Corporate welfare in action ....

[The Sage of Main Street]

Preppy Progues

To those who look backstage at the drama, this is more proof that Social Justice Warlords are vindictive self-obsessed brats, who, like Bill Ayers, are acting out an adolescent hatred of their CEO fathers. They look at only how the hated upper management will benefit and not on how many jobs Apple will bring to Iowa. It's all about a struggle at the top; the rest of us don't count.

WTF?

The Snob-Mob Blob

F is the problem. The slime given birth to by the GreedHeads' slutty trophy wives oozes Right or Left and in between, controlling the whole political spectrum after it coagulates.

 

[Brain357]

I had no idea you loved government so much. You think they can pick winners. Very funny.

You want Apple to invest $1.4 billion in your community or not? It seems obvious that your hatred of corporations trumps common sense.

If your taxes are too high then lower them for everybody. Why do you trust government so much?

If you are just going to troll like a punk talk to the hand lib

As long as we are clear that you trust government to pick winners and losers. Way better than a free market eh?

This is an example of the free market, States were competing for this facility based on it's merits, how much more free do you want? You want the States with a competitive disadvantage in labor force, infrastructure and costs to be locked out of the competition because they have no way compete Isn't that how monopolies are made?

You're looking at this deal bassackwards, Apple didn't win and Iowa lose, BOTH sides of the transaction won because they got what they wanted out of the deal at a price that was below the perceived value they received, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't have done the deal.

There is nothing free market about the government picking winners and losers. You think it is all based on the best deal? Or is money just going to the right politicians?

 

[Brain357]

Free market
Google, Apple spend record amounts on lobbying under Trump

 

[dblack]

You're looking at this deal bassackwards, Apple didn't win and Iowa lose, BOTH sides of the transaction won because they got what they wanted out of the deal at a price that was below the perceived value they received, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't have done the deal.

Of course they did! That's the whole point of crony capitalism. Government gets more power, corporations (those in bed with government) get bigger profits. Win/win, right?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Cities and states are not big government.

Yes it is. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Not if you believe in the free market.

Calamity Carly

That's more hypocrisy than I can bear. You private-sector eliists have no problem with HeirDads pre-positioning their sons up halfway to the finish line. And now they even pick their daughters to be winners, which is the real reason they started feminism.

I'm pretty sure you aren't making any sense.

Bootlickers Inhale Bootpolish Fumes


I'm totally sure you understand it perfectly well and are trying to get brownie points with your spoiled-putrid Masters.

Are you on drugs?

Peewee on Your Weewee

I know you are but what am I?

 

[BluesLegend]

Red states get more Federal money then use it to cut deals with corporations, this is unfair to blue states. In reality red states take money from blue states then use the money to screw over blue states.

 

[Papageorgio]

how long does the break for apple last ?

Twenty years.

Apple will leave way before then.

So how is the town going to recoup the government gifts?

50 workers.

If the property is undeveloped and a company builds Offices, the property value would jump to the 10s of millions dollars. You want the full tax on a property worth $500,000 or 29% of the full tax on a property with a 10 million.

That would add a lot more revenue to a small community.

The job of government is to protect our equal rights - NOT to maximize revenues.

I don't disagree with you however, the government is greedy, so they look at the revenue they take in.

I am against corporate welfare and I'm consistent, it seems that others are not. TARP is a prime example both Democrats and Republicans loved TARP. It bailed out banks and auto companies and a host of other big corporations, it picked and choose states on where infrastructure would occur. People lost homes, jobs and on and on, no one mentioned "equal" anything. It was all good because of the "too big to fail" BS.

The largest corporate welfare in the history of the world and both parties loved it, now, we are supposed to be upset by tax abatement's? People need to get a grip.

We should be upset with both.

We aren't no one cared about TARP

how long does the break for apple last ?

Twenty years.

Apple will leave way before then.

So how is the town going to recoup the government gifts?

50 workers.

If the property is undeveloped and a company builds Offices, the property value would jump to the 10s of millions dollars. You want the full tax on a property worth $500,000 or 29% of the full tax on a property with a 10 million.

That would add a lot more revenue to a small community.

