Post by: PaulS on November 29, 2016, 07:57:15 PM
“We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I'm going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You're gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.’"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/29/carrier-says-it-has-deal-with-trump-to-keep-jobs-in-indiana.html
Post by: Gary on November 30, 2016, 07:09:51 AM
Post by: PaulS on November 30, 2016, 07:16:46 AM
Post by: Little Joe on November 30, 2016, 07:18:35 AM
That is good news for the workers and economy in Indianapolis! Have you seen any details of what the deal entails?I don't know that any details have been released yet, but I suspect it has to do with various Obama Executive Orders being rescinded. An awful lot of people have no clue as to the quantity and extent of his EOs. Many people think his EOs consist of legislated laws.
Post by: Number7 on November 30, 2016, 10:01:45 AM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 30, 2016, 10:37:35 AM
Trump theorized that just reversing a vast majority of Obama's marxist regulations would bring back business to the US. Now that he has a chance to do so, surprise surprise, business sees it the same way that another businessman sees it.Was wondering about BO's EOs so looked them up.
Can easily see where Trump might leave a passel of 'em on the cutting room floor to free up businesses and cut waste.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html
Post by: Gary on November 30, 2016, 11:07:52 AM
Was wondering about BO's EOs so looked them up.
Can easily see where Trump might leave a passel of 'em on the cutting room floor to free up businesses and cut waste.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html
Possibly. Looking at the list, a fair number are corrections, amendments and continuances of EO's issued by other Presidents. Others are pretty innocuous , normal course of business.
Post by: Number7 on November 30, 2016, 03:36:04 PM
Was wondering about BO's EOs so looked them up.
Can easily see where Trump might leave a passel of 'em on the cutting room floor to free up businesses and cut waste.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html
One of our resident marxists will be along to enlighten us as to anyone wishing that over regulation be reigned in, really means that they want no regulations what-so-ever. It is always an all or nothing world for those who reside on the far left. That is really no different than how a progressive or liberal views the tax code. To a true blue liberal, lowering taxes costs an exact amount of tax revenue, not generates more tax revenue because money actually works instead of being withheld by the crooks ( I meant government ) that waste it on idiotic regulation and sheer idiocy.
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 05:21:28 PM
How is what Trump did ($7M in tax breaks promised to Carrier) "winning"?
How is this not "choosing winners and losers"?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 05:36:22 PM
Could a staunch conservative please explain how Trump's intervention doesn't constitute government overreach?
How is what Trump did ($7M in tax breaks promised to Carrier) "winning"?
How is this not "choosing winners and losers"?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
So give us your idea on promoting business. Should we just tax them more and add more regulations as an "incentive" to grow?
States like California have regulated and taxed businesses until many have left. Startup businesses wouldn't consider a state like California.
Then you have states like Texas who give tax incentives to businesses and reduced regulations. And Texas has no problem attracting and keeping businesses.
Look at the current state of affairs in California, and then look at Texas. Self explanatory.
As far as the $7 million? Look at it this way:
So Trump cuts a deal and saves 1,000 jobs. It's going to cost the State of Indiana $7.5M over a ten year period.
In the FIRST 13 WEEKS after the plant closes, the State of Indiana will pay out approximately $6.5M in unemployment benefits alone. If they extend the benefits just to 26 weeks, the cost to Indiana will be $13M.
So here's the deal: spend $7.5M over the next 10 years to save upwards of $13M immediately.
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 05:54:47 PM
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 05:56:14 PM
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 06:00:10 PM
So Trump made a deal on behalf of the state of Indiana? Is it legal for a POTUS to negotiate on behalf of a state?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his running mate, Gov Mike Pence, is still the current governor of Indiana.
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 06:06:35 PM
What if Carrier leaves Indiana for Texas in 2018?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Would they?
Typically when a company gets tax breaks they sign a commitment to the state, and if the company changes their mind there are penalties and repayment.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 01, 2016, 06:13:04 PM
Is it legal for a POTUS to negotiate on behalf of a state?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Only if you're a Democrat, apparently.
