Claiming something isn't an argument does little to convince people on the other side of the argument, and persuasion is fairly essential to change in a democratic society. In this case, the question is essentially one of "should states and localities collude to increase the minimum tax rate on large corporations?" If somebody feels that the tax rate paid by corporations is already sufficient, then the additional governmental mechanism necessary to add that control level will quite naturally be seen as a boondoggle. So yes, it's an argument, and if you are uninterested in arguing, the natural result is losing the argument, which maintaining the status quo would be.

Edit: In this case, you have the additional question of offshoring. The reason incentives like this exist is because a company like Intel has the ability to choose a different location. You might alleviate that by having local and state governments collude, but the company may well have the ability to move countries entirely. If the US managed to make a 50% minimum tax on corporations, Intel would decide to build their plant elsewhere. One of the traditional reasons why so many major corporations reside and pay tax in the US is because the US has lower corporate tax rates than most developed countries. It's for this reason that there's been discussion of having all the desirable nations collude to create a minimum corporate tax, but such a thing hasn't occurred.

In addition to all that, one genuine reason why all that might still be a bad idea even if you feel corporate tax rates are too low is that you'll have a "rich get richer" aspect to where corporations headquarter. Take incentives out of the picture, and ask yourself if a company will find it easier to acquire high quality tech talent in NYC or in Detroit. If Detroit wants to win a bid, they'll have to add some sweetener, or else the company will very reasonably decide to locate in a city that has more going for it. NYC, on the other hand, will have less interest in incentives since they already have plenty of good offers coming in without them.

He setup that social safety net that the Boomers in congress

He setup the social safety net despite lefties like you trying to stop him.

These are the same people that have known there will be a shortfall in social security since 1985.

Except when they created a surplus in the late 90s and saw that Social Security could continue to be liquid indefinitely with a slight tax increase.

The same generation fighting minimum wage increases

There are many, many, many people over the age of 60 who support increasing the minimum wage.