ADVERTISEMENT

Amazon - LIC bye-bye

The giveaways to Amazon for that deal were ridiculous. I’m all for attracting businesses and improving the economy but I never quite understood the deal. Plus the area is already overcrowded and filled with traffic. The way Cuomo and DiBlasio negotiated it without any local buy in was typical but not smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HALL85
Section112 said:
The giveaways to Amazon for that deal were ridiculous. I’m all for attracting businesses and improving the economy but I never quite understood the deal. Plus the area is already overcrowded and filled with traffic. The way Cuomo and DiBlasio negotiated it without any local buy in was typical but not smart.
Click to expand...
I think you nailed it. Both DiBlasio and Cuomo have no ability and don't care to consensus build. Purely an ego play and the only time both have agreed on anything and were giddy about spiking the football when the announcement was made.
 
Think this is a bad look for NYC & NY state, especially Cuomo and DiBlasio. It seems like the giveaways they were offering made sense for gaining 25,000+ jobs. My understanding is the NJ/Newark offer for incentives was much higher than the NY offer.

I believe NY offer for the 25K jobs was $3 billion, I believe NJ offered $7 billion for the 50K jobs (before Amazon decided to split HQ with VA), so that would be significantly higher, I believe NJ had largest offer of any of the finalists.
 
Section112 said:
The giveaways to Amazon for that deal were ridiculous. I’m all for attracting businesses and improving the economy but I never quite understood the deal. Plus the area is already overcrowded and filled with traffic. The way Cuomo and DiBlasio negotiated it without any local buy in was typical but not smart.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if it was a great fit for Amazon there. However, having Amazon in an area would do wonders for the local economy and having 25k good paying jobs is tough to turn down. Once you get Amazon in your area, then they can be a partner going forward in the future. It is really difficult to turn Amazon down and in the end its probably a bad move for NY. I think the so-called give aways are worth it for what Amazon could bring/. Were there valid criticisms with regard dot traffic, probably. In the balancing test, I would want Amazon.

Now hopefully, this will result with Newark getting it. NY's loss could be NJ gain. Personally. Amazon is the type of hub company that other jobs grow from.

This far left movement is very dangerous for the Dems. You have people talking out their butts without having any idea how things work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: donnie_baseball and Muggsy Blue
cernjSHU said:
I am not sure if it was a great fit for Amazon there. However, having Amazon in an area would do wonders for the local economy and having 25k good paying jobs is tough to turn down. Once you get Amazon in your area, then they can be a partner going forward in the future. It is really difficult to turn Amazon down and in the end its probably a bad move for NY. I think the so-called give aways are worth it for what Amazon could bring/. Were there valid criticisms with regard dot traffic, probably. In the balancing test, I would want Amazon.

Now hopefully, this will result with Newark getting it. NY's loss could be NJ gain. Personally. Amazon is the type of hub company that other jobs grow from.

This far left movement is very dangerous for the Dems. You have people talking out their butts without having any idea how things work.
Click to expand...
I'm sure most if not all of the 20 runners-up have already placed call to Bezos-land and are potentially upping the ante on their offers. I don't know if the deal was good or bad for NY, but the way Cuomo did it, left himself open for the backdoor blindside.

Does Bezos scrap the two H2Q idea and just put everyone in NoVA? Or does he go to one of the bridesmaids? Hoping Newark gets it as well. It would be a game-changer for the city and area.
 
cernjSHU said:
This far left movement is very dangerous for the Dems. You have people talking out their butts without having any idea how things work.
Click to expand...

Yep. Wake up Dems. This is your Tea Party moment. Don’t confuse your midterm success as a viable long-term strategy. Just look across the aisle. This country didn’t need the GOP version of it and we don’t need yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: donnie_baseball
Why would Amazon move to a corrupt city like Newark by Democrats? Accessibility is not there. History is not there except the riot.
 
Amazon announced today that they are going to disburse the 25,000 jobs over their 17 other locations. Game, set, match.
 
cernjSHU said:
This far left movement is very dangerous for the Dems. You have people talking out their butts without having any idea how things work.
Click to expand...

