious irony that they reference a wall put up by a socialist nation to keep people from fleeing en masse to a capitalist one. One people tried to cross anyway under pain of death their lives were so relatively worse off under socialism.

It's secondarily delicious irony that part of why their lives were so bad is that socialist nations are also the least "green" of any countries, routinely polluting their nations to the bring of the abyss due to the lack of wealth creation it takes to be able to expend on environmental protections.

The worst polluters in the US and worldwide are government or government protected entities. The burn pits of the military, the water poisoning, the Oak Ridge facility, Area 51, you name it. Companies have done bad things too, but the difference is those companies are then liable for billions in damages. There is at least some level of accountability. Ask folks in the military how those lawsuits over Agent Orange and burn pits are going.

Ask East Germans how nice that river was in Berlin before the fall of that wall. Ask the Chinese about the air in Bejing, or how the natural resources of Venezuela are being treated right now.

Idiots. The empirical evidence is in. We have had 50-70 year experiments with government control, and matching experiments in free markets over the same time period. Neither proved to be utopia or perfect, but a clear winner in terms of standard of living, freedom and even environmental quality emerged and it wasn't the bill of goods they are selling.

If we had a train that could get me from Fort Lauderdale to Las Vegas in 8 hours for $400, great. I'm fine with that but when it 2 days and $800, not so much, especially when British Airways, Air France, Quantas, Air Lingus, Qutar Air, etc are all flying around the earth, and Americans are taking a train to Montreal so they can catch a plane to an international destination

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

A true party of limited government, where states decide social issues and the feds provide for defense and foreign policy and that's it, would win a lot of elections.

---

Agreed it would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Agreed it would.

---

And it's what the FOunders intended. Even in their day some states were more conservative on social issues, some more liberal on other issues. It never mattered to the federal government b/c it wasn't their job.

It didn't mean there weren't huge battles. The battles over slavery and tariffs came together to cause a Civil War, but we'd be better off IMO letting things get settled at the state level as much as possible, and focus the national party on a limited government, live and let live platform.

It's not perfect, but it would better reflect the nation, and give us a chance to come together on things we can, and agree to disagree but not force ourselves on each other on things on which we disagree.

Funny you mention tariffs. Most folks don’t know, or even acknowledge that triggered much of the Civil War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

And it's what the FOunders intended. Even in their day some states were more conservative on social issues, some more liberal on other issues. It never mattered to the federal government b/c it wasn't their job.

It didn't mean there weren't huge battles. The battles over slavery and tariffs came together to cause a Civil War, but we'd be better off IMO letting things get settled at the state level as much as possible, and focus the national party on a limited government, live and let live platform.

It's not perfect, but it would better reflect the nation, and give us a chance to come together on things we can, and agree to disagree but not force ourselves on each other on things on which we disagree.

---

And the economic illiteracy of AOC chased Amazon’s HQ from NYC along with its $1B impact per year. She feels the $3B incentive the state of NY was giving should be spent on every socialist wet dream under the sun. She (and many of her thinking)fail to realize there is no $3B in the coffers waiting to be giving. The best explanation I can give for it is like a coupon the state of NY had given to Amazon for the tax rate to be less than retail in exchange for relocation over a 25 year span.

$90 trillion for the green new deal is “soo many sweet potato cubes”.

$600,000 per household.....let that sink in a bit....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

$90 trillion for the green new deal is “soo many sweet potato cubes”.

---

Initially it was 9 trillion. I laughed at that suggestion.

Funny that spending $9,000,000,000,000 to $92,000,000,000,000 is something the democrats get behind and support, but think $1,600,000,000 is too much to spend on a wall... or at least that is ONE of their arguments. That is 0.0018%...because democrats are so fiscally responsible. :sCo_huhsign:

You can give me $600,000 and I’ll take care of all you need and have some left over.....

For $92 Trillion we could probably put it into R&D and invent cold fusion or warp reactors or something and end the limitation on resources altogether.

You mean rebuilding or retrofitting every single home and business in America to be green might cost something? Huh.. Never would have made the connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

And I'm with you, I think she just may be that stupid, which maybe makes her more dangerous than if she was just a conman.

---

I have decided that you owe all of my fence posts an apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KentuckyWildcat

I have decided that you owe all of my fence posts an apology.

---

At least fence posts are useful. You have a point.

I am not sure how dumb she is, but it is obvious to me that she believes the sheep are easily duped...................

The piece mentioned the New York Democrat’s call in January for more sustainable energy solutions: "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” she said at the time.


report accuses her of 'Green New Deal' hypocrisy

Economics major from Boston University.....let that sink in in too..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

Economics major from Boston University.....let that sink in in too..

---

What she knows about economics wouldn't fill a thimble. Tells you a lot about the state of education these days.

Micro is I imagine still largely OK, but macroeconomics has long been filled with clever idiots. People who forget that economics is the study of how individuals react and behave, and that all macro movements are a function of micro behaviors and decisions.

Now she is forced to take plastic bags at the grocery. Forced!

but potentially she thinks like a politician where the laws are suggestion for them. I hope the new AG goes after her campaign finance issue as hard as the left is going at Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

I am not sure how dumb she is, but it is obvious to me that she believes the sheep are easily duped...................

The piece mentioned the New York Democrat’s call in January for more sustainable energy solutions: "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” she said at the time.


report accuses her of 'Green New Deal' hypocrisy

---

If it really is 12 years, lets just party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

If it really is 12 years, lets just party.

---

She didn't happen to give us an exact date, right? Is so, can we change the "debt clock" above to the "end of the world/ apocalypse" countdown? I need to start on my bucket list now.

Oh, and where is the actual science to support this?

My mortgage companies are gonna be so mad. The lack of morality and personal responsibility all makes sense if the world IS gonna end in 12 years. Why aren’t we all wearing a duck suit and drunk on a beach somewhere? I am waiting for one of those Hollywood jerks to sell me their millions of dollars beachfront house for pennies because it is about to dive dive dive

Told you she was dumb as a fence post:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ale...-out-of-office

Socialism: the stupid leading the blind.

The gift that keeps on giving lol

This is an oldie but a goodie, remembered it b/c it was mentioned in that article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.e481fd3722b1

“$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.”
— Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), in a tweet, Dec. 2, 2018

Of course the Pentagon annual budget is around $600 billion a year, so if we wiped out the entire US military, the $32T cost is over 10 years, so we could pay for 6T of the 32T if we had NO MILITARY WHATSOEVER.

The article she obviously didn't or couldn't read points out the "missing" $21T is on both sides of the DoD ledger, and includes lots of duplicate budget dollars not being tracked multiple times. The point of the story was that the Pentagon has absolutely horrid bookeeping, but that $21T isn't just money somehow missing or not used or sitting there.

Which is just like her belief that $3B in New York tax breaks to Amazon can now somehow be spent b/c it is apparently in a pot of gold under Gov. Cuomo's mansion.

Seriously, she's an idiot. A complete fool. She doesn't understand the most basic concept of accounting or economics or American history, despite having a degree in the subject.

Which shows how the biggest ripoff in this nation right now is the bill you get for a college education. They're a joke. They turn out people who don't have a clue in the world what is going on and charge you $50K a year in the process.

I started a thread but will delete

She does realize FDR died in office, right? Is a corpse qualified to be president?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez falsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ale...-out-of-office

Harry Truman is sure offended by her lack of knowledge.

Dumb. As. Rock.