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 06:16:59 PM
Only if you're a Democrat, apparently.So Trump IS a democrat!
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 06:18:09 PM
Would they?I guess we won't know unless the POTUS-elect decides to reveal the details of his deal.
Typically when a company gets tax breaks they sign a commitment to the state, and if the company changes their mind there are penalties and repayment.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 06:28:21 PM
I guess we won't know unless the POTUS-elect decides to reveal the details of his deal.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
A lot of it has already been discussed. Plus, being a state deal it can be revealed without too much effort.
There's nothing secretive in this deal. It's business.
Post by: Little Joe on December 01, 2016, 06:28:33 PM
What if Carrier leaves Indiana for Texas in 2018?That is between Texas and Indiana. Trump shouldn't take sides there.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
But the deal we are talking about is between the US and Mexico. I am happy that Trump stood up for the US.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 01, 2016, 06:32:02 PM
So, POTUS did not negotiate anything.
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
That is between Texas and Indiana. Trump shouldn't take sides there.Did he stand up for the US? Was the deal made from federal funds, or state funds? Seems like he stood up for Indiana, assuming Lucifer's math adds up.
But the deal we are talking about is between the US and Mexico. I am happy that Trump stood up for the US.
My point being that if he did this to prove he can make a deal, great. He acted as a conduit negotiator between Pence and Carrier. He won't be able to negotiate on behalf of a state while POTUS.
Moreover, please explain how this isn't government intrusion on a private business.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 06:40:12 PM
Did he stand up for the US? Was the deal made from federal funds, or state funds? Seems like he stood up for Indiana, assuming Lucifer's math adds up.
My point being that if he did this to prove he can make a deal, great. He acted as a conduit negotiator between Pence and Carrier. He won't be able to negotiate on behalf of a state while POTUS.
Moreover, please explain how this isn't government intrusion on a private business.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Ther is government intrusion in EVERY business in this country. That intrusion comes in the form of taxes and regulation. What Trump has done is negotiated a reduction in those taxes and regulations which fosters a better business environment for the company.
So, are you for more tax and regulation on business, or are you for reducing taxes and regulations to encourage businesses to grow, which in turn adds to employment and increases the tax base?
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 06:51:37 PM
Ther is government intrusion in EVERY business in this country. That intrusion comes in the form of taxes and regulation. What Trump has done is negotiated a reduction in those taxes and regulations which fosters a better business environment for the company.So relieving tax burden on a business is not intrusion, but its fostering a better business environment? We (I use we because we the taxpayer will foot the tax shortage in some way) relieved the burden on one business?
So, are you for more tax and regulation on business, or are you for reducing taxes and regulations to encourage businesses to grow, which in turn adds to employment and increases the tax base?
What about Carrier's competition? What about other industries?
Carrier announced it was going to move manufacturing to Mexico. Companies like Caterpillar and Ford have done that multiple times. Will we foster a better business environment for them, and bring back jobs to the depressed cities of Peoria and Detroit?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Little Joe on December 01, 2016, 06:58:10 PM
Will we foster a better business environment for them, and bring back jobs to the depressed cities of Peoria and Detroit?Yes. President elect Trump has promised to lower taxes on all businesses. That may not bring back businesses that have already left, but it will help keep other businesses from leaving. And the net result will be improved employment and tax revenue levels.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
But now this question is even more important: What does
Quote
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!mean? We used to have another poster here (who has chickened out of posting anymore because he embarrassed himself) that had the same tagline.
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 06:59:54 PM
I guess it's Tapatalk and their default signature. Heh. Seems pretty funny to me.
But now this question is even more important: What does mean? We used to have another poster here (who has chickened out of posting anymore because he embarrassed himself) that had the same tagline.
Squirrel!
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 07:01:16 PM
What about the inevitable shortage in tax income for public services? What do we do about that shortfall?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 01, 2016, 07:04:52 PM
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 07:07:28 PM
So relieving tax burden on a business is not intrusion, but its fostering a better business environment? We (I use we because we the taxpayer will foot the tax shortage in some way) relieved the burden on one business?