It's beyond dangerous. But it's only allowed to happen because democrats are desperate for votes. If they do the right thing and stand up against it there's a major fear they would alienate good portion of their voters. Heck it might even force a 3rd party to start. There's a question if Trump can stand up to Putin. There's no doubt Pelosi and Schumer can't stand up to people like AOC. It's insane.
 
SHUHoopsFan said:
It's beyond dangerous. But it's only allowed to happen because democrats are desperate for votes. If they do the right thing and stand up against it there's a major fear they would alienate good portion of their voters. Heck it might even force a 3rd party to start. There's a question if Trump can stand up to Putin. There's no doubt Pelosi and Schumer can't stand up to people like AOC. It's insane.
Click to expand...

lol... stop. Comparing AOC to Putin now?
Democratic leadership will stand up against her when there is something to stand up against. Right now, there isn't.

Regarding Amazon, after they announced NY as their location. There was negative coverage from the left and the right for a variety of reasons.
The biggest problem was the process. The negotiations should have included the community and gotten their input and buy-in.

There is a difference between creating 25,000 jobs that will improve the lives of the residents in the surrounding community and creating 25,000 jobs that will displace the residents of the surrounding community.
Had the negotiations been analyzed more publicly, we would have a better understanding of where this plan would have landed.
 
Merge said:
lol... stop. Comparing AOC to Putin now?
Democratic leadership will stand up against her when there is something to stand up against. Right now, there isn't.

Regarding Amazon, after they announced NY as their location. There was negative coverage from the left and the right for a variety of reasons.
The biggest problem was the process. The negotiations should have included the community and gotten their input and buy-in.

There is a difference between creating 25,000 jobs that will improve the lives of the residents in the surrounding community and creating 25,000 jobs that will displace the residents of the surrounding community.
Had the negotiations been analyzed more publicly, we would have a better understanding of where this plan would have landed.
Click to expand...
Better reading comprehension. I’m not comparing the 2 people. I’m comparing whether or not each side stands up for America’s interest.
 
SHUHoopsFan said:
Better reading comprehension. I’m not comparing the 2 people. I’m comparing whether or not each side stands up for America’s interest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its a silly comparison. Pelosi isnt sticking up for America's interest becsuse she isnt attacking AOC?

Political differences between 2 members of the same political party with the same political goals is not similar to a President and a foreign adversary.
 
Merge said:
Yeah, its a silly comparison. Pelosi isnt sticking up for America's interest becsuse she isnt attacking AOC?

Political differences between 2 members of the same political party with the same political goals is not similar to a President and a foreign adversary.
Click to expand...
Socialism, or the principles of socialism that are being thrown out there isn't something to stand up against?

How about standing up against this abortion stuff? Don't baby lives matter?
 
Last edited:
Merge said:
No. I don't think democrats should stand up against a fake boogeyman.
Click to expand...
Economic security while unwilling to work is fake?

They should at least stand up for those who cannot defend themselves, like.....babies.
 
Merge said:
So your evidence that dems are scared to stand up to AOC is language that after working with other democrats didnt make it into her actual bill?
Click to expand...
No my evidence is what they're running around promoting in general revolves around socialism and its principles

Nice that you just keep skipping over they don't stand up against these late term abortions.
 
SHUHoopsFan said:
No my evidence is what they're running around promoting in general revolves around socialism and its principles

Nice that you just keep skipping over they don't stand up against these late term abortions.
Click to expand...

The priciple of socialism is public ownership of production. Literally no one is pushing that.

I ignored your deflection into discussing abortion because that has zero to do with anything you were talking about. I've discussed my views on abortion here many times.
 
Merge said:
The priciple of socialism is public ownership of production. Literally no one is pushing that.

I ignored your deflection into discussing abortion because that has zero to do with anything you were talking about. I've discussed my views on abortion here many times.
Click to expand...
Theyre not being called democratic socialists for no reason. Socialistic principles are there.

