Posted by greeny9 on 9/14/2011 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 9/14/2011 9:14:00 AM (view original):
greeny, I did address that.

The fact is, whether one chooses to believe it or not, is that tax breaks are incentives for companies to expand to some place or keep jobs in one place or another. It happens on the state level all of the time.

One example that comes to mind is Paris-based Gameloft SA, who is about to open a new studio in the US. This will be the 2nd US location for a company that has 24 studios around the globe.

They are opening the new studio in New Orleans, which will really help their economy. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, consideration was the tax incentives offered by the State of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans.

Now there certainly is a lot of corruption all over the corporate world, and there should be more done to curtail it, but tax-based incentives are legitimate and do work.

this will be the 2nd of 24 studios around the globe eh?  imagine that.  I wonder what percentage of Gamelofts sales is in N America, I wonder if its more then 8.33%?  Id guess that its probably about 50%.  So why is it that they dont have 50% of their operations in N America?  Giving a real benefit to the people who are its primary customers?  Car companies have similar restraints in place.  There are many many foreign car companies setting up shop because its a hot button issue amongst consumers.  People want to buy cars that are built in their own country.  Why is it that people are so hot over cars, but when it comes to software or clothing or nearly everything else they dont really care about that?

Im not saying that all manufacturing should happen in N America, but at least close to the proportion that is sold here should be made here by said corporation.

What is so bad about forcing the hands of these mega corporations that pay next to no tax to keep unemployment where they sell their wares.

And like I said in a previous post, if they want the cheaper operating expenses of making stuff in China, then you simply raise the inport duties so that the lost taxes at least come home.

A) foreign automakers setting up shop here for 'feel good' reasons

Or

B) Its for monetary benefits such "As of July 2010, 89 percent of Honda and Acura vehicles sold in the United States were built in North American plants, up from 82.2 percent a year earlier. This shields profits from the yen’s advance to a 15-year high against the dollar."


I'm going with B. That's why we need to seriously incentivise foreign investment here rather than them incentivising or jobs there. Penalizing does not work.... it ignores the fact that this is a global market now with a global workforce to choose from. For example - on a national level - California penalizes businesses, Texas incentivises businesses.... where are the jobs going?

Another consideration is since LBJ started the war on poverty in 1964, we have literally given away over 100 trillion dollars, and the % of poor has remained stagnant over that time period of nearly 50 yrs now.

Let's accept the fact that giving money to people doesn't fix the problem.

Another real life example:

A new section 8 housing development was built, residents were moved out of delapitated housing and put into brand new shiny apts.
Less than 1 yr later the place was a pig-sty and pretty well trashed.

There's isn't usually a sense of pride or a desire to take care of personal belongings unless you had to go out and EARN them.

Posted by philogenemay on 9/15/2011 4:25:00 AM (view original):
Another consideration is since LBJ started the war on poverty in 1964, we have literally given away over 100 trillion dollars, and the % of poor has remained stagnant over that time period of nearly 50 yrs now.

Let's accept the fact that giving money to people doesn't fix the problem.

Another real life example:

A new section 8 housing development was built, residents were moved out of delapitated housing and put into brand new shiny apts.
Less than 1 yr later the place was a pig-sty and pretty well trashed.

There's isn't usually a sense of pride or a desire to take care of personal belongings unless you had to go out and EARN them.

Giving money to the poor isn't designed to "fix" the problem, it's designed to alleviate the problem.

If you want to rail against something, at least understand what it is.

Posted by antonsirius on 9/17/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 9/15/2011 4:25:00 AM (view original):
Another consideration is since LBJ started the war on poverty in 1964, we have literally given away over 100 trillion dollars, and the % of poor has remained stagnant over that time period of nearly 50 yrs now.

Let's accept the fact that giving money to people doesn't fix the problem.

