U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away

[Zorral]

Well the history of NYC's less prosperous areas that have been designated to be "zones of economic opportunity" with enormous tax breaks, bends of rules and regs for building, etc. -- none of that improved the lives of the people who lived there or created jobs for them.  Rather, the great big real estate developers gobbled up the zones, got the breaks, and pushed out the residents.  It's a huge scandal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/business/tax-opportunity-zones.html

No matter how much smaller this amazilla site is supposed to be, they still will be tearing up the streets, siphoning off other resources and giving nothing back, and certainly not making jobs for the area's residents -- or in this case snarling the traffic even worse than it already is, on the West Side Hwy, and all around this horror to the eyes, where nobody goes except to gawp at the horror that is the Hudson Yards development.

But! building in the area of the financial and architectural bust that is the Hudson Yards development will maybe help out the investors who are losing their shirts on it:

https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/will-18b-parcel-on-uws-trump-hudson-yards/

 

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 12/8/2019 at 8:10 AM, DMC said:

Interesting article with various proposals on how to "fix" impeachment - or if it's really what needs fixing.  I like the second one:

Still, while that sounds good in theory, hard to see a president actually signing such a bill into law.

 

 

Quote

a rule to prevent conflicts of interest among committee members,

Being in the opposing party is surely a giant conflict of interest, and so is being in the same party. So, who gets to sit on the committee?

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

Being in the opposing party is surely a giant conflict of interest, and so is being in the same party. So, who gets to sit on the committee?

Yeah while I get pointing out Nunes and Johnson's clearly compromised roles, wasn't a big fan of that one.

[DireWolfSpirit]

44 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Awwww...but what about all the years and years of construction along I-94? 

Speaking of "years and years", the only explanation for Green Bays road construction pace can be that it's a Soprano's contract or some shit, it's just as slow in the northeast.

[Larry of the Lawn]

A good way to avoid getting quoted and is to cease defending nonsensical declarations.

[DanteGabriel]

Y'all are getting trolled on this "let's run an ineligible candidate who scares middle America" by a moron/asshole.

[Paladin of Ice]

11 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Does NYC need the jobs that badly? And when areas that did need the jobs gave the corporate subsidies did it work out for them?

Warning: The semi-rambling thoughts below are my thoughts and perceptions, as someone who tries pretty hard to keep up with the news but is not an expert on this particular subject.

No we don't, and I've pointed out in talks elsewhere that the NYC metro area has 20 million+ people in it, (at least the way it's commonly defined, probably somewhat fewer in a range where they're likely to go to work within the bounds of NYC) so Amazon's 25K jobs, even if true, is not exactly a game changer. Especially with the metro area having an unemployment rate of about 3.7% right now. (Lets not get into the issue of how unemployment is calculated and better methods that aren't being used and how much numbers can be trusted and all other such petty quibbles that are irrelevant to the larger point I'm trying to make but which a lot of members of this board like to tie these threads up in knots over.)

So I personally bristled back when Amazon was announced to be getting billions in tax cuts to do it, but IF the HQ2 had lived up to the hype on how many jobs it created and what salaries they claimed it would be, it might have still been worth it, from my perspective. You tax the workers, you play the long game and get the company later when their incentives run out, (because a lot of companies can skip and run out on states over tax breaks for a factory or such, but it's usually a little harder to transplant a major corporate center/headquarters) you take the added benefits you get in the surrounding community and such, etc.

Whether the amount of incentives or how it was bargained for (billions + keeping everyone in the dark and getting it behind their backs) is right you can argue one way or another. After seeing the shit that's gone on in the last decade or two with cities giving away money to big businesses (Foxconn and various sports teams being probably the most infamous examples) I'm mostly against the practice in principle, because it's one thing to try to help development small and medium businesses but how much help do companies worth worth billions upon billions need to build a factory? That's bullshit.

But on this particular deal/issue, Amazon trying to flex its muscles and shake up local politics, in both Washington and New York states, is a complete deal breaker for me. Between threatening Washington over that state's tax policies and trying to dictate terms to NY on labor practices and the process of getting HQ2 there, (including trying to hold a veto over the state lawmaker that would be appointed to review the deal) I turned against it. Amazon, and other companies and rich owners/C level managers need to be broken of this idea that they can make the rules and dictate terms to rest of the country as to what happens.

