Do you mean taking an area with low income and adding money to it, sure. The other option is to take a poor area and not add more money to it.
Which is better for the residents?
I meant arfitifcially raising the prices of the area to have a higher income come in. I only said that because the property taxes would rise and would be harder on poorer residents and then they usually are indirectly evicted. Perhaps I'm looking too hard into this though. That's why I aske.d
If you want to whine to someone, whine to obama, that's who you elected for change. All APple did was spend a small fortune in your state and create some jobs, maybe more later on but nevertheless they are not to blame. Would you hire you if you didn't need additional help? Of course not. Get the federal government out of the way and you'll see jobs created again.
You had best take an aspirin and start thinking with your head. Get involved with people who create things and don't gripe about how they've been screwed. The gripers are losers and moochers. Moochers never have any money and are a drag on everyone.
I meant arfitifcially raising the prices of the area to have a higher income come in. I only said that because the property taxes would rise and would be harder on poorer residents and then they usually are indirectly evicted. Perhaps I'm looking too hard into this though. That's why I aske.d
Property taxes rise if the residents start paying more to buy homes in the area. It's not something that a single purchase of land can do. Gentrification is no one entity's fault, it's the result of many actors doing what they want to do. EVIL, in other words, and to be stopped at all costs.
This was the quote you could have stopped on. It isn't true. Liberalism has one idea, and one idea only: Take more money from those who earn it and spend it on whatever we deem to be the need.
What they profess to be "new" or "progressive" thinking, isn't actually a NEW idea, and it never is. It is always, and has always been the same idea they tried before, except this time, they'll spend more money making it fail. No liberal or progressive has suggested an actual new idea in 40 years.
Education a problem? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Health Care? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Pick an issue, the liberal solution is always the same. Take more of your money, and spend it.
So far as I can see, the only actual NEW ideas I have heard in the last 40 years have come from conservatives and libertarians: Flat Tax, Fair Tax, etc...but every time a new idea is voiced, it is the liberals who scream loudest why it won't work, even though these ideas have NEVER been tried, and would likely succeed.
Bush spent more money than any democrat. And we got a useless war in Iraq and a devastated economy when he left.
If Apple isn't a charity, why is it asking to pay less taxes then it ordinarily would have to pay under the premise of bringing jobs to the center? Is the State a charity? Somebody has to pay to maintain the roads, keep the street lights on, and the fire and police personal on the job. What is the pay off to the State for waiving its taxes that you or I would have to pay, if the State isn't getting something significant in return? Is Apple struggling, and therefore qualify for welfare?
If the Federal government wasn't in big government's pocket, we'd have a law preventing any State from giving tax breaks to large corporations with certain guarantees. Doing so undermines local communities and places the short fall of taxes on the citizens who aren't getting tax breaks. Google came to Ann Arbor, Michigan. Everybody bent over backwards to give it millions of tax breaks and other incentives. Google promised thousands of jobs. This was about three or four years ago. Google has fallen way short. Pfizer was also in Ann Arbor. It wanted to buy land from the University of Michigan, but it wanted millions in tax breaks. It promised jobs. The City gave in and handed out millions in tax breaks. Pfizer a couple of years later decided to close the facility down and fired thousands of people. Mind you the company was highly profitable. So the City forego taxes there as well and obtained nothing in return.
The state's are quick to give tax breaks, but do not require any guarantee's for anything in return. As a regular citizen, I'm pissed as the City continues to scrap services and my taxes keep going up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haydn!
Why is it a disgrace? If the set up only requires 50 employees, then it only requires 50 employees! Why take on 150 people to have most of them sat around doing nothing? Or did I miss the news article that saw Apple become a registered charity?
This was the quote you could have stopped on. It isn't true. Liberalism has one idea, and one idea only: Take more money from those who earn it and spend it on whatever we deem to be the need.
What they profess to be "new" or "progressive" thinking, isn't actually a NEW idea, and it never is. It is always, and has always been the same idea they tried before, except this time, they'll spend more money making it fail. No liberal or progressive has suggested an actual new idea in 40 years.
