Ahhhh gotcha, one always assumes that the Seattle area is crazy expensive. I guess I should know better than to assume things, given where I live.
Utah will never have its shit together in my eyes unless they get rid of the ridiculous alcohol content laws. The only downside of going there to shred. 
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Utah will never have its shit together in my eyes unless they get rid of the ridiculous alcohol content laws. The only downside of going there to shred. :)[/quote]
You can buy full strength beer in the liquor store (incidentally Colorado has the exact same system… 3.2% beer in the grocery store and full strength in the liquor store).
But I get where you are coming from, although last night I had a beer called “Tilted Smile” brewed in Park City 9.9% alcohol. Mother of god.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I have a Chrysler 300c and the hemi is fucking AWESOME…but the fit and finish on the interior just do not compare to german and asian automakers.[/quote]
I do like the 300. [/quote]
My wife has a 2013 Charger and loves it.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I have a Chrysler 300c and the hemi is fucking AWESOME…but the fit and finish on the interior just do not compare to german and asian automakers.[/quote]
I do like the 300. [/quote]
My wife has a 2013 Charger and loves it.
[/quote]
I do like the Charger too.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The kids want jobs, but the old fucks just don’t give a shit.
[/quote]
This is unions in a nut shell. I would also claim this is what is wrong with the GOP. The “old fucks” are trying to keep control, but if they lose who cares because they are about to die anyway.
[/quote]
I watched a local panel of machinists on the vote on a local station, and you could just tell those close to retirement were indignant and cocky about the vote, and the kids were angry and in almost a panic state about their future. It was heartbreaking to watch. [/quote]
I bet it was. The older folks would feel different if they were in the same situation that Detroit’s Unions were in.
edit: City of Detroit’s Union Members. Just a clarification.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Utah will never have its shit together in my eyes unless they get rid of the ridiculous alcohol content laws. The only downside of going there to shred. :)[/quote]
You can buy full strength beer in the liquor store (incidentally Colorado has the exact same system… 3.2% beer in the grocery store and full strength in the liquor store).
But I get where you are coming from, although last night I had a beer called “Tilted Smile” brewed in Park City 9.9% alcohol. Mother of god.[/quote]
The laws will change overtime unless the LDS keeps the same percentage of the population. Once the LDS is less than 10-25% of the vote then that law will change. I did not know that about Colorado. I always buy my liquor from the liquor store.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Utah will never have its shit together in my eyes unless they get rid of the ridiculous alcohol content laws. The only downside of going there to shred. :)[/quote]
You can buy full strength beer in the liquor store (incidentally Colorado has the exact same system… 3.2% beer in the grocery store and full strength in the liquor store).
But I get where you are coming from, although last night I had a beer called “Tilted Smile” brewed in Park City 9.9% alcohol. Mother of god.[/quote]
Rochefort Trappistes 10. 11.5% of alcoholic goodness. One of the best beers I’ve ever had. But then, I cut my teeth on Guinness Extra Stout and Trippel (which sadly has recently decreased its alcohol content, which used to be ~9%)
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Utah will never have its shit together in my eyes unless they get rid of the ridiculous alcohol content laws. The only downside of going there to shred. :)[/quote]
You can buy full strength beer in the liquor store (incidentally Colorado has the exact same system… 3.2% beer in the grocery store and full strength in the liquor store).
But I get where you are coming from, although last night I had a beer called “Tilted Smile” brewed in Park City 9.9% alcohol. Mother of god.[/quote]
Rochefort Trappistes 10. 11.5% of alcoholic goodness. One of the best beers I’ve ever had. But then, I cut my teeth on Guinness Extra Stout and Trippel (which sadly has recently decreased its alcohol content, which used to be ~9%)[/quote]
4 Peaks Hefeweizen
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Good paying jobs are FAR more important than tax breaks given to corporations.
Unions demand life long pensions? When people are living fucking forever? Unsustainable.
Unions were necessary in the past, now they are just pigs sucking at the teat…think about it, Utah has 4 of the largest construction companies in the nation…one of them will build Boeing’s big ass plant. The tax revenue from all those jobs will make up for the tax break.
Not to mention all that money being spent in the community.[/quote]
Honestly the hypocrisy in this thread from you is mind boggling. So things like tax payers giving 8.7 billion in subsidies for Boeing in Washington or Boeing forcing taxpayers to buy it’s land and equipment happens that is highly sustainable because hey those tax payers can keep working to provide for Boeing! Boeing may even redistribute (hey that’s a word the far right loves) that money by hiring some people. So they will be giving a bit of those tax dollars back. How nice of them!