The job of government is to protect our equal rights - NOT to maximize revenues.

I don't disagree with you however, the government is greedy, so they look at the revenue they take in.

I am against corporate welfare and I'm consistent, it seems that others are not. TARP is a prime example both Democrats and Republicans loved TARP. It bailed out banks and auto companies and a host of other big corporations, it picked and choose states on where infrastructure would occur. People lost homes, jobs and on and on, no one mentioned "equal" anything. It was all good because of the "too big to fail" BS.

The largest corporate welfare in the history of the world and both parties loved it, now, we are supposed to be upset by tax abatement's? People need to get a grip.

We should be upset with both.

I am upset with both, but the rest of the population picks and chooses where they want to be upset. A lot more were for TARP than tax abatement.

 

[dblack]

Twenty years.

Apple will leave way before then.

So how is the town going to recoup the government gifts?

50 workers.

If the property is undeveloped and a company builds Offices, the property value would jump to the 10s of millions dollars. You want the full tax on a property worth $500,000 or 29% of the full tax on a property with a 10 million.

That would add a lot more revenue to a small community.

The job of government is to protect our equal rights - NOT to maximize revenues.

I don't disagree with you however, the government is greedy, so they look at the revenue they take in.

I am against corporate welfare and I'm consistent, it seems that others are not. TARP is a prime example both Democrats and Republicans loved TARP. It bailed out banks and auto companies and a host of other big corporations, it picked and choose states on where infrastructure would occur. People lost homes, jobs and on and on, no one mentioned "equal" anything. It was all good because of the "too big to fail" BS.

The largest corporate welfare in the history of the world and both parties loved it, now, we are supposed to be upset by tax abatement's? People need to get a grip.

We should be upset with both.

We aren't no one cared about TARP

I certainly did. Many libertarians and independents did.

Twenty years.

Apple will leave way before then.

So how is the town going to recoup the government gifts?

50 workers.

If the property is undeveloped and a company builds Offices, the property value would jump to the 10s of millions dollars. You want the full tax on a property worth $500,000 or 29% of the full tax on a property with a 10 million.

That would add a lot more revenue to a small community.

The job of government is to protect our equal rights - NOT to maximize revenues.

I don't disagree with you however, the government is greedy, so they look at the revenue they take in.

I am against corporate welfare and I'm consistent, it seems that others are not. TARP is a prime example both Democrats and Republicans loved TARP. It bailed out banks and auto companies and a host of other big corporations, it picked and choose states on where infrastructure would occur. People lost homes, jobs and on and on, no one mentioned "equal" anything. It was all good because of the "too big to fail" BS.

The largest corporate welfare in the history of the world and both parties loved it, now, we are supposed to be upset by tax abatement's? People need to get a grip.

We should be upset with both.

I am upset with both, but the rest of the population picks and chooses where they want to be upset. A lot more were for TARP than tax abatement.

Most people seem to be in favor of both, from what I've seen. We need to wake them up.

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder how much in tax incentives US companies get to move to Mexico?

They get a big incentive of paying Mexican taxes instead of America's oppressive 35% corporate income tax.

Nobody pays 35%....

No company in Mexico pays the stated rate either.

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder how much in tax incentives US companies get to move to Mexico?

They get a big incentive of paying Mexican taxes instead of America's oppressive 35% corporate income tax.

I can tell you are not a business owner. I am and pay around 15% after tax deductions and write offs..

Which means you pay 35% on your taxable income. Income is not the same thing as gross revenue, which all you snowflakes keep pretending not to understand.

 

[NightFox]

You're looking at this deal bassackwards, Apple didn't win and Iowa lose, BOTH sides of the transaction won because they got what they wanted out of the deal at a price that was below the perceived value they received, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't have done the deal.

Of course they did! That's the whole point of crony capitalism. Government gets more power, corporations (those in bed with government) get bigger profits. Win/win, right?

Yes, you're right about crony capitalism I hate it as much as you do, however there is no evidence that THIS is a case of crony capitalism, it's a case of a State investing in it's own economic growth & providing immediate jobs, it's also Apple getting the best deal out of all the offers it was considering, which is a win for the people of the Iowa and a win for Apple. That is of course assuming the details of the deal aren't idiotic or there was some collusion between Apple and Iowan politicians going on, which of course there could be but from the story you linked there is no evidence of either.

