Was It Bad For New York City To Have An Amazon Headquarters There?
Feb 18, 2019 09:55:23 #
Dikdik wrote:
Quit using the 'socialist' tag for those that want a better society. Pretty soon the parties will cave. Your huge social problems have been created by the capitalist approach. Even Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US... go figure. Look at the huge number of people living on the street... and, people have to have two or three jobs to survive, let alone buy a house or get a university education.
Your system is broken, and, needs fixing.
Dik
Your system is broken, and, needs fixing.
Dik
The description of fascist progressive, and socialist, is apt so I will continue to use it appropriately.
Your system is broken....hows that Ottawa fiasco going, eh?
Try reading up on how infant mortality is measured in other countries, and what they do to try and save a life, before you mouth off and look even more ignorant than you are.
You know absolutely NOTHING about the U.S., you just repeat the socialist talking points of your ignorant handlers......yes, you’re a lemming.
Please stay up north.
Feb 18, 2019 09:55:58 #
So, regarding Amazon and New York--what would Jesus do?
Was that the bit about worshiping Mammon (god of wealth--Matthew 6:24) or the bit about investing your money rather than hoarding it ("So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."--Matthew 25:28)? Something for the Democrats and the Republicans both.
Was that the bit about worshiping Mammon (god of wealth--Matthew 6:24) or the bit about investing your money rather than hoarding it ("So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."--Matthew 25:28)? Something for the Democrats and the Republicans both.
Feb 18, 2019 09:56:17 #
Architect1776 wrote:
How did "You can keep your doctor and keep yo... (show quote)
Let’s add “The police acted stupidly”.
Feb 18, 2019 09:56:56 #
Charles 46277 wrote:
Back during the Great Recession of 2009, TN continued paying Volkswagen $500M in perks for a new factory while letting GM Saturn (in Nashville) close down and go out of business.
Charles...The city of Nashville had nothing to do with GM's Saturn Division closing. No amount of money would likely change GM's or the UAW's minds. see the Forbes article on how GM destroyed the success of Saturn, https://www.forbes.com/2010/03/08/saturn-gm-innovation-leadership-managing-failure.html#196d2b916ee3
Meanwhile the VW plant in Tennessee is doing very well, and has announced a further investment of $800 million to build electric cars in Tennessee.
Feb 18, 2019 09:57:35 #
Dikdik wrote:
Concur... just not sure about your comment on Sand... (show quote)
You know absolutely nothing about U.S. or U.S. taxes.....you’re embarassing your family and country at this point!
Feb 18, 2019 09:57:49 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Venezuela sounds like your utopia.
He’s probably there now!
Feb 18, 2019 10:00:09 #
Diocletian wrote:
$3 billion dollars in tax breaks for 25,000 jobs....by my calculations $120,000 per job in tax bennies....and just how were they going to get that back?
and Were those minimum wage jobs?
wtf!
and Were those minimum wage jobs?
wtf!
Well, the jobs averaged $150000/year and the $3 billion in breaks would have brought in almost $500 million year in income and sales tax, thus paying back the $3bil in about 6 years.
Feb 18, 2019 10:01:58 #
[quote=Dikdik]
Spoken definitely like a fascist progressive socialist!
Cykdelic wrote:
Why?/quote]
They are making profits. Maybe consider it as a corporate responsibility to the country that lets them operate.
Dik
They are making profits. Maybe consider it as a corporate responsibility to the country that lets them operate.
Dik
Spoken definitely like a fascist progressive socialist!
Feb 18, 2019 10:03:52 #
Charles 46277 wrote:
How are billions in tax exemptions not free money that somebody else will have to pay? And these packages also have millions in outlays for area improvements such as new streets, utilities, sewers, etc., that must be paid for with taxes. Such things are normally paid for by those who use them, through local taxes.
That isn’t a serious question, is it?
Exactly what will others have to pay on dead land??????
If you’ve ever been directly involved in large construction projects it’s normal for the project to improve streets, lighting, sewers, etc in the area as part of the construction.
Feb 18, 2019 10:05:02 #
I really suggest that anyone really interested in climate, and feel so learned to make climate a political event, especially in believing we're doomed because its warming, and must give our country away to fight it, is to read NASA's report, where their findings reverse their originally belief in the political nonsense that the Earth is warming..their recent findings prove that for 2 1/2 years the Earth has been cooling.
Jest sayin'!
Jest sayin'!
Feb 18, 2019 10:10:07 #
Dikdik wrote:
BP is what? British Petroleum? likely a really goo... (show quote)
Here...I’ll slow it down for you and repeat the facts.....
The U.S. is also, by far, the most productive with the co2.
More importantly, though, is the FACT that the U.S. DECREASED CO2 output while the China and India INCREASED IT.
You can try and spin it any way you want, but one is an decrease and the others are increases.
Get it yet? One goes down, two go up?
How about this....the U.S. is HELPING THINGS assuming you buy into computer models as science while India and China are HURTING things.
How about this?
“No nation on earth has reduced carbon dioxide emissions as much as the U.S. since 2005. Our CO2 emissions have fallen to their lowest level in 25 years – largely because of increased use of clean natural gas – while the rest of the world’s CO2 emissions have risen 50 percent since 1990.”
Feb 18, 2019 10:11:10 #
Dikdik wrote:
BP is what? British Petroleum? likely a really goo... (show quote)
Yes, China DOES violate international treaties by subsidizing production and use in China.
Feb 18, 2019 10:14:36 #
Dikdik wrote:
Catch the chart... top 20 co2 emitters/per capita... China and India don't even show up. I'm not disputing that their total emissions are high, but pale compared to the US for per capita emissions. Canada's high too, but we have a climate issue and long travel distances between centers.