Another real life example:

A new section 8 housing development was built, residents were moved out of delapitated housing and put into brand new shiny apts.
Less than 1 yr later the place was a pig-sty and pretty well trashed.

There's isn't usually a sense of pride or a desire to take care of personal belongings unless you had to go out and EARN them.

Giving money to the poor isn't designed to "fix" the problem, it's designed to alleviate the problem.

If you want to rail against something, at least understand what it is.

Well then that's just plain stupid.  fix the problem.  stop spending more and more money to alleviate it.  just like our borders - fix the problem - stop spending more and more money to alleviate it.

While we are alleviating problems - why not just give 47.7 MILLION people a $10,000 check instead of spending $477 billion on short term jobs?  That $10,000 will alleviate the pains for many more people than the 50,000 or so jobs this thing is supposed to create. 


edit - actually that comment of yours anton is infuriating, yet typical government-think.  Anyone with half a brain can see that 'alleviating' a GROWING problem will mean it will always take more money to continue 'alleviating'.  Yet..... more people dependent on the gov't = more democratic votes.  Sometimes I wonder if they really are trying to help this country.

I wish I could spend money I don't have to 'alleviate' all my problems.  Maybe I'm just jealous.

YES

Posted by moy23 on 9/17/2011 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 9/17/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 9/15/2011 4:25:00 AM (view original):
Another consideration is since LBJ started the war on poverty in 1964, we have literally given away over 100 trillion dollars, and the % of poor has remained stagnant over that time period of nearly 50 yrs now.

Let's accept the fact that giving money to people doesn't fix the problem.

Another real life example:

A new section 8 housing development was built, residents were moved out of delapitated housing and put into brand new shiny apts.
Less than 1 yr later the place was a pig-sty and pretty well trashed.

There's isn't usually a sense of pride or a desire to take care of personal belongings unless you had to go out and EARN them.

Giving money to the poor isn't designed to "fix" the problem, it's designed to alleviate the problem.

If you want to rail against something, at least understand what it is.

Well then that's just plain stupid.  fix the problem.  stop spending more and more money to alleviate it.  just like our borders - fix the problem - stop spending more and more money to alleviate it.

While we are alleviating problems - why not just give 47.7 MILLION people a $10,000 check instead of spending $477 billion on short term jobs?  That $10,000 will alleviate the pains for many more people than the 50,000 or so jobs this thing is supposed to create. 


edit - actually that comment of yours anton is infuriating, yet typical government-think.  Anyone with half a brain can see that 'alleviating' a GROWING problem will mean it will always take more money to continue 'alleviating'.  Yet..... more people dependent on the gov't = more democratic votes.  Sometimes I wonder if they really are trying to help this country.

Why is my comment infuriating, moy? Because I pointed out, yet again, that someone on your side of an argument doesn't seem to know what they're talking about? Because otherwise, you're reading something into it that isn't there.

You're conflating two separate things though, moy.

"Giving money to poor people" (i.e. welfare, food stamps, etc.) is designed to make their lives less ******. Why? Because not everybody is an Objectivist sociopath. Now, if you want to argue about the efficiency of such programs, go ahead. But arguing against their very existence just labels you as someone with zero empathy for his fellow man.

Job-creation stimulus programs are not "giving money to poor people" though. That is something designed to fix the problem, by getting people back into the work force and onto a path towards not needing government assistance any more. Is it the most efficient way to create jobs and get people back into the work force? **** no. I'd much rather the private sector be creating those jobs. But when they aren't - and right now it's an indisputable fact that the private sector is not creating jobs in anywhere near the numbers we need - then I'd rather the government do it than nobody.

I never claimed to have any empathy for my 'fellow' man... especially when they are mooching off me. I earn my money and I like to horde it. I live by the mantra that one can never save enough (because inevitably something that costs money will come up). Unfortunately Democrats TAKE my money and squander it on poorly run/high fraud welfare, social security, and healthcare programs.