Liberalism or Progressivism is not about all about "new ideas", it is OPEN to new ideas (the antithesis of true conservatism). It is more about that the role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. (also apparently the antithesis of conservatives who seem very concerned about how I spend my time in the privacy of my own home. Conservatives also seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the gays for some reason. Wonder why they are so obsessed? )
Quote:
Education a problem? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Health Care? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Pick an issue, the liberal solution is always the same. Take more of your money, and spend it.
and conservatives simply SPEND and charge it to the next generation, then blame Liberals for the debt that was incurred. Republicans started new wars during the Bush administration with no way to pay for them. None. Well, to be honest we were told that the oil in Iraq would pay for it. How did that work out?
How did Bush take office with a budget surplus (thanks Clinton!) and control of all three branches of government, but leave it trillions of dollars in debt after 8 years?
Quote:
So far as I can see, the only actual NEW ideas I have heard in the last 40 years have come from conservatives and libertarians: Flat Tax, Fair Tax, etc...but every time a new idea is voiced, it is the liberals who scream loudest why it won't work, even though these ideas have NEVER been tried, and would likely succeed.
Those are not new ideas and they have been tried, some with success as well, but in former Eastern Bloc countries and the Russian Federation.
Is that the economic model you wish to push comrade?
You would see farther if you took off the blinders and stopped viewing politics as a sporting event where half of America is your enemy.
War is better than a useless and wasteful stimulus.
That war cost us trillions. I didn't think the stimulus was a great idea necessarily but it pales in comparison. Thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands maimed. War is better if it's other people making the sacrifice. Unless your posting from Afganistan your full of it.
That war cost us trillions. I didn't think the stimulus was a great idea necessarily but it pales in comparison. Thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands maimed. War is better if it's other people making the sacrifice. Unless your posting from Afganistan your full of it.
Well, sometimes war is necessary and a useless stimulus is not.
You sound like you play a lot of Call of Duty. until Mom calls and tells you that dinner is ready.
I bought Call of Duty Modern Warfare from the appstore a couple of weeks ago. I installed the many gigs directly on an SSD, and that game seems to be pretty nice so far, though I've only gotten around to testing it out for about 30 minutes. Now that you mentioned it, maybe I'll test it out later on tonight again.
Yes, we will see jobs created. But before that happens we will have to do away with those silly labor and environmental laws that americans fought a hundred years to gain and that protect workers and require corporations to treat people like people. Once minimum wage, child welfare, environmental protection, and safety laws are trashed we might see some very low paying demoralizing jobs created provided we can make the conditions less friendly here to workers then they are in places like China were workers can't vote and are used to be treated like animals set for the slaughter house.
For instance, I love how some people who are brain washed are calling for the end of the EPA. Meanwhile, there are places in the US were corporations have polluted the ground water so badly you can light your tap water on fire (search you tube, the videos are there), and companies like BP and Exxon have destroyed entire local industries despite the EPA being in existence. Yes, we need less regulation.
This is not refutable. In the eighties and nineties our Country had the greatest economic boom our Nation has ever seen. Companies couldn't count their money fast enough, and new corporations were being created daily. There was far more government regulation then than there is now. At the height, a liberal democrat was in charge (I am independent). More people became millionaires then any other time.
The mega rich folks, however, got greedy and wanted to make even more money by screwing over everybody else (the ninety nine percent). The problem was government was standing in the way. There were these import tariff laws that were created at about the time our Country was founded that protected Americans' from having to compete against what we'd consider foreign slave labor and foreign government subsidies. A tax had to be paid on imports from these types of Countries. The taxes kept American made products competitive, americans working, provided wages, and generated taxes to pay for government services. Everybody was profiting. Yet, that tax had to go because the one percenters 1) really didn't like treating workers fairly because that cost a little money (again even though they were making more money then any other period of time in our Country's history), and 2) they wanted to sell americans out to be able to sell to the Chinese market (there is more people there then in the US).
