XUL said:

Isn't it a little strange

---

Quote:

From the commonwealth of Virginia, it includes:

    Workforce cash grants totaling up to $550 million for the 25,000 new jobs, or $22,000 per new job that's created with a wage of at least $150,000. That's considered the first phase of hiring. Amazon is eligible for another $200 million in grants if it creates an additional 12,850 new jobs beyond the initial 25,000.
    $295 million of nongeneral fund money in infrastructure investments, including new entrances to the Crystal City Metro station and the to-be-built Potomac Yard Metro station, improvements to Route 1, a pedestrian bridge connecting Crystal City and Reagan National Airport and a transitway expansion that serves all of National Landing.

From Arlington County, it includes:

    An annual performance cash grant totaling $23 million across 15 years tied to Amazon's ability to meet office occupancy targets for 6 million square feet in that time. Those funds come from up to 15 percent of the county's Transient Occupancy Tax, which a tourist and traveler tax for rooms or other lodging they rent in local hotels, motels or homes. Five percent of the tax goes to directly to the county's general fund while .25 percent goes to the agency that promotes tourism.
    $28 million in tax-increment financing across a projected 10 years, based on 12 percent of future property tax revenue expected from Amazon. The county said it would use that funding toward improving streetscapes, community parks, on-site infrastructure and open space in National Landing.

---

XUL said:

The Republicans are worse, so it's okay now?

Is that how the Democrat principles work? As long as their trickle down works better than Republicans, it's okay?

Shouldn't you be holding to your principles? Like offering to tax the owner/Amazon most of his income and in return redistributing the money to New Yorkers?

What about building the factory in NY then raising the minimum wage to $30?

---

christopera said:

If you hadn’t made it about Democrats then you could actually use that high road argument, but that’s not what you did.

---

krypto2000 said:

christopera said:

If you hadn’t made it about Democrats then you could actually use that high road argument, but that’s not what you did.

---

Right, fuck off with that XUL. This is a completely bipartisan issue and you're trying to spin it. Why do you only care about the NY deal where it involves a democrat and none of the others that involve republicans?

---

koods said:

Don’t waste your time. You already lost this one. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

---

koods said:

CNN is fake news

---

VroomerMcZoomers said:

The Democrats are pretty much as shameless as the Republicans  when it comes to shovelling public money into the hands of the rich.

Democrats are the party of the ruling class that lets gay people get married.  This latest excess from the nanny state is not surprising.

The other party of the ruling class plays off of religious nonsense to get people to vote for elitist bullshit.

---

Here here. 

Xul, I think you see that no Democrat here supports corporate welfare.  We need to continue to vote out corporate democrats in favor of more progressive ones.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

VroomerMcZoomers said:

The Democrats are pretty much as shameless as the Republicans  when it comes to shovelling public money into the hands of the rich.

Democrats are the party of the ruling class that lets gay people get married.  This latest excess from the nanny state is not surprising.

The other party of the ruling class plays off of religious nonsense to get people to vote for elitist bullshit.

---

Here here. 

Xul, I think you see that no Democrat here supports corporate welfare.  We need to continue to vote out corporate democrats in favor of more progressive ones.

---

XUL said:

Isn't it a little strange how democrat leaders would love to help out a corporate powerhouse by giving them billions of dollars in tax breaks? What about principle, anti-1%, and anti-tax cuts?

"New York promised Amazon $1.525 billion in incentives, including $1.2 billion over the next 10 years as part of the state’s Excelsior tax credit. The state also pledged to help Amazon with infrastructure upgrades, job-training programs and even assistance “securing access to a helipad” — none of which came with a price tag."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/business/economy/amazon-hq2-va-long-island-city-incentives.amp.html

---

Quote:

If the Democrats continue on this path, we will see more Communist-like candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have little to no real world experience, winning elections based exclusively on emotionally charged rhetoric. This would be terrible for the US economy.

---

BlasphemousNoob said:

Republicans and Democrats fall over each other trying to be the first in line to get on their knees for big corporations. A company like Amazon that is valued at almost $1 trillion does not need a mere $4 or 5 billion in tax breaks. In fact, they should be taxed more not less.

If the Democrats continue on this path, we will see more Communist-like candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have little to no real world experience, winning elections based exclusively on emotionally charged rhetoric. This would be terrible for the US economy.

---

VroomerMcZoomers said:

Quote:

If the Democrats continue on this path, we will see more Communist-like candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have little to no real world experience, winning elections based exclusively on emotionally charged rhetoric. This would be terrible for the US economy.

---

Yes.  Fixing problems makes them worse.

---

qman said:

BlasphemousNoob said:

Republicans and Democrats fall over each other trying to be the first in line to get on their knees for big corporations. A company like Amazon that is valued at almost $1 trillion does not need a mere $4 or 5 billion in tax breaks. In fact, they should be taxed more not less.

If the Democrats continue on this path, we will see more Communist-like candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have little to no real world experience, winning elections based exclusively on emotionally charged rhetoric. This would be terrible for the US economy.

---

You don't think she's not already bought and paid for by the corporate sponsors?  "Liberals" sellout real easy when it comes to their own well-being.

---

BlasphemousNoob said:

Republicans and Democrats fall over each other trying to be the first in line to get on their knees for big corporations. A company like Amazon that is valued at almost $1 trillion does not need a mere $4 or 5 billion in tax breaks. In fact, they should be taxed more not less.

---

Well said. 

BlasphemousNoob said:

Cortez couldn't even answer a simple question on how she expects the US government to pay for the Medicare for all plan she supports except to say we will "just pay for it" since she says it's cheaper than what we have now (spoiler: it's not).