What "tax shortage"? If a company is allowed to expand and grow, the tax base grows. More people hired equals more money spent in the community, if the company sells more units it means more money to the tax base, more units sold means suppliers sell more raw goods to the manufacture, which in turn means more in tax revenue, which in turn means the suppliers have more money to spend on growth, etc, etc.
What about Carrier's competition? What about other industries?
Give them the same deals, competition is a good thing.
Carrier announced it was going to move manufacturing to Mexico. Companies like Caterpillar and Ford have done that multiple times. Will we foster a better business environment for them, and bring back jobs to the depressed cities of Peoria and Detroit?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Those businesses moved to Mexico for one reason, money. And I say money as in savings by reduced regulations and a lower tax base. They also save by cheaper labor.
So why not incentivize them to expand in the US by reducing the tax rates and reducing regulations? States can make attractive deals to manufactures in order to lure them back.
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 07:15:59 PM
As for lowering taxes for all businesses. Will we lower taxes for citizens too, or just businesses?
What about the inevitable shortage in tax income for public services? What do we do about that shortfall?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
From what I've read there will be tax cuts for citizens as well.
When Reagan cut taxes in the 80's the economy boomed and tax revenues increased dramatically.
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 01, 2016, 07:26:55 PM
So Trump IS a democrat!
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
No, it means it's acceptable for Democrats only as approved by fellow democrats.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 01, 2016, 07:28:59 PM
So relieving tax burden on a business is not intrusion, but its fostering a better business environment? We (I use we because we the taxpayer will foot the tax shortage in some way) relieved the burden on one business?
What about Carrier's competition? What about other industries?
Carrier announced it was going to move manufacturing to Mexico. Companies like Caterpillar and Ford have done that multiple times. Will we foster a better business environment for them, and bring back jobs to the depressed cities of Peoria and Detroit?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Wow, liberals sure do have a warped way of looking at the world.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 01, 2016, 07:29:46 PM
I guess it's Tapatalk and their default signature. Heh. Seems pretty funny to me.I smell a sock puppet.
Squirrel!
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 07:42:22 PM
No, it means it's acceptable for Democrats only as approved by fellow democrats.So you approve this method of government intervention because a "Republican" conducted it? I find it funny that conservatives would cheer on any form of government intervention into private business.
I'm not against this deal. If the deal is as good as it sounds I'm all for it. I'm also all for lowering taxes, but I'm curious. With all this lowering of taxes, who will pay for our government's budgetary needs?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 07:44:44 PM
I smell a sock puppet.(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161202/6605449d756ddb8c3a1b8722681463d2.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 01, 2016, 07:45:13 PM
With all this lowering of taxes, who will pay for our government's budgetary needs?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
It's worked before: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 07:55:11 PM
It's worked before: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-recordSo, we cut taxes and ... the economy booms so much that we have that many more people paying taxes? It sounds far fetched to me, but I'm willing to see if it works.
I was but a child in the 80's so I don't have the benefit of first hand knowledge.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 07:58:58 PM
How is this worse than what Trump did?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 01, 2016, 08:11:47 PM
So, we cut taxes and ... the economy booms so much that we have that many more people paying taxes? It sounds far fetched to me, but I'm willing to see if it works.
I was but a child in the 80's so I don't have the benefit of first hand knowledge.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Mark, no disrespect but have you never read about Art Laffer and the Laffer curve? One of the issues that Reagan faced was having a Democrat House putting together the spending bills. Unfortunately $1.50 was spent for every $1.00 increase in revenue which caused the deficit and debt to rise.
Post by: MarkZ on December 01, 2016, 08:20:47 PM
None taken. I'm knee deep in a book about B17 and Me-109 drivers from WWII, so it'll be a while before I check that out..if it's a book.