So NAFTA was passed. Americans were told this was so that American, Canadian, and Mexican made products could freely pass over the respective Countries' borders. Not a problem, as Americans can compete fairly with these two Countries. They are democracies, and the governments don't subsidize manufacturing. What wasn't told to us, is that the products that would be shipped over the borders wouldn't be made in these Countries, but in China. So, NAFTA was a way to do away with the import tax that kept our Country profitable, secure, and the envy of the world for a hundred years. American companies moved operations to China (and got tax breaks to do it), and shipped products to Mexico and Canada that would then get shipped to the US to get around tariffs.
Within ten years, millions of jobs were lost. These jobs will never be replaced UNLESS we go back to the system our Country was founded on. That means more government, not less. Otherwise, the only incentive for american companies to create jobs in the US will be for the way of life for regular americans to be utterly destroyed to such an extent we become worst then the Chinese system our leaders used to condemn. You want jobs to come back, the government need to resume the reigns, and kill the so called free trade agreements that sell americans out.
The problem with politics in our country is many people treat it as a sporting event. You pick one of two sides, and stick with your team no matter what, regurgitating its talking points.
The issue with Apple and the data center is not expecting Apple to hire more people then it needs as that would be silly, but for Apple treating the State like a charity and expecting massive tax breaks the rest of us will not be given. Should the State have given away millions in tax revenue merely to have less then 300 jobs created? Apple is getting much more than it is giving. The average taxpayers make up for the shortfall. I can say this as a person who 1) owns Apple stock, and 2) owns practically every product the company has built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassboat
If you want to whine to someone, whine to obama, that's who you elected for change. All APple did was spend a small fortune in your state and create some jobs, maybe more later on but nevertheless they are not to blame. Would you hire you if you didn't need additional help? Of course not. Get the federal government out of the way and you'll see jobs created again.
Bush spent more money than any democrat. And we got a useless war in Iraq and a devastated economy when he left.
Only thing bush did wrong was not take the country over, make them employees to Exxon, and drain that country dry. We'd payem a fair wage and they'd have better lifestyles than they do now. Hell- spend all that $ on a war, get it back in oil plus some. Don't let those dumb shieks get another gold (literally) Mercedes.
Half kidding- kind of. No lectures please. I realize this would likely never happen.
Only thing bush did wrong was not take the country over, make them employees to Exxon, and drain that country dry. We'd payem a fair wage and they'd have better lifestyles than they do now. Hell- spend all that $ on a war, get it back in oil plus some. Don't let those dumb shieks get another gold (literally) Mercedes.
Half kidding- kind of. No lectures please. I realize this would likely never happen.
so which half are you kidding about?
We invaded a sovereign nation that did nothing to us, allow their infrastructure and economy to be destroyed and you kid about this?
Gold plated Mercedes? Are you confusing Iraq with Saudi Arabia?
Is the entire Middle East all just the same place for you?
Are you aware they we literally paid the Iraqis a cash salary for a long long time after Saddam was deposed because we screwed up their economy so badly? And WE were told that the oil would pay for the war. That never happened. We paid for the war with the lives of innocent American soldiers (and National Guard who should never have been sent there...)
More Americans died for a useless war in Iraq than died in the 9/11 attacks.
You are telling me 50 jobs that is all Apple offered. A dam disgrace indeed. This state is high in unemployment to begin with.Tim Cook and Apple better get their act together.
Do you expect Apple to hire more people than they need to run the datacenter just because they are a big and profitable corporation and the area is hurting? If so, then you are must be living in La La Land because no company hires more people than they need to, in the real world at least.
PS You don't need to re-post the entire article to comment on it.
Oh my. Maiden, NC is "unhappy"? This is the kind of thinking that got us in the financial mess we are in right now. There is no entitlement clause with the data center is there?
We need to show ANY business, large, medium or small the same consideration no matter where we they want to locate. Trouble is, the little guy isn't getting any slack at all. So many little businesses have gone bust because we see through the eyes of Scrooge!
Let us all re-read Dicken's Christmas Carol anew and consider how many chains we forge in this life. How many times will the chain circle the spirit of Maiden, NC?