I've explained why this isn't what you're claiming it is from a number of angles addressing each one of your concerns (protectionism, commerce clause, equal treatment, etc..), all you're doing now is a "it is because I say it is" argument, which accomplishes nothing except distracting from the REAL cases of cronyism and corporate welfare that exist which defeats your purpose.

 

[dblack]

Yes, you're right about crony capitalism I hate it as much as you do, however there is no evidence that THIS is a case of crony capitalism ...

Looks like you have a different definition of crony capitalism. Regardless of which term you use, it's corporations lobbying for, and getting, special favors from government. And it's wrong.

I've explained why this isn't what you're claiming it is from a number of angles addressing each one of your concerns (protectionism, commerce clause, equal treatment, etc..)

You've failed in each attempt. You're welcome to keep trying. But I don't believe, as you seem to, that a government should be run like a business. I don't think government should be preoccupied with maximizing revenues, especially not when it sacrifices equal protection and individual rights to do so. And it's a perfect application of the Commerce Clause. What the states are doing is essentially the flip-side of imposing tariffs to manipulate trade - the exact concern that provoked the founders to write the clause in the first place.

all you're doing now is a "it is because I say it is" argument, which accomplishes nothing except distracting from the REAL cases of cronyism and corporate welfare that exist which defeats your purpose.

No, I'm backing up my claims with arguments and examples. Out of curiosity, what do you imagine my "purpose" to be?

 

[NightFox]

Yes, you're right about crony capitalism I hate it as much as you do, however there is no evidence that THIS is a case of crony capitalism ...

Looks like you have a different definition of crony capitalism. Regardless of which term you use, it's corporations lobbying for, and getting, special favors from government. And it's wrong.

Uh-huh and how exactly does that apply in this case? Where's the lobbying in this case? Where's the special favors? How does Apple offering to accept proposals from various States amount to either of these?

You've failed in each attempt.

I'm still waiting for your reason and evidence based counter arguments to the points I've made once you've put them forth we can determine whose failed and to what degree.

No, I'm backing up my claims with arguments and examples.

All I see is you staggering from one blanket claim to the next with little to no reason or evidence to support it ... for example.

You claimed protectionism, I asked you to explain how this was protection, no response from you.
You claimed commerce clause, I asked you to explain how this infringed upon the commerce clause, no response from you.
You claimed equal protections violation, I explained how this wasn't applicable, no response from you.
You claimed "the state is authorized to build roads. Unless a state switches to socialism, it's not authorized to build computer plants" , I explained that what a state is authorized to do is dictated by that State's Constitution and that roads and this Apple facility both amount to capital investment for the State, no response from you.

You've so far presented a sermon not an argument.

Out of curiosity, what do you imagine my "purpose" to be?

To put forth an argument based on reason and evidence in opposition to crony capitalism and/or corporate welfare, if that's not your purpose, what is it?

 

[Brain357]

Yes, you're right about crony capitalism I hate it as much as you do, however there is no evidence that THIS is a case of crony capitalism ...

Looks like you have a different definition of crony capitalism. Regardless of which term you use, it's corporations lobbying for, and getting, special favors from government. And it's wrong.

Uh-huh and how exactly does that apply in this case? Where's the lobbying in this case? Where's the special favors? How does Apple offering to accept proposals from various States amount to either of these?

You've failed in each attempt.

I'm still waiting for your reason and evidence based counter arguments to the points I've made once you've put them forth we can determine whose failed and to what degree.

No, I'm backing up my claims with arguments and examples.

All I see is you staggering from one blanket claim to the next with little to no reason or evidence to support it ... for example.

You claimed protectionism, I asked you to explain how this was protection, no response from you.
You claimed commerce clause, I asked you to explain how this infringed upon the commerce clause, no response from you.
You claimed equal protections violation, I explained how this wasn't applicable, no response from you.
You claimed "the state is authorized to build roads. Unless a state switches to socialism, it's not authorized to build computer plants" , I explained that what a state is authorized to do is dictated by that State's Constitution and that roads and this Apple facility both amount to capital investment for the State, no response from you.