Dik
Dik
So? You’re proving that China and India push out babies at an alarming rate.
Maybe you should look at that data over time and look at the rate of change, yes? Also note that the US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, and we are one of the very few actually DECREASING!
Seriously, dude.....analyze, don’t sound bite!
Feb 18, 2019 10:22:38 #
FrankR wrote:
This is simply not true! She received over 110,000 votes and total voter registration in NY’s 14 District is approx 245,000. Do the math.
Uh.....we were discussing primaries.
From the Gotham Gazette....
“Though Ocasio-Cortez whipped up energy among voters in the Queens and Bronx district, and there is little to compare voter turnout to because Crowley had not been challenged since 2004, the primary election was decided, like most elections in New York, by a relatively small number of people.
With 98 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday, the State Board of Elections shows 27,826 registered Democrats cast votes in Tuesday’s primary in New York’s 14th District. With 235,745 registered Democrats as of April, according to the BOE, this comes out to a turnout of around 11.8 percent.”
Feb 18, 2019 10:48:18 #
“No nation on earth has reduced carbon dioxide emissions as much as the U.S. since 2005. Our CO2 emissions have fallen to their lowest level in 25 years – largely because of increased use of clean natural gas – while the rest of the world’s CO2 emissions have risen 50 percent since 1990.”
Not quite. Natural gas, when burned, produces CO2 and water. The more BTU's, the more CO2, whatever fossil fuel is used. What the dirty fuels add is pollution particles like sulfur, soot, etc. But if you burn carbon (in the presence of oxygen of course), you get carbon dioxide, and you also get hydrogen dioxide--water--because fossil fuels all contain carbon in the complex form of hydrocarbons (hydrogen atoms).
The smoggy parts choke us, while the carbon dioxide part cooks us by the greenhouse effect--a simple fact demonstrated by looking at a greenhouse (or our next door planet Venus, which is so much hotter than we are for this very reason). Long ago in grade school I was taught that carbon dioxide is a harmless gas produced by natural gas, abundant in our air, but it was not yet clear that world industrialization would produce more than the planet could assimilate. For a time, perhaps the added CO2 generated more plant life, and the plants released more oxygen accordingly, but the added heat began (first in the seas) to reduce the supply of plant life. The earth can cool itself by melting down some ice, but as winters get shorter, the supply of ice decreases (clearly visible in satellite photos). Thus the global warming actually gives us polar vortexes in winter as Earth tries to cool things down.
I use clean coal (anthracite) to heat my house because it is cheaper than gas (per BTU), and it does not smoke and choke like the cheaper dirty coal used in power plants. The radiant cast iron stove keeps the house cozy and is especially nice in the living areas around the stove. But it produces CO2 just like gas does. I could use dirty coal if I could find it around here, but the fumes, soot and smoke remind me too much of the after life.
The reason EPA is happy for us to burn hard coal at home (no regulatory restraints) is that it is far cleaner than using electric heat at home, because of the dirty power plants and the lost energy over the power lines, and it is also cleaner than fuel oil (which is kerosene). Hard coal is almost all carbon compared to other fuels (over 90%). EPA regulations discourage burning wood, even though it is replenishible and uses trees already cut, unless the stoves are designed to burn all the particles as well as the logs. Logs rotting in the woods produce as much CO2 as burning them does, but this has been healthy for the forest, as plants want CO2 (and give off oxygen, keeping the carbon).
Not quite. Natural gas, when burned, produces CO2 and water. The more BTU's, the more CO2, whatever fossil fuel is used. What the dirty fuels add is pollution particles like sulfur, soot, etc. But if you burn carbon (in the presence of oxygen of course), you get carbon dioxide, and you also get hydrogen dioxide--water--because fossil fuels all contain carbon in the complex form of hydrocarbons (hydrogen atoms).
The smoggy parts choke us, while the carbon dioxide part cooks us by the greenhouse effect--a simple fact demonstrated by looking at a greenhouse (or our next door planet Venus, which is so much hotter than we are for this very reason). Long ago in grade school I was taught that carbon dioxide is a harmless gas produced by natural gas, abundant in our air, but it was not yet clear that world industrialization would produce more than the planet could assimilate. For a time, perhaps the added CO2 generated more plant life, and the plants released more oxygen accordingly, but the added heat began (first in the seas) to reduce the supply of plant life. The earth can cool itself by melting down some ice, but as winters get shorter, the supply of ice decreases (clearly visible in satellite photos). Thus the global warming actually gives us polar vortexes in winter as Earth tries to cool things down.
I use clean coal (anthracite) to heat my house because it is cheaper than gas (per BTU), and it does not smoke and choke like the cheaper dirty coal used in power plants. The radiant cast iron stove keeps the house cozy and is especially nice in the living areas around the stove. But it produces CO2 just like gas does. I could use dirty coal if I could find it around here, but the fumes, soot and smoke remind me too much of the after life.
The reason EPA is happy for us to burn hard coal at home (no regulatory restraints) is that it is far cleaner than using electric heat at home, because of the dirty power plants and the lost energy over the power lines, and it is also cleaner than fuel oil (which is kerosene). Hard coal is almost all carbon compared to other fuels (over 90%). EPA regulations discourage burning wood, even though it is replenishible and uses trees already cut, unless the stoves are designed to burn all the particles as well as the logs. Logs rotting in the woods produce as much CO2 as burning them does, but this has been healthy for the forest, as plants want CO2 (and give off oxygen, keeping the carbon).
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.