My goodness, Folks. Have we not learned our lesson yet? We need, I say, to root for the home team and give our nieghbors a little love and be grateful for whatever they give in return.
Comments
Would this be a form of gentrification then?
Do you mean taking an area with low income and adding money to it, sure. The other option is to take a poor area and not add more money to it.
Which is better for the residents?
Do you mean taking an area with low income and adding money to it, sure. The other option is to take a poor area and not add more money to it.
Which is better for the residents?
I meant arfitifcially raising the prices of the area to have a higher income come in. I only said that because the property taxes would rise and would be harder on poorer residents and then they usually are indirectly evicted. Perhaps I'm looking too hard into this though. That's why I aske.d
This word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yeah, I might be mixing the too. But I'm looking up some of it now.
Politics make my head hurt.
You had best take an aspirin and start thinking with your head. Get involved with people who create things and don't gripe about how they've been screwed. The gripers are losers and moochers. Moochers never have any money and are a drag on everyone.
I meant arfitifcially raising the prices of the area to have a higher income come in. I only said that because the property taxes would rise and would be harder on poorer residents and then they usually are indirectly evicted. Perhaps I'm looking too hard into this though. That's why I aske.d
Property taxes rise if the residents start paying more to buy homes in the area. It's not something that a single purchase of land can do. Gentrification is no one entity's fault, it's the result of many actors doing what they want to do. EVIL, in other words, and to be stopped at all costs.
This was the quote you could have stopped on. It isn't true. Liberalism has one idea, and one idea only: Take more money from those who earn it and spend it on whatever we deem to be the need.
What they profess to be "new" or "progressive" thinking, isn't actually a NEW idea, and it never is. It is always, and has always been the same idea they tried before, except this time, they'll spend more money making it fail. No liberal or progressive has suggested an actual new idea in 40 years.
Education a problem? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Health Care? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Pick an issue, the liberal solution is always the same. Take more of your money, and spend it.
So far as I can see, the only actual NEW ideas I have heard in the last 40 years have come from conservatives and libertarians: Flat Tax, Fair Tax, etc...but every time a new idea is voiced, it is the liberals who scream loudest why it won't work, even though these ideas have NEVER been tried, and would likely succeed.
Bush spent more money than any democrat. And we got a useless war in Iraq and a devastated economy when he left.
If the Federal government wasn't in big government's pocket, we'd have a law preventing any State from giving tax breaks to large corporations with certain guarantees. Doing so undermines local communities and places the short fall of taxes on the citizens who aren't getting tax breaks. Google came to Ann Arbor, Michigan. Everybody bent over backwards to give it millions of tax breaks and other incentives. Google promised thousands of jobs. This was about three or four years ago. Google has fallen way short. Pfizer was also in Ann Arbor. It wanted to buy land from the University of Michigan, but it wanted millions in tax breaks. It promised jobs. The City gave in and handed out millions in tax breaks. Pfizer a couple of years later decided to close the facility down and fired thousands of people. Mind you the company was highly profitable. So the City forego taxes there as well and obtained nothing in return.
The state's are quick to give tax breaks, but do not require any guarantee's for anything in return. As a regular citizen, I'm pissed as the City continues to scrap services and my taxes keep going up.
Why is it a disgrace? If the set up only requires 50 employees, then it only requires 50 employees! Why take on 150 people to have most of them sat around doing nothing? Or did I miss the news article that saw Apple become a registered charity?
Bush spent more money than any democrat. And we got a useless war in Iraq and a devastated economy when he left.
War is better than a useless and wasteful stimulus.
This was the quote you could have stopped on. It isn't true. Liberalism has one idea, and one idea only: Take more money from those who earn it and spend it on whatever we deem to be the need.
What they profess to be "new" or "progressive" thinking, isn't actually a NEW idea, and it never is. It is always, and has always been the same idea they tried before, except this time, they'll spend more money making it fail. No liberal or progressive has suggested an actual new idea in 40 years.