You've so far presented a sermon not an argument.

Out of curiosity, what do you imagine my "purpose" to be?

To put forth an argument based on reason and evidence in opposition to crony capitalism and/or corporate welfare, if that's not your purpose, what is it?

I agree with him, your arguments fail. The government should not pick winners and losers. Lobbying and getting special deals is not free market. I think you should study free market. Next you will want the gov running Apple.

 

[Brain357]

Yes, you're right about crony capitalism I hate it as much as you do, however there is no evidence that THIS is a case of crony capitalism ...

Looks like you have a different definition of crony capitalism. Regardless of which term you use, it's corporations lobbying for, and getting, special favors from government. And it's wrong.

Uh-huh and how exactly does that apply in this case? Where's the lobbying in this case? Where's the special favors? How does Apple offering to accept proposals from various States amount to either of these?

You've failed in each attempt.

I'm still waiting for your reason and evidence based counter arguments to the points I've made once you've put them forth we can determine whose failed and to what degree.

No, I'm backing up my claims with arguments and examples.

All I see is you staggering from one blanket claim to the next with little to no reason or evidence to support it ... for example.

You claimed protectionism, I asked you to explain how this was protection, no response from you.
You claimed commerce clause, I asked you to explain how this infringed upon the commerce clause, no response from you.
You claimed equal protections violation, I explained how this wasn't applicable, no response from you.
You claimed "the state is authorized to build roads. Unless a state switches to socialism, it's not authorized to build computer plants" , I explained that what a state is authorized to do is dictated by that State's Constitution and that roads and this Apple facility both amount to capital investment for the State, no response from you.

You've so far presented a sermon not an argument.

Out of curiosity, what do you imagine my "purpose" to be?

To put forth an argument based on reason and evidence in opposition to crony capitalism and/or corporate welfare, if that's not your purpose, what is it?

Maybe this will help you, references another deal:
The deal is bad policy because it is loaded with at least $7 million in corporate welfare. It's bad politics because it rhetorically demolishes the crucial distinction between free-market policy on one hand, which benefits all businesses and thus the whole economy, and corporatism on the other, which benefits the big and well-connected.


House Speaker Paul Ryan in 2012 rightly criticized President Obama's industrial policy, which the president peddled as "investment."

Ryan objected, saying, "It's borrowing money and spending money through Washington, picking winners and losers. Spending money on favorite, you know, people like Solyndra or Fisker. Picking winners and losers in the economy through spending, through tax breaks, through regulations does not work."

Ryan was correct. A tax break for Carrier is not laissez-faire economics. Every other company and family in Indiana has to bear a greater share of the state's tax burden. Every company competing with Carrier for sales, capital and other resources, is at a disadvantage because they're paying for the favor Trump and Pence have given Carrier.
Trump's Carrier deal confuses corporate welfare with free markets

 

[Brain357]

Yes, you're right about crony capitalism I hate it as much as you do, however there is no evidence that THIS is a case of crony capitalism ...

Looks like you have a different definition of crony capitalism. Regardless of which term you use, it's corporations lobbying for, and getting, special favors from government. And it's wrong.

Uh-huh and how exactly does that apply in this case? Where's the lobbying in this case? Where's the special favors? How does Apple offering to accept proposals from various States amount to either of these?

You've failed in each attempt.

I'm still waiting for your reason and evidence based counter arguments to the points I've made once you've put them forth we can determine whose failed and to what degree.

No, I'm backing up my claims with arguments and examples.

All I see is you staggering from one blanket claim to the next with little to no reason or evidence to support it ... for example.

You claimed protectionism, I asked you to explain how this was protection, no response from you.
You claimed commerce clause, I asked you to explain how this infringed upon the commerce clause, no response from you.
You claimed equal protections violation, I explained how this wasn't applicable, no response from you.
You claimed "the state is authorized to build roads. Unless a state switches to socialism, it's not authorized to build computer plants" , I explained that what a state is authorized to do is dictated by that State's Constitution and that roads and this Apple facility both amount to capital investment for the State, no response from you.

You've so far presented a sermon not an argument.