And I know the political difference between giving money to the poor and the 'proposed' job stimulus ..... that doesnt change the fact they are both costly band aids that don't solve a problem. Nothing permanent ..... that's why I said giving $10k to 47,700,000 people would go a lot farther than $477 billion to create 50,000 TEMPORARY jobs.

Posted by antonsirius on 9/17/2011 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/17/2011 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 9/17/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 9/15/2011 4:25:00 AM (view original):
Another consideration is since LBJ started the war on poverty in 1964, we have literally given away over 100 trillion dollars, and the % of poor has remained stagnant over that time period of nearly 50 yrs now.

Let's accept the fact that giving money to people doesn't fix the problem.

Another real life example:

A new section 8 housing development was built, residents were moved out of delapitated housing and put into brand new shiny apts.
Less than 1 yr later the place was a pig-sty and pretty well trashed.

There's isn't usually a sense of pride or a desire to take care of personal belongings unless you had to go out and EARN them.

Giving money to the poor isn't designed to "fix" the problem, it's designed to alleviate the problem.

If you want to rail against something, at least understand what it is.

Well then that's just plain stupid.  fix the problem.  stop spending more and more money to alleviate it.  just like our borders - fix the problem - stop spending more and more money to alleviate it.

While we are alleviating problems - why not just give 47.7 MILLION people a $10,000 check instead of spending $477 billion on short term jobs?  That $10,000 will alleviate the pains for many more people than the 50,000 or so jobs this thing is supposed to create. 


edit - actually that comment of yours anton is infuriating, yet typical government-think.  Anyone with half a brain can see that 'alleviating' a GROWING problem will mean it will always take more money to continue 'alleviating'.  Yet..... more people dependent on the gov't = more democratic votes.  Sometimes I wonder if they really are trying to help this country.

Why is my comment infuriating, moy? Because I pointed out, yet again, that someone on your side of an argument doesn't seem to know what they're talking about? Because otherwise, you're reading something into it that isn't there.

You're conflating two separate things though, moy.

"Giving money to poor people" (i.e. welfare, food stamps, etc.) is designed to make their lives less ******. Why? Because not everybody is an Objectivist sociopath. Now, if you want to argue about the efficiency of such programs, go ahead. But arguing against their very existence just labels you as someone with zero empathy for his fellow man.

Job-creation stimulus programs are not "giving money to poor people" though. That is something designed to fix the problem, by getting people back into the work force and onto a path towards not needing government assistance any more. Is it the most efficient way to create jobs and get people back into the work force? **** no. I'd much rather the private sector be creating those jobs. But when they aren't - and right now it's an indisputable fact that the private sector is not creating jobs in anywhere near the numbers we need - then I'd rather the government do it than nobody.

How is using federal money to give a person a temp job a solution to unemployment? 

Posted by moy23 on 9/17/2011 10:55:00 PM (view original):
I never claimed to have any empathy for my 'fellow' man... especially when they are mooching off me. I earn my money and I like to horde it. I live by the mantra that one can never save enough (because inevitably something that costs money will come up). Unfortunately Democrats TAKE my money and squander it on poorly run/high fraud welfare, social security, and healthcare programs.

"High fraud"? Bullshit. That's as based in reality as the Nancy Pelosi field mice thing.

You need to stop trusting sources of information that lie to you to your face, moy.

Posted by moy23 on 9/17/2011 11:12:00 PM (view original):
And I know the political difference between giving money to the poor and the 'proposed' job stimulus ..... that doesnt change the fact they are both costly band aids that don't solve a problem. Nothing permanent ..... that's why I said giving $10k to 47,700,000 people would go a lot farther than $477 billion to create 50,000 TEMPORARY jobs.

No, it wouldn't. The goal is not just to provide temporary jobs, it's to get people back into the work force so that they are ready to take permanent jobs once the private sector gets their thumbs out of their ***** and creates them.

FREE THE OPPRESSED JOB CREATORS!