Liberalism or Progressivism is not about all about "new ideas", it is OPEN to new ideas (the antithesis of true conservatism). It is more about that the role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. (also apparently the antithesis of conservatives who seem very concerned about how I spend my time in the privacy of my own home. Conservatives also seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the gays for some reason. Wonder why they are so obsessed?
Education a problem? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Health Care? TAX AND SPEND MORE. Pick an issue, the liberal solution is always the same. Take more of your money, and spend it.
and conservatives simply SPEND and charge it to the next generation, then blame Liberals for the debt that was incurred. Republicans started new wars during the Bush administration with no way to pay for them. None. Well, to be honest we were told that the oil in Iraq would pay for it. How did that work out?
How did Bush take office with a budget surplus (thanks Clinton!) and control of all three branches of government, but leave it trillions of dollars in debt after 8 years?
So far as I can see, the only actual NEW ideas I have heard in the last 40 years have come from conservatives and libertarians: Flat Tax, Fair Tax, etc...but every time a new idea is voiced, it is the liberals who scream loudest why it won't work, even though these ideas have NEVER been tried, and would likely succeed.
Those are not new ideas and they have been tried, some with success as well, but in former Eastern Bloc countries and the Russian Federation.
Is that the economic model you wish to push comrade?
You would see farther if you took off the blinders and stopped viewing politics as a sporting event where half of America is your enemy.
War is better than a useless and wasteful stimulus.
That war cost us trillions. I didn't think the stimulus was a great idea necessarily but it pales in comparison. Thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands maimed. War is better if it's other people making the sacrifice. Unless your posting from Afganistan your full of it.
War is better than a useless and wasteful stimulus.
better to waste lives than money eh?
You sound like you play a lot of Call of Duty. until Mom calls and tells you that dinner is ready.
That war cost us trillions. I didn't think the stimulus was a great idea necessarily but it pales in comparison. Thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands maimed. War is better if it's other people making the sacrifice. Unless your posting from Afganistan your full of it.
Well, sometimes war is necessary and a useless stimulus is not.
You sound like you play a lot of Call of Duty. until Mom calls and tells you that dinner is ready.
I bought Call of Duty Modern Warfare from the appstore a couple of weeks ago. I installed the many gigs directly on an SSD, and that game seems to be pretty nice so far, though I've only gotten around to testing it out for about 30 minutes. Now that you mentioned it, maybe I'll test it out later on tonight again.
For instance, I love how some people who are brain washed are calling for the end of the EPA. Meanwhile, there are places in the US were corporations have polluted the ground water so badly you can light your tap water on fire (search you tube, the videos are there), and companies like BP and Exxon have destroyed entire local industries despite the EPA being in existence. Yes, we need less regulation.
This is not refutable. In the eighties and nineties our Country had the greatest economic boom our Nation has ever seen. Companies couldn't count their money fast enough, and new corporations were being created daily. There was far more government regulation then than there is now. At the height, a liberal democrat was in charge (I am independent). More people became millionaires then any other time.
The mega rich folks, however, got greedy and wanted to make even more money by screwing over everybody else (the ninety nine percent). The problem was government was standing in the way. There were these import tariff laws that were created at about the time our Country was founded that protected Americans' from having to compete against what we'd consider foreign slave labor and foreign government subsidies. A tax had to be paid on imports from these types of Countries. The taxes kept American made products competitive, americans working, provided wages, and generated taxes to pay for government services. Everybody was profiting. Yet, that tax had to go because the one percenters 1) really didn't like treating workers fairly because that cost a little money (again even though they were making more money then any other period of time in our Country's history), and 2) they wanted to sell americans out to be able to sell to the Chinese market (there is more people there then in the US).
So NAFTA was passed. Americans were told this was so that American, Canadian, and Mexican made products could freely pass over the respective Countries' borders. Not a problem, as Americans can compete fairly with these two Countries. They are democracies, and the governments don't subsidize manufacturing. What wasn't told to us, is that the products that would be shipped over the borders wouldn't be made in these Countries, but in China. So, NAFTA was a way to do away with the import tax that kept our Country profitable, secure, and the envy of the world for a hundred years. American companies moved operations to China (and got tax breaks to do it), and shipped products to Mexico and Canada that would then get shipped to the US to get around tariffs.
