Put the bong down and actually read his post. You might learn something. A union member saying he's trying to keep his company profitable is a unique idea. If the company doesn't make money his job is vulnerable. Some people are willng to make sure their company is viable in this economy and others just want to stand their ground.

Dan S, other than a zing here or there, do you have anything to add?

" Had the business climate in this region been just a little more accomodating we'd have kept those jobs and possibly built on them. "

What further hand outs would you have liked to see?

I disagree with all of the above. Boeing has been and will continue to be about blackmail. By opening up a full fledged shop in SC they can play the two cities against each other. Sure it's a win to bust the unions and a win to hire cheaper labor but those are a nit compared to what they will be able to extract from the taxpayers in the years ahead.

[/quote]
As a business owner in King County I could tell you that our politicians don't give a [censored] about you or me. We get what we ask for. The tax burden will be taken up by the average citizen since they(our elected politicians) can't control their spending. [/quote]

Since you own a business you must be rich and just greedy. Qiut your bitching, pay your workers more and pay more in taxes so that we citizens can be taken care of.

Stlhd- You don't get it and I totally disagree with your principles. However, I do realize that there are way more of YOU in this state than there are of me. Like it or not the path that we are on now is the path that we will remain on.

I'm confused... Which sort of hand outs are good again?

There's the "Gregoire/Union F'd up again" crowd who thinks she and the union should have been more business friendly folks... But tax/wage concessions to the corporation -- that's a government handout to a corporation... So that's okay, if you're a Republican?

Then there's the "Boeing F'd us" crowd, who thinks the union and collective bargaining are a good thing, even though they just lost thousands of jobs to S.C. and now those folks will be on the unemployment rolls.. That's a government handout to individuals.... So that's okay if you're a Democrat?

The "I'm against all handouts" people would have lost Boeing (greedy bastards) and have thousands of "lazy" folks who ran out of unemployment because, screw them, they should get a job. Now they're stealing your kicker motor and you need to go get a gun.

So which one of these is the good scenario again?

This is captialism. It's free market economics. What exactly are you saying they did wrong?

Did you ever comparison shop for prices on a car, or a TV? Aren't you doing the same thing by playing two retailers against each other? You might wait until a sale to buy a large gift this Christmas -- are you guilty of "extracting" those savings from the manufacturer and retailer -- forcing them to off-shore their operations to China to meet your insatiable need for even cheaper LCD televisions?

The people that own Boeing stock are the ones that pressured them to be more profitable.

I guess you'll have to answer the question for yourself. The fact is- it takes business to provide jobs. Also, it's highly likely that a "handout" to business provides a return...

How 'bout this?

Wash the sand out of your mangina, Nancy.

Other than crying and sniveling consatntly, do YOU have anything to add?

If you don't like my posts, then don't read them. It will surely be no skin off my ass. I'm not obliged to not respond to your drivel when I feel like it, and crying about is is likely to just lead to more commentary from me.

"Stlhd- You don't get it and I totally disagree with your principles. However, I do realize that there are way more of YOU in this state than there are of me. Like it or not the path that we are on now is the path that we will remain on."

How much is one job worth to the taxpayer? If you are Charleston it is worth $118,421 and that's for starters. You seem to be one of those with the mind set that those poor businesses are only providing a service to the taxpayer and shouldn't have to pay any tax. I'm of the other mind set where it should be federal law that no public tax dollars can fund a private enterprise. Otherwise you get what it is....blackmail.
As a business owner did you know the playing field going in? Did you know you had to pay taxes and unemployment insurance and such? If you can no longer afford to play then get out but don't whine to me you cry baby.

"This is captialism. It's free market economics. What exactly are you saying they did wrong? "

Didn't say they did anything wrong just saying that's where I think the big win is from Boeing's perspective. It's perfectly normal these day's to threaten to pull the plug on a city or state unless you are given concessions. What i don't like is our city or state not getting iron clad gaurantees in return. If they had done that the first go around we wouldn't be talking about SC.

BTW, it isn't capitalism....it's socialism. If they were shopping for the best deal without tax payer incentives it would lean towards capitalism.

No, it's really not Socialism.

It's at best capitalism with a hint of government tax breaks (really a subsidy) in this case, but it's a zillion miles from Socialism, despite what the teabaggers may say.

The means of production are still in private (Boeing shareholder) hands here.

Agree but also a zillion miles from capitalism. Subsidies are welfare. Tarrifs are welfare. And yes in private hands so there should be no feeding off of the govt teet or it's Corp welfare.

The subsidies are designed to promote business prosperity. When a business prospers the delta between revenues and expenses increases- it's called profit. Any legitimate business (especially one that answers to shareolders) will reinvest at least a portion of those profits thereby creating growth. Growth increases the tax base and employment opportunity. The state benefits financially from both!

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/state_subsidies_corporations_little_return.html

Interesting aticle. Apparently there is much debate about what kind of return a state gets on their money for the subsidies they offer to corporations to locate and/or stay in a particular location.

That's not necessarily true. Employment opportunity is only created if there is an increased demand for the product. Demand for a product is the only thing that drives employment. Hiring additional workers without a need--increased demand--is fiscally irresponsible, and no shareholder should stand for it. Notice today's headlines that mention the recent recession has shown corporations that they can maintain (perhaps even increase) productivity with less personnel. So all the subsidies and tax breaks in the world will not create jobs; only demand for product creates jobs. And even that may not be true now.

Dan, read the posts again to see if anybody is sniveling. I'd tell you to go [censored] yourself but I'm guessing it doesn't even reach far enough to be handled with two fingers....? Napoleon comes to mind when I read what you have to say.

Some of you folks have me scratching my head. Do you like the business climate in this state? Do you like the leadership we have? The path we're on is not sustainable.

When the Kent teachers were illegally on strike our governor never spoke up about the illegal strike. Who's pocket does she answer to? It ain't the common folk. Walking the picket line with the Boing union doesn't send a good message. You're all ok with that? I'm not. I expect more.

it is an interesting article and definitely has some valid points on the subject. I will say that i think a government has a fiduciary duty to the tax payers when offering corp incentives. That is to ensure that the recipient has enough skin in the game to at least minimize if not prevent that kind of situation. By the way, after reading that article it seemed like Indy just tossed up a hail mary. UAL was one of the most unstable companies in the country at the time.

Don't really care about your prosperity or profit but good on you as long as you aren't using my money to do it. If you are I'll treat you know different than any other welfare recipient.
Growth has major expenses for the state in infrastructure, education, etc. Growth can lead to negative revenue for a state. If your ideal of growth were true then taxes would decline not increase as a state grows.

"Some of you folks have me scratching my head. Do you like the business climate in this state? Do you like the leadership we have? The path we're on is not sustainable."

What path is that? Let me guess.....bus needs to pay less and the individual needs to pay more to artificially prop up the poor bus.

Another example for you people who live in Seattle was Immunex. The city bent over and k'd it's ass paying to widen 15th ave and build car and pedestrian overpasses all in the name of jobs. Before it was even finished Immunex sold out to Amgen who turned around and began massive layoffs. Got their street work and overpasses though. Just say no to corp welfare.

[/quote]
Don't really care about your prosperity or profit but good on you as long as you aren't using my money to do it. If you are I'll treat you know different than any other welfare recipient.
Growth has major expenses for the state in infrastructure, education, etc. Growth can lead to negative revenue for a state. If your ideal of growth were true then taxes would decline not increase as a state grows. [/quote]

ughh!! Are you hittin the bong too?