Mark, no disrespect but have you never read about Art Laffer and the Laffer curve? One of the issues that Reagan faced was having a Democrat House putting together the spending bills. Unfortunately $1.50 was spent for every $1.00 increase in revenue which caused the deficit and debt to rise.
If not, well then I'm easily distracted.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: bflynn on December 01, 2016, 08:41:57 PM
So, we cut taxes and ... the economy booms so much that we have that many more people paying taxes? It sounds far fetched to me, but I'm willing to see if it works.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-adopting-corporate-tax-rates-oecd-uk-and-canada
Taxfoundation.org did an analysis last year, before this topic came up. Their targets compared moving the federal tax rate to the average rate of 25%, the 20% rate in the UK and the 15% rate in Canada.
If you skip to the bottom table, their analysis is that dropping the rate to 15% will result in 4.4 trillion in new GDP revenues over the next 10 years while it will cost about 2.5 trillion. Additionally, almost every income bracket will see about a 4% bump in salary.
A mistake that liberals will make is to observe that the government loses out on the deal and revenues go down, so this must be a bad plan. The reason is that the money that the people have goes up, the people are better off, the government is a little worse off. But good or bad is judgement. If you believe that it's bad when the government gets less and we the people get more, then yes...this is a bad plan. Personally, I believe that the more money in the people's hands, the less they need their government.
And coincidentally, more pilots can fly airplanes. That's got to be good.
Post by: bflynn on December 01, 2016, 08:47:10 PM
Mark, no disrespect but have you never read about Art Laffer and the Laffer curve? One of the issues that Reagan faced was having a Democrat House putting together the spending bills. Unfortunately $1.50 was spent for every $1.00 increase in revenue which caused the deficit and debt to rise.
And here's a perfect example of the liberal trap.
The Laffer curve simply observes that if tax rate is 0% then revenues are 0 and if it is 100% then revenues are also 0 (because who will work for nothing?). But we know it is positive in between, which means there must be a point where tax revenues are maximized. If you move away from that point, revenues go down. If you move toward it, revenues go up.
But here is the trap - having government revenues going up is not really a good thing for you and me. It sounds good, to have government tax revenues go up, but it goes up because they are taking the money from us and therefore we have less! That isn't a good thing.
The Laffer curve also just talks about government revenue. It never addresses government spending.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 01, 2016, 08:59:24 PM
So you approve this method of government intervention because a "Republican" conducted it? I find it funny that conservatives would cheer on any form of government intervention into private business.
I'm not against this deal. If the deal is as good as it sounds I'm all for it. I'm also all for lowering taxes, but I'm curious. With all this lowering of taxes, who will pay for our government's budgetary needs?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
CUT SPENDING. GROW THE TAX BASE BY ADDING NON-GOVERNMENT JOBS.
Post by: Username on December 02, 2016, 08:36:48 AM
So here's the deal: spend $7.5M over the next 10 years to save upwards of $13M immediately.
Plus all the local, state, and federal taxes those employees will be paying. Along with the taxes the company pays.
Post by: Anthony on December 02, 2016, 08:48:22 AM
None taken. I'm knee deep in a book about B17 and Me-109 drivers from WWII, so it'll be a while before I check that out..if it's a book.
Mark, which book is that? Sounds interesting.
Post by: Anthony on December 02, 2016, 08:50:44 AM
CUT SPENDING. GROW THE TAX BASE BY ADDING NON-GOVERNMENT JOBS.
Under Obama, we have had very anemic GDP growth. Often, it has been flat. When the economy does not grow, people do not get jobs, nor make money. If our tax rates are cut across the board, and regulation rolled back to reasonable levels, we will see economic growth. As JFK said, "a rising tide raises all boats". More economic growth means MORE TAX REVENUE even if tax RATES are cut.
Post by: Number7 on December 02, 2016, 11:15:43 AM
Lower tax RATES results in increased tax REVENUE.