Within ten years, millions of jobs were lost. These jobs will never be replaced UNLESS we go back to the system our Country was founded on. That means more government, not less. Otherwise, the only incentive for american companies to create jobs in the US will be for the way of life for regular americans to be utterly destroyed to such an extent we become worst then the Chinese system our leaders used to condemn. You want jobs to come back, the government need to resume the reigns, and kill the so called free trade agreements that sell americans out.
The problem with politics in our country is many people treat it as a sporting event. You pick one of two sides, and stick with your team no matter what, regurgitating its talking points.
The issue with Apple and the data center is not expecting Apple to hire more people then it needs as that would be silly, but for Apple treating the State like a charity and expecting massive tax breaks the rest of us will not be given. Should the State have given away millions in tax revenue merely to have less then 300 jobs created? Apple is getting much more than it is giving. The average taxpayers make up for the shortfall. I can say this as a person who 1) owns Apple stock, and 2) owns practically every product the company has built.
If you want to whine to someone, whine to obama, that's who you elected for change. All APple did was spend a small fortune in your state and create some jobs, maybe more later on but nevertheless they are not to blame. Would you hire you if you didn't need additional help? Of course not. Get the federal government out of the way and you'll see jobs created again.
Bush spent more money than any democrat. And we got a useless war in Iraq and a devastated economy when he left.
Only thing bush did wrong was not take the country over, make them employees to Exxon, and drain that country dry. We'd payem a fair wage and they'd have better lifestyles than they do now. Hell- spend all that $ on a war, get it back in oil plus some. Don't let those dumb shieks get another gold (literally) Mercedes.
Half kidding- kind of. No lectures please. I realize this would likely never happen.
Only thing bush did wrong was not take the country over, make them employees to Exxon, and drain that country dry. We'd payem a fair wage and they'd have better lifestyles than they do now. Hell- spend all that $ on a war, get it back in oil plus some. Don't let those dumb shieks get another gold (literally) Mercedes.
Half kidding- kind of. No lectures please. I realize this would likely never happen.
so which half are you kidding about?
We invaded a sovereign nation that did nothing to us, allow their infrastructure and economy to be destroyed and you kid about this?
Gold plated Mercedes? Are you confusing Iraq with Saudi Arabia?
Is the entire Middle East all just the same place for you?
Are you aware they we literally paid the Iraqis a cash salary for a long long time after Saddam was deposed because we screwed up their economy so badly? And WE were told that the oil would pay for the war. That never happened. We paid for the war with the lives of innocent American soldiers (and National Guard who should never have been sent there...)
More Americans died for a useless war in Iraq than died in the 9/11 attacks.
And you think it's funny.
You are telling me 50 jobs that is all Apple offered. A dam disgrace indeed. This state is high in unemployment to begin with.Tim Cook and Apple better get their act together.
Do you expect Apple to hire more people than they need to run the datacenter just because they are a big and profitable corporation and the area is hurting? If so, then you are must be living in La La Land because no company hires more people than they need to, in the real world at least.
PS You don't need to re-post the entire article to comment on it.
We need to show ANY business, large, medium or small the same consideration no matter where we they want to locate. Trouble is, the little guy isn't getting any slack at all. So many little businesses have gone bust because we see through the eyes of Scrooge!
Let us all re-read Dicken's Christmas Carol anew and consider how many chains we forge in this life. How many times will the chain circle the spirit of Maiden, NC?
My goodness, Folks. Have we not learned our lesson yet? We need, I say, to root for the home team and give our nieghbors a little love and be grateful for whatever they give in return.
We invaded a sovereign nation that did nothing to us
Is it ok if somebody fires some missiles at your house? You seem to be ok with that, based upon your unique definition of "nothing".
You should read up on the history of that war and you'll find out that your claim of "nothing" is completely false and wrong.