That's not how this shit works, and every last one of them needs to be broken of the delusions they have. We the people, through our instrument of government, set the rules of the road, they're just a few more drivers among all the other traffic. It's time for them to learn that lesson. Amazon thought it could deliver a "it's my way or the highway" ultimatum to NY, and when the state didn't bend over backwards for them they threw a fit and ran off with their ball. Personally, I love the fact that the state didn't bend over for Amazon. And for both the good of the community and the larger potential cultural message it sends, I'm happy to see Amazon coming back to NY without a bunch of tax giveaways and special perks. It's too bad that it won't be the bigger site, but only time will tell on how things will go from here.

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^Completely agree, well put.

[Zorral]

14 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Warning: The semi-rambling thoughts below are my thoughts and perceptions, as someone who tries pretty hard to keep up with the news but is not an expert on this particular subject.

No we don't, and I've pointed out in talks elsewhere that the NYC metro area has 20 million+ people in it, (at least the way it's commonly defined, probably somewhat fewer in a range where they're likely to go to work within the bounds of NYC) so Amazon's 25K jobs, even if true, is not exactly a game changer. Especially with the metro area having an unemployment rate of about 3.7% right now. (Lets not get into the issue of how unemployment is calculated and better methods that aren't being used and how much numbers can be trusted and all other such petty quibbles that are irrelevant to the larger point I'm trying to make but which a lot of members of this board like to tie these threads up in knots over.)

So I personally bristled back when Amazon was announced to be getting billions in tax cuts to do it, but IF the HQ2 had lived up to the hype on how many jobs it created and what salaries they claimed it would be, it might have still been worth it, from my perspective. You tax the workers, you play the long game and get the company later when their incentives run out, (because a lot of companies can skip and run out on states over tax breaks for a factory or such, but it's usually a little harder to transplant a major corporate center/headquarters) you take the added benefits you get in the surrounding community and such, etc.

Whether the amount of incentives or how it was bargained for (billions + keeping everyone in the dark and getting it behind their backs) is right you can argue one way or another. After seeing the shit that's gone on in the last decade or two with cities giving away money to big businesses (Foxconn and various sports teams being probably the most infamous examples) I'm mostly against the practice in principle, because it's one thing to try to help development small and medium businesses but how much help do companies worth worth billions upon billions need to build a factory? That's bullshit.

But on this particular deal/issue, Amazon trying to flex its muscles and shake up local politics, in both Washington and New York states, is a complete deal breaker for me. Between threatening Washington over that state's tax policies and trying to dictate terms to NY on labor practices and the process of getting HQ2 there, (including trying to hold a veto over the state lawmaker that would be appointed to review the deal) I turned against it. Amazon, and other companies and rich owners/C level managers need to be broken of this idea that they can make the rules and dictate terms to rest of the country as to what happens.

That's not how this shit works, and every last one of them needs to be broken of the delusions they have. We the people, through our instrument of government, set the rules of the road, they're just a few more drivers among all the other traffic. It's time for them to learn that lesson. Amazon thought it could deliver a "it's my way or the highway" ultimatum to NY, and when the state didn't bend over backwards for them they threw a fit and ran off with their ball. Personally, I love the fact that the state didn't bend over for Amazon. And for both the good of the community and the larger potential cultural message it sends, I'm happy to see Amazon coming back to NY without a bunch of tax giveaways and special perks. It's too bad that it won't be the bigger site, but only time will tell on how things will go from here.

See my post earlier -- and how the economic development zones have benefited only the well off and the very wealthy, and hurt the people who used to live there -- and how the new amazilla site is right by the Hudson Yard development which is a total bust -- and part of guess who's portfolio -- unless he managed to wiggle out of it somehow along its disastrous route to disaster.

~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime he's also in the grand tradition of the president of 9/11, of protecting and defending Saudi after Saudis committed terrorist acts against the nation within our national borders.

[Zorral]

48 minutes ago, nah said:

Didn't say or imply anywhere that it was to scare middle America, I have no idea where you got that from and I really don't get why people are taking the idea this personally. Like, you don't need to be name-calling, lecturing people on perceived drinking problems, etc. I've honestly gotten less shit defending the Vietnam War (not really but kind of) in these threads than I have in suggesting AOC could be a politically viable VP candidate.

Keep on enjoying your    

[Week]

50 minutes ago, nah said:

suggesting AOC could be a politically viable VP candidate.