It is really that simple.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 02, 2016, 11:15:59 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 02, 2016, 11:17:49 AM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 02, 2016, 11:22:16 AM
Liberals look at the economic pie as a static item. The economic pie is extremely dynamic and if the right conditions exist the economy will grow nicely and thus lowering tax rates will bring increased revenues.
I've told you guys that liberals think like children. There's only one pie coming out of the oven and everyone has to get the same size piece. If any kid is perceived to get a smidgen bigger then there's screaming and crying.
Post by: PaulS on December 02, 2016, 12:13:43 PM
Obama in June, on Trump saying he was going to prevent companies from moving to Mexico,
"For those folks who've lost their job right now because a plant went down to Mexico, that isn't gonna make you feel better. And so what we have to do is to make sure that folks are trained for the jobs that are comin' in now because some of those jobs of the past are just not gonna come back. And when somebody says -- like the person you just mentioned who I'm not gonna advertise for -- that he's gonna bring all these jobs back? Well, how exactly are y'gonna do that? What're you gonna do? There's no answer to it. He just says, "I'm gonna negotiate a better deal." (stammering) Well, how...? What...? How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he duh'n't have'n answer."
*lifted from Rush
Trump's magic wand...... a telephone, lol.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 02, 2016, 12:28:41 PM
Obama in June, on Trump saying he was going to prevent companies from moving to Mexico,
"For those folks who've lost their job right now because a plant went down to Mexico, that isn't gonna make you feel better. And so what we have to do is to make sure that folks are trained for the jobs that are comin' in now because some of those jobs of the past are just not gonna come back. And when somebody says -- like the person you just mentioned who I'm not gonna advertise for -- that he's gonna bring all these jobs back? Well, how exactly are y'gonna do that? What're you gonna do? There's no answer to it. He just says, "I'm gonna negotiate a better deal." (stammering) Well, how...? What...? How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he duh'n't have'n answer."
*lifted from Rush
Trump's magic wand...... a telephone, lol.
I can't wait to not hear that smug ignoranus with his clipped, preachy speech pattern any more.
Post by: Username on December 02, 2016, 12:30:00 PM
Obama in June, "... gonna ... comin' ... gonna ... gonna ... gonna ... y'gonna ... gonna ... gonna ... duh'n't have'n answer."
Just when did it become fricking acceptable for the president of these United States to speak like this? He should be an example of something to aspire to. Not a fricking bumpkin. And when did it become acceptable to write like this? I see it in the press amazingly often. Sure, sometimes he'll say "gonna", but at least fricking write it like "going to". This country is going to Hell in a handbasket.
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2016, 12:50:40 PM
Obama in June, on Trump saying he was going to prevent companies from moving to Mexico,
"For those folks who've lost their job right now because a plant went down to Mexico, that isn't gonna make you feel better. And so what we have to do is to make sure that folks are trained for the jobs that are comin' in now because some of those jobs of the past are just not gonna come back. And when somebody says -- like the person you just mentioned who I'm not gonna advertise for -- that he's gonna bring all these jobs back? Well, how exactly are y'gonna do that? What're you gonna do? There's no answer to it. He just says, "I'm gonna negotiate a better deal." (stammering) Well, how...? What...? How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he duh'n't have'n answer."
*lifted from Rush
Trump's magic wand...... a telephone, lol.
Here you have Trump. His father was a well respected businessman, extremely successful, and he raises his son Donald in the business world and sends him to one of the best business schools. Donald takes his father's company and greatly expands its holdings and builds a multi billion dollar empire. The man knows business inside and out.
Then you have Obama. He was a community organizer........
Need I say more?
Post by: MarkZ on December 02, 2016, 03:54:53 PM
Mark, which book is that? Sounds interesting.
A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II
Available in hardcover and Kindle from Amazon. Written by a millennial but so far extremely good (only 10% into it so far). I'm a sucker for these kind of books.
Sent from my iPhone
Post by: Gary on December 02, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
I haven't seen any details, I'm sure there was some quid pro quo, hopefully it was a good deal.
