Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Eric B, Mar 10, 2011.
And just what do you believe the companies would do in the alternative? Do you believe they will just pay out more to do business and eat the difference? What is being ignored in the unintelligent article is that once a company moves into the area it provides jobs and revenue to the area that it would not have gotten otherwise. the end result is competition in the market place.
The left, out of manipulation and politics, labels not being able to get more government revenue a cost.
I hope new York adopts this idiot's strategy.
Even more companies will move to business friendly right to work states. More Jobs. Employed people spend money. More business for everyone.
From the article:
"grants, low-interest loans, tax breaks and other goodies"
Grants - Governments should not issue "grants" to anyone unless the free market cannot supply the need.
Low Interest Loans - Governments have no right to give loans or to grauantee them either.
Tax breaks - Yes! Taxes should be adjust or eliminated altogether to promote business growth!!
Other Goodies - Sounds like shinanigans.
But I wonder if the author give a reliable report of what's really happening.
Let's cut to the chase and campaign for a $10/hour maximum pay for annual workers. Then all kinds of jobs will return to the US.
Well, he's saying that they were "creating jobs that were probably going to be created anyway"
He also points out that "they almost always favor larger companies - which have the wherewithal to win government help - even though it's small businesses that actually create most new jobs."
He mentions how "Some businesses merely threaten to move away - and wangle themselves huge windfalls by eventually agreeing to stay put."
So is this a principle of "might makes right"? They just force the taxpayers to subsidize them that way?
Is it supposed to be that these extra "jobs" makes up for that?
He does suggest:
(Or would this just drive the companies out of the country?)
Also, in this topic: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=70464 I was wondering, aside from what people think of Moore's solutions, what does everyone think of the premise that these people who (like in this topic), are supposedly providing all these jobs and money, are really sitting on it or taking it somewhere else?
Is that rejected as false, or that it doesn't matter, etc?
This article also ends on the idea that this would be an alternative to increasing taxes on the wealthy.
The very nature of it proves otherwise.
Who pays for these bidding wars? Isn't this socialism?