War is peace 

[DireWolfSpirit]

2 hours ago, nah said:

Didn't say or imply anywhere that it was to scare middle America, I have no idea where you got that from and I really don't get why people are taking the idea this personally. Like, you don't need to be name-calling, lecturing people on perceived drinking problems, etc. I've honestly gotten less shit defending the Vietnam War (not really but kind of) in these threads than I have in suggesting AOC could be a politically viable VP candidate.

Wait, what.....you have posts defending the Vietnam War?

[Raja]

What a grim read

 

[sologdin]

I've honestly gotten less shit defending the Vietnam War

whereas we can develop rational arguments to support the imperialist war in vietnam (i don't agree with these, NB), suggesting something patently ludicrous looks like the work of an agent provocateur or intentional sabotage--it is not normally taken well on the left, 

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Raja said:

What a grim read

 

Wait another 20 years and another incompetent boob like Bush or Trump and it becomes rinse and repeat.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 12/6/2019 at 7:18 PM, nah said:

To be vise president? Says who? Nobody has more star power in the DNC than AOC does atm. If Sanders gets the nomination he should absolutely attach her to the ticket. Whose going to say boo about it?

She’s Constitutionally ineligible for the office of President or Vice-President until she is 35 years old.  That puts a huge damper on the idea of nominating her.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 12/6/2019 at 8:38 PM, nah said:

And who in the DNC is going to raise that challenge if he gets the nomination? And if Trump sued, do you really think the SCOTUS would take that case during the campaign? Not this court, nooo fucking way. I think they should go for it, and if they win and there's a challenge I think they should pull an Andrew Jackson and tell the Court to go fuck itself.

The Democrats are running against Trump based upon his choice to ignore his Constitutional obligations as President and your suggestion is to double down on that and “out Trump” Trump?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 hours ago, nah said:

Really? I'll admit the scenario as it was being discussed was a bit out there, but that wasn't what he was responding to in the message I quoted. The bit I was responding to had him saying there would be "nothing inflammatory or destabilizing" about the Supreme Court invalidating the ticket of a presidential nominee of a major party before an election came down. And yeah, you'd kind of have to not live here to really think that. In fact you'd have not not live here, and be pretty selective in the way you view the news.

Have you not watched the way Trump fans have responded to perfectly lawful impeachment proceedings? The public death threats, the suggestions of armed insurrection? Remember when the Bernie or Bust people hijacked the convention last time around?

This is a court that practically bends over backwards not to seem political in its decision making. There is ZERO reason for them to take the case before the election, as you can replace a VP after the election in accordance with a court ruling when things are settled.

I realize that I'm suggesting X when the law clearly says Y, but our government does that every day. Trump does it, Obama did it, Bush did the fuck out of it, Clinton did it, etc. The government breaks the law and gets away with it all the time, right in front of everybody's faces, and nobody ever stops them. Idk why this is such a mental hurdle. The law saying you can't do something, and the infrastructure being in place to practically stop you, are two different things. Lincoln and Jackson both ignored Supreme Court rulings during times of national chaos, it's not unheard of.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review, as it's practiced today, doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. It's based on precedent that the Court just sort of decided for itself, which went unchallenged by the President and Congress at the time because it was politically expedient not to do so (Marshall v. Madison is actually a really fascinating case to get into for a lot of reasons). And believe it or not, the actual letter of what the law says is only one of several ways of interpreting the Constitution. I realize how that sounds, but it's true. I mean, Roe v. Wade draws upon that shit in the Third Amendment that says soldiers can't be quartered in your home during times of peace.

You want Marbury reversed?  You want Constitutional requirements and protections to be ignored?

Why?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 hours ago, nah said:

Yes there is.

I like to think I put the same amount of substance into my response that you did.

Are you saying that it would be wrong for The SCOTUS to adjudicate a case where a President seeks a third term prior to an election?

[sologdin]

marbury is curious, insofar as the citing references for many many years did not cite it for its current law school principle of the judiciary's non-express power of review (much less martin v. hunter's lessee proposition that the opinions of the supreme court are also the supreme law of the land--that is one of the best arrogations in law ever and should drive states' rights people absolutely bonkers). it is not until an opinion in the early 20th century that taft first cites the opinion for this proposition.  ex-presidents need to craft a legacy, i suppose.  the early marbury citations by contrast are for the narrow relief regarding oaths of office and mandamus.