Actually it has a ton to do with my original point. They’re not going to stand up against things that radical left people are calling for because they don’t want to lose votes. Literally if Trump called for abortion of babies out of the womb, he would have been hammered by the left and the media. The media has even had some negative things to say about this. Pelosi and Schumer remain silent. What’s crazy is they’re showing they can stand up to Trump, which I give them a lot of credit for. But they won’t stand up to the radicals in their own party. We’re 2 years away from an election and they’re scared of Schultz. Even Mark Cuban who’s no fan of Trump has said if you’re worried about a 3rd party candidate you better re-evaluate who your candidates are. The democrats can’t afford to lose votes and if the radicals move it too far left they’ll so moderates to a guy like Schultz.
 
Last edited:
SHUHoopsFan said:
Socialism, or the principles of socialism that are being thrown out there isn't something to stand up against?
Click to expand...

Do you really think pure capitalism is good? Social Security is bad? That’s a socialist program? So is Medicare. So are labor unions. Each one of those examples have been very important to the lives of Americans. So if you are against the principals of socialism then I guess you are against Social Security, Medicare, unions, a minimum wage, anti-trust laws. No such thing as pure capitalism. Socialistic principals are already in the fabric of American economy. What about student loans or farming subsidies. I love how there are people complaining about socialism meanwhile collecting social security.
 
cernjSHU said:
Do you really think pure capitalism is good? Social Security is bad? That’s a socialist program? So is Medicare. So are labor unions. Each one of those examples have been very important to the lives of Americans. So if you are against the principals of socialism then I guess you are against Social Security, Medicare, unions, a minimum wage, anti-trust laws. No such thing as pure capitalism. Socialistic principals are already in the fabric of American economy. What about student loans or farming subsidies. I love how there are people complaining about socialism meanwhile collecting social security.
Click to expand...
Social programs for those who can’t work or contribute to society in the way it is set up is one thing. Making social programs for all is another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hall-line-forever
SHUHoopsFan said:
Social programs for those who can’t work or contribute to society in the way it is set up is one thing. Making social programs for all is another.
Click to expand...

Should pre-existing conditions be covered by your insurance? Should insurance companies be able to increase your rates astronomically when you get sick?

Sometimes the free market doesnt work for society overall. If it did, there would be no AOC in Congress.

Keep in mind, I dont think we will end up with medicare for all but having this debate from peolle like Bernie and AOC allowed someone like Sherrod Brown to offer up a 50+ buy in which makes a ton of sense and would be great middle ground.
 
cernjSHU said:
Do you really think pure capitalism is good? Social Security is bad? That’s a socialist program? So is Medicare. So are labor unions. Each one of those examples have been very important to the lives of Americans. So if you are against the principals of socialism then I guess you are against Social Security, Medicare, unions, a minimum wage, anti-trust laws. No such thing as pure capitalism. Socialistic principals are already in the fabric of American economy. What about student loans or farming subsidies. I love how there are people complaining about socialism meanwhile collecting social security.
Click to expand...
I'm against Social Security. I'd rather keep my money and invest it as I see fit. As it stands now the Government will soon bankrupt Social Security. The money I've contributed won't be there for me when I retire.
 
Merge said:
Should pre-existing conditions be covered by your insurance? Should insurance companies be able to increase your rates astronomically when you get sick?

Sometimes the free market doesnt work for society overall. If it did, there would be no AOC in Congress.

Keep in mind, I dont think we will end up with medicare for all but having this debate from peolle like Bernie and AOC allowed someone like Sherrod Brown to offer up a 50+ buy in which makes a ton of sense and would be great middle ground.
Click to expand...

Some people have shit luck when it comes to their health. The majority of people make their own breaks when it comes to health. If you eat crap and don’t exercise it catches up to you. So basically you’re asking me if people don’t take care of themselves should there be some consolation from insurance companies. Me personally I’m not sure because of those situations of people who live healthy lifestyles and end up with cancer out of nowhere.
 
afghan whigs said:
I'm against Social Security. I'd rather keep my money and invest it as I see fit. As it stands now the Government will soon bankrupt Social Security. The money I've contributed won't be there for me when I retire.
Click to expand...