You think corporate welfare is ok as but workers trying to get an overly sweet deal for retirement is not ok. It’s unsustainable for workers to try and ask for a huge (and admittedly unfair) deal on their retirement, but a company that made 1.2 BILLION in profit in the third quarter of this year alone needs tax payers across states competing to buy it’s land, equipment, and subsidize its tax breaks. That’s sustainable right? That’s fair right?
You know food stamps is money spent in the community as well. Why don’t we have our tax dollars go to giving some people money so they can eat…oh wait, we already do that.
Just…WOW. [/quote]
Oh good lordy you love to whine.
Utah has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the country already, so who’s to say what concessions that they would give Boeing to come here (non-union state)? You assume much.
And I seriously doubt that after our state prospered through the recession, we would need to worry about our governor making a bad deal.
Given that eBay and Google are building new facilities here as we speak, you just keep hoping for something bad to happen…flyover states just might surprise you.[/quote]
What the fuck are you talking about? I live in a goddamn flyover state and why would I wish for something bad to happen to your state or any other? That doesn’t make any sense and their is no way you could get that from my posts in this thread. You’re making things up big time. I wish Utah all the success in the world. I just don’t think state governments should shovel tax payer dollars towards huge companies.
The point is multi-billion dollar companies are making demands and playing state governments against one another asking for handouts and you don’t think it’s any big thing. Meanwhile you go ape shit about unions asking for a lot of money. I was just asking why you’re such a hypocrite? Righties are absolutely cool with socialism as long as it’s for huge companies is all I’m taking away from this.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Righties are absolutely cool with socialism as long as it’s for huge companies is all I’m taking away from this. [/quote]
It’s not socialism unless/until it totally collapses, or it opposes the United States.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
So you would have no problem using massive infusions of your tax dollars for large corporations to move to your state? Those 20K middle class jobs come at a very high cost for Missouri taxpayers.
Don’t worry those large corporations have no problem playing states against each other in a game of high stakes poker to see who will build the biggest tax payer pot to gift to them. After all the jobs are worth it right? Just trying to see where you draw the socialism line.
So unions asking for more money=greedy bastards. Corporations asking for infusions of tax dollars to move to states=please come stay with us!
I’m not a union guy, but I don’t follow this company nut hugging logic unless you happen to work for Boeing. Everyone is greedy. [/quote]
It’s socialism when the recipient makes less money than me, capitalism when the recipient makes more.[/quote]
And these dudes are left and right defending Boeing (who I don’t really give a shit one way or the other about,) and acting like they are mother Theresa or something as these unions try and stick them up. Bribery, welfare, as long as it’s billion dollar companies who are benefiting I’m fine with it cause hey that’s our system.
But these motherfucking workers trying to game the system…that shit is greedy and immoral. [/quote]
I would agree with you if the company owned by an individual person or family, because only one person or family reap the benefits. Boeing is a publicly traded company and it pays out dividends to people who own the company, so getting a tax break increases the cash for a lot of things. It also increases the price of the shares which pensions, individuals, mutual funds, and others own.
Lets look at it a little bit different. Unions use the threat to shut down a company if they do not get what they want whether sustainable or not. Boeing is using the threat to move the company and get rid of all those jobs if the Unions do not back down. One is extortion and the other is an effect from a cause.
Do I think Governments are giving out way too much? Maybe. The States are hopefully doing a cost benefit analysis to determine what their break even is on this deal. Get more than you are giving out. Boeing is going to make money, but will try to get as sweet a deal as they can.
[/quote]
This is a pretty big cop out D no offense. Yes Boeing being successful is good for a lot of people, but it doesn’t make it any less corporate welfare with that being the case. You can make all sorts of “good” arguments for all sorts of big government actions though. I mean with food stamps maybe the crime rate is lower. If we get rid of welfare, maybe stealing and murder increase? These are all just validations for big government actions and handouts.
You espouse the benefits of a free market in your post while talking about something that is far from it in defending corporate welfare. Look Republicans went nuts over Solyandra because the government was picking winners and giving tax dollars to a company. And yet they will make these sweetheart deals with other companies and shovel over massive tax infusions and Republicans outrage ought to be just as big. It’s a matter of staying consistent.
It’s still redistribution of wealth, but it’s better because it’s going to wealthy people who may give some of it back via some jobs and shares? I don’t buy that concept.
The freer the market the better. This isn’t anything close to one. Hard working people’s tax dollars do not need to be funneled out to pay for equipment and land for billion dollar companies. It’s not even worth defending.
I dislike corporate handouts for the same reason, but at the same time, I’m benefiting from it. If Boeing is building a new state of the art facility on the government dime, buy Boeing. Think AIG and the bailout banks are corporate pigs feeding at the government trough- Buy them. Fannie May and Freddie Mac? Buy 'em.