---

1.  Bernie figured out one way to pay for it:  impose a 2.2% income tax on everyone.  That actually saves the bottom 95% of the country money on their health insurance.  And if the bottom 95% can afford it, the top 5% certainly can afford a 2.2% tax.  It's not even a progressive tax.
2.  It would be a LOT cheaper per person.  We'd no longer have to pay for the uninsured, we'd no longer have to pay for profit private health insurance companies, and we'd get discounts due to significant negotiating power.

Please tell us why you think it would cost more.  That makes no sense to me. 

BlasphemousNoob said:

I see Cortez as another Bernie Sanders. She'll be in Congress 30+ years and won't change a thing, but she will say the right things election time to get reelected.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

1.  Bernie figured out one way to pay for it:  impose a 2.2% income tax on everyone.  That actually saves the bottom 95% of the country money on their health insurance.  And if the bottom 95% can afford it, the top 5% certainly can afford a 2.2% tax.  It's not even a progressive tax.
2.  It would be a LOT cheaper per person.  We'd no longer have to pay for the uninsured, we'd no longer have to pay for profit private health insurance companies, and we'd get discounts due to significant negotiating power.

Please tell us why you think it would cost more.  That makes no sense to me. 

---

Quote:

Almost half of Americans don't pay income tax because they either don't make enough or don't make anything at all. If half the country isn't paying this 2.2% income tax increase

---

BlasphemousNoob said:

...the millionaires/billionaires, they will still be able to hire the best accountants and get all their tax breaks. It will be workers like me who make above the poverty line, and the tax hike will be far greater than the 2.2% Sanders proposed since I'd be making up for everyone not paying.

---

BlasphemousNoob said:

The only way we could make it work is if everyone paid 2.2% regardless of income and possibly raising sales tax to make up for those who make nothing. The money has to come from somewhere, but you can't expect the top 50% of earners to pay 100% of the cost.

---

BlasphemousNoob said:

...the millionaires/billionaires, they will still be able to hire the best accountants and get all their tax breaks. It will be workers like me who make above the poverty line, and the tax hike will be far greater than the 2.2% Sanders proposed since I'd be making up for everyone not paying.

---

BlasphemousNoob said:

The only way we could make it work is if everyone paid 2.2% regardless of income and possibly raising sales tax to make up for those who make nothing. The money has to come from somewhere, but you can't expect the top 50% of earners to pay 100% of the cost.

---

VroomerMcZoomers said:

BlasphemousNoob said:

Almost half of Americans don't pay income tax because they either don't make enough or don't make anything at all. If half the country isn't paying this 2.2% income tax increase

---

Bernie Sanders knew that a 2.2% tax on 0 is 0.  He didn't think that a flat income tax was going to collect money from people who have no income.

---

Exactly. 

Quote:

  People making only $14,000/year would pay about $26 bucks a month for excellent coverage.  It's a bargain.

---

koods said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Bernie figured out one way to pay for it:  impose a 2.2% income tax on everyone.

---

On taxable income or actual income?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BlasphemousNoob said:

Cortez couldn't even answer a simple question on how she expects the US government to pay for the Medicare for all plan she supports except to say we will "just pay for it" since she says it's cheaper than what we have now (spoiler: it's not).

---

1.  Bernie figured out one way to pay for it:  impose a 2.2% income tax on everyone.  That actually saves the bottom 95% of the country money on their health insurance.  And if the bottom 95% can afford it, the top 5% certainly can afford a 2.2% tax.  It's not even a progressive tax.
2.  It would be a LOT cheaper per person.  We'd no longer have to pay for the uninsured, we'd no longer have to pay for profit private health insurance companies, and we'd get discounts due to significant negotiating power.

Please tell us why you think it would cost more.  That makes no sense to me. 

---

koods said:

Dental isn’t covered in American health plans. It is a separate deal.
Covering the rest of the population probably costs less than double what it currently costs. 65+ people use a lot of medical resources.

---

Quote:

There is no personal exemption anymore. That was phased out in Trumps tax bill.

---

koods said:

So a payroll tax similar to the way FICA works

Except payroll taxes don’t apply to other kinds of income... so maybe not

---

krypto2000 said:

The Koch brothers ran a study to try to discredit medicare for all. Their conclusion of the study? "Medicare for all would cost us 30 trillion over the next decade!" (I made that specific number up as I do not remember the actual cost). They then ran tv ads and right wing news outlets ran with it. What did they not mention that their very study concluded in black and white? Our current system will cost 34 trillion over the next 10 years. Don't let facts get in the way of a good talking point though am I right?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

The Koch brothers ran a study to try to discredit medicare for all. Their conclusion of the study? "Medicare for all would cost us 30 trillion over the next decade!" (I made that specific number up as I do not remember the actual cost). They then ran tv ads and right wing news outlets ran with it. What did they not mention that their very study concluded in black and white? Our current system will cost 34 trillion over the next 10 years. Don't let facts get in the way of a good talking point though am I right?

---

You're about right:

Bernie’s "Medicare for All" predicted to cost nearly $33 trillion

---

Bigbadwooof said:

$4 Trillion in savings is nothing to scoff at. Thank god we have level headed, rational, fiscally responsible conservatives to make these sort of bold moves, and pass the savings on to average Joe.

That was a great thread discussion you linked to, Falcon.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Wow... imagine how many wars we could fund with that kind of dough!

---

That's how you sell Medicare for All to conservatives. 

koods said:

Getting people killed before they get old and sick is the best way save money

---