Its not meant to be a retirement plan. Its a social safety net and the money will be there.
 
cernjSHU said:
Do you really think pure capitalism is good? Social Security is bad? That’s a socialist program? So is Medicare. So are labor unions. Each one of those examples have been very important to the lives of Americans. So if you are against the principals of socialism then I guess you are against Social Security, Medicare, unions, a minimum wage, anti-trust laws. No such thing as pure capitalism. Socialistic principals are already in the fabric of American economy. What about student loans or farming subsidies. I love how there are people complaining about socialism meanwhile collecting social security.
Click to expand...

Social security was not designed to be a permanent program. It was born out of the Great Depression as a relief program for retirees at the time.
 
afghan whigs said:
I'm against Social Security. I'd rather keep my money and invest it as I see fit. As it stands now the Government will soon bankrupt Social Security. The money I've contributed won't be there for me when I retire.
Click to expand...

Social Security will not go bankrupt. All the government has to do is raise the limit of contributions. Right now it’s like 128k. Raise it to 150k or higher and raise the minimum age to 65 to collect.
 
SHUHoopsFan said:
Some people have shit luck when it comes to their health. The majority of people make their own breaks when it comes to health. If you eat crap and don’t exercise it catches up to you. So basically you’re asking me if people don’t take care of themselves should there be some consolation from insurance companies. Me personally I’m not sure because of those situations of people who live healthy lifestyles and end up with cancer out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking about people who dont take care of themselves. I'm asking about the people with shit luck.
 
Merge said:
I'm not asking about people who dont take care of themselves. I'm asking about the people with shit luck.
Click to expand...
Obviously yes but tell me how the system works where people who don’t take care of themselves can’t infiltrate the system and reap the benefits. Ideals are great, but putting them in a system that works is another story. How do you deal with a heavy smoker til 40 or 50 who quits then gets into shape but has done a ton of damage? And to lessen the cost are there higher taxes on cigarettes. Does the soda tax come into play? Or how about mayor Bloomberg’s idea getting rid of larger sized sodas?
 
SHUHoopsFan said:
Obviously yes but tell me how the system works where people who don’t take care of themselves can’t infiltrate the system and reap the benefits. Ideals are great, but putting them in a system that works is another story. How do you deal with a heavy smoker til 40 or 50 who quits then gets into shape but has done a ton of damage? And to lessen the cost are there higher taxes on cigarettes. Does the soda tax come into play? Or how about mayor Bloomberg’s idea getting rid of larger sized sodas?
Click to expand...

How do we deal with all of that now?

We pay for it through higher premiums, as well as through taxes for the uninsured.
 
cernjSHU said:
Social Security will not go bankrupt. All the government has to do is raise the limit of contributions. Right now it’s like 128k. Raise it to 150k or higher and raise the minimum age to 65 to collect.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the government refuses to deal with the problem they created. Let me keep my own money and I will manage it better than the government can dream of.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Hall-line-forever
Social Security was only supposed to bridge money to older people until they died. People died much younger then. Either way, it is a failure. GW Bush tried to pledge 1% of the tax revenue collected and use it for private market investment. Of course, the Dems screamed.

Privatize social security. It’s garbage run by public sectors morons.
 
I’m for capitalism always. It offers the most freedom for all individuals. A bold president will hopefully get rid of half the FDR, Johnson, and Obama social programs. Start there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H

RFK MAHA

Replies
27
Views
800
Life Off the Ship
HALL85
H
Halldan1

NFL

Replies
0
Views
233
Treasure Trove
Halldan1
Halldan1
Halldan1

St John's - Feb/Mar

Replies
13
Views
484
Treasure Trove
Halldan1
Halldan1
Halldan1

Cohen, Popkin Named NSMA Sportscasters of the Year

Replies
5
Views
404
Pirate Hoops Chat
halltheway
H
N

NBA Trade Deadline

Replies
1
Views
148
Pirate Hoops Chat
NYShoreGuy
N
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back