They get fat on the public dollar and so do you. Not as fat, but it adds up over time.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I dislike corporate handouts for the same reason, but at the same time, I’m benefiting from it. If Boeing is building a new state of the art facility on the government dime, buy Boeing. Think AIG and the bailout banks are corporate pigs feeding at the government trough- Buy them. Fannie May and Freddie Mac? Buy 'em.
They get fat on the public dollar and so do you. Not as fat, but it adds up over time.
[/quote]
And Ma and Pa Airplane builder can not compete with Boeing
What do you guys mean by “corporate socialism”?
With Boeing, my understanding is that it is asking cities for “tax breaks”, i.e., asking cities to take less of its hard earned money, but not for actual handouts.
In my view, this isn’t “corporate socialism,” its good business for the company and for the region.
In contrast, taking government handouts paid for by other taxpayers is a problem, and is “corporate socialism,” like when a city actually pays for a new arena for a sports team, or like in the case of an actual government bailout.
Cliff notes: taxing less = good; giving actual handouts = bad.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
What do you guys mean by “corporate socialism”?
With Boeing, my understanding is that it is asking cities for “tax breaks”, i.e., asking cities to take less of its hard earned money, but not for actual handouts.
In my view, this isn’t “corporate socialism,” its good business for the company and for the region.
In contrast, taking government handouts paid for by other taxpayers is a problem, and is “corporate socialism,” like when a city actually pays for a new arena for a sports team, or like in the case of an actual government bailout.
Cliff notes: taxing less = good; giving actual handouts = bad. [/quote]
You put it much more clearly than I did, well said.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I dislike corporate handouts for the same reason, but at the same time, I’m benefiting from it. If Boeing is building a new state of the art facility on the government dime, buy Boeing. Think AIG and the bailout banks are corporate pigs feeding at the government trough- Buy them. Fannie May and Freddie Mac? Buy 'em.
They get fat on the public dollar and so do you. Not as fat, but it adds up over time.
[/quote]
And Ma and Pa Airplane builder can not compete with Boeing
[/quote]
Nor should they! A friend of mine fabricates custom cars from drawing to drag strip. He is not in competition with GM. I’ve done custom aluminum frames for churches and other high end architectural designs. We weren’t trying to be Alcoa or Traco. We played our own game and were some of the best in the world at it.
It WOULD be a good idea to give companies incentives to set up shop in depressed states, but that’s not what is happening. Companies such as Whirlpool get BILLIONS of tax incentives to the point where they actually owe a NEGATIVE tax (which can be applied in future years) and then go and lay off 5000 workers in Mississippi in favor of setting up shop in Mexico. Which under NAFTA is perfectly fine.
Fuck. That. Shit.
If we are going to be giving out the subsidies, there HAS to be accountability. And if they don’t do what they promise, then tax them what they should NORMALLY pay. Tax them what every other corporation is taxed.
It’s a shady bunch of shit. Lobbyists getting paid to influence OUR elected officials to represent the interests of corporations instead of citizens. As I said, if there is accountability, transparency and the corporation does what it agreed to do, then I see how it could be used in a positive way. But as it is currently being implemented? It’s a fucking joke. And the joke is on the middle class.
But as long as the stupid sheeple keep tweeting and posting cat gifs instead of actually writing a letter to their representatives expressing their outrage, the train just keeps on moving.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
What do you guys mean by “corporate socialism”?
With Boeing, my understanding is that it is asking cities for “tax breaks”, i.e., asking cities to take less of its hard earned money, but not for actual handouts.
In my view, this isn’t “corporate socialism,” its good business for the company and for the region.
In contrast, taking government handouts paid for by other taxpayers is a problem, and is “corporate socialism,” like when a city actually pays for a new arena for a sports team, or like in the case of an actual government bailout.
Cliff notes: taxing less = good; giving actual handouts = bad. [/quote]
They have bargaining power to demand stuff that other people can’t get. Plus you are ignoring the buying of equipment and land which are direct taxpayer handouts. Their size allows them to play governments against one another to get these deals. If it was just taxing less I would have less of an issue but it isn’t. Plus why would anyone support the rules being different for gigantic profit making companies? Hey these guys are making a shit ton of money, they deserve to have the rules skewed in their favor!
It’s crony capitalism at its finest.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I dislike corporate handouts for the same reason, but at the same time, I’m benefiting from it. If Boeing is building a new state of the art facility on the government dime, buy Boeing. Think AIG and the bailout banks are corporate pigs feeding at the government trough- Buy them. Fannie May and Freddie Mac? Buy 'em.
They get fat on the public dollar and so do you. Not as fat, but it adds up over time.
[/quote]
And Ma and Pa Airplane builder can not compete with Boeing
[/quote]
Nor should they!
[/quote]
We dis agree