Out of curiosity, what do you imagine my "purpose" to be?

To put forth an argument based on reason and evidence in opposition to crony capitalism and/or corporate welfare, if that's not your purpose, what is it?

Maybe this will help you, references another deal:
The deal is bad policy because it is loaded with at least $7 million in corporate welfare. It's bad politics because it rhetorically demolishes the crucial distinction between free-market policy on one hand, which benefits all businesses and thus the whole economy, and corporatism on the other, which benefits the big and well-connected.


House Speaker Paul Ryan in 2012 rightly criticized President Obama's industrial policy, which the president peddled as "investment."

Ryan objected, saying, "It's borrowing money and spending money through Washington, picking winners and losers. Spending money on favorite, you know, people like Solyndra or Fisker. Picking winners and losers in the economy through spending, through tax breaks, through regulations does not work."

Ryan was correct. A tax break for Carrier is not laissez-faire economics. Every other company and family in Indiana has to bear a greater share of the state's tax burden. Every company competing with Carrier for sales, capital and other resources, is at a disadvantage because they're paying for the favor Trump and Pence have given Carrier.
Trump's Carrier deal confuses corporate welfare with free markets

And more from link
When you pick a winner, you automatically pick a thousand losers: smaller companies who lack Carrier's clout, less-connected companies not close to Pence and so on. The economy loses because corporate welfare means politicians rather than markets are deciding the allocation of money and resources. It's the opposite of free market economics.

 

[DOTR]

Who says every other company is?

Cities and states offer abatements to attract businesses. They create jobs and new taxation for the city and state.

They are allowing 71% reduction meaning that they are collecting 29% of taxes they would not otherwise collect if the land were to sit there. That's 2,000 acres that they will be paying that 29% on. That's a hell of a lot of money.

Oh, I see. So just the local mom and pops have to pay the full freight.

That sounds fair...

Sorry, but life isn't fair and neither is taxation.

It is government picking winners and losers, which is completely antithetical to conservatism and libertarianism.

Only a pseudocon would support this kind of government interference and behavioral control in the markets.

Dont lie. Every liberal supports this as well and uses it to make sure welfare is never ever cut.

Only the right wing does that; and they complain about welfare for the poor, in the same breath.

Seems only right the ones paying for welfare should be able to complain about it. No more of this "keep the money coming and keep your mouth shut."

 

[Brain357]

Koch Brother Urges Conservatives to Skip "Corporate Welfare"

He pointed to big banks that took “virtually free money from the Fed” and bailouts in exchange for regulations. “Now, the chickens are coming home to roost,” Koch said. “The Fed is taking control of these banks. The Fed now decides what businesses they can be in and how they run those businesses.” Koch said “regulators, auditors, controllers” are implanted at the banks to keep tabs. The banks, Koch argued, end up making political donations to avoid too much oversight.

Koch warned that other businesses would be next if their leaders continue taking government subsidies. “This means stopping the subsidies, mandates and special privileges for business that enriches the haves at the expense of the have-nots,” Koch said.

 

[DOTR]

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.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Civil servants re the worst possible people to be investing in companies. They have no experience in this area and,in the UK, we see companies given money and go tits up straight away.

Im sort of torn on this issue. I can see the attraction in trying to attract jobs to deprived areas, maybe where the pit has closed.

But then again Apple needed to set up this facility somewhere, and wherever they set up the jobs would have been created.

So in this instance Iowa have spent a big wedge of cash to deprive Illinois some jobs. Makes some sense for Iowa but not for the country overall.

When I set up my business we had meetings with local councils around what help you could get. Any business would be a fool not to. It was an eye opener. So complex and so politically driven. If we set up here we could get this but wouldnt get that and if we set up here then we would be entitled to this.

We walked away in the end because we were expected to attend training courses to teach us things we had been doing for decades.

This deal shows the absolute power of the large corporations. They are able to hold governments over a barrel to get what they want. And if you dont pony up then they will go elsewhere.

And the factor that enables all of this is inequality. If Bangladeshis earned as much as New Yorkers then the corporations threats would carry no weight.

If you have a minute google "de lorean" for a cracking corporate bribe story.