This was a very smart public relations move on the part of the President-elect. No matter what quid-pro-quo was given or not given, in 6 months the only thing that most people will remember is that the President-elect fought for American jobs and "saved" 1000 of them. It will quickly be forgotten what the cost of those jobs were and if they are truly saved.
Glad that tariffs on the incoming A/C units was quickly and quietly discarded.
Post by: Gary on December 02, 2016, 05:39:23 PM
So you approve this method of government intervention because a "Republican" conducted it? I find it funny that conservatives would cheer on any form of government intervention into private business.
I'm not against this deal. If the deal is as good as it sounds I'm all for it. I'm also all for lowering taxes, but I'm curious. With all this lowering of taxes, who will pay for our government's budgetary needs?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Most likely we will borrow it. Will prove interesting in 8-10 months when it becomes time to raise the debt ceiling.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 02, 2016, 07:37:26 PM
Most likely we will borrow it. Will prove interesting in 8-10 months when it becomes time to raise the debt ceiling.
We have budget problems because the federal government is oversized and out of control, and too much gets spent on too many paid for by too few.
Post by: Little Joe on December 03, 2016, 06:55:06 AM
Most likely we will borrow it. Will prove interesting in 8-10 months when it becomes time to raise the debt ceiling.What would truly be interesting is if in 8-10 months, we don't have to raise the debt ceiling.
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 07:33:41 AM
What would truly be interesting is if in 8-10 months, we don't have to raise the debt ceiling.
It will probably have to be raised this time around due to the out of control spending left over by Obama and the congress. I would venture to say it will take a full year to start reigning in spending to a controllable level.
What I'm waiting to see are the first few bills from the new congress. Personally I don't think the republicans have learned their lesson and I wouldn't be surprised to see the bills laden down with pork.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 07:37:01 AM
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Anthony on December 03, 2016, 08:17:05 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 03, 2016, 08:49:01 AM
At least the new attitude coming from our President elect is ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB RETENTION/CREATION. It is pervasive, and will lead to a positive, growing economy. Now, let's see if he can CUT SPENDING, also.
Cutting spending will require the cooperation of Congress...ya know because Congress is the branch of government that is responsible for appropriating money.
Post by: PaulS on December 03, 2016, 08:51:19 AM
Cutting spending will require the cooperation of Congress...ya know because Congress is the branch of government that is responsible for appropriating money.
Yes, but the president does get to veto, hopefully he will use it as needed.
Post by: Anthony on December 03, 2016, 08:53:06 AM
Cutting spending will require the cooperation of Congress...ya know because Congress is the branch of government that is responsible for appropriating money.
I know that Bob, but the President, as part of his agenda can influence Congress. Trump has a Republican majority in both houses. Let's see if he can use it to his advantage. Will the establishment Repubs fight him? YES.
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 08:57:32 AM
I know that Bob, but the President, as part of his agenda can influence Congress. Trump has a Republican majority in both houses. Let's see if he can use it to his advantage. Will the establishment Repubs fight him? YES.
The establishment republicans are giddy right now in believing they can get everything they want and Trump will just go along with them, and it will be "business as usual".
There is a rude awakening coming.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 09:11:09 AM
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 09:16:12 AM
Did Trump save Carrier from moving to Mexico? Several media outlets report that the bulk of manufacturing is still moving south.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
The media wouldn't have a bias now would they? ::)
The media have been twisting this in every way possible to make it look bad.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 09:27:31 AM
The media wouldn't have a bias now would they? ::)Nice editorial. It doesn't answer the question. How much of Carrier's operation is still moving to Mexico?
The media have been twisting this in every way possible to make it look bad.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: PaulS on December 03, 2016, 11:05:29 AM
Nice editorial. It doesn't answer the question. How much of Carrier's operation is still moving to Mexico?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
It'll be interesting to find out and it's going to be funny when Trump starts talking tariffs.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 11:06:24 AM
It'll be interesting to find out and it's going to be funny when Trump starts talking tariffs.I wonder how much congressional support he would be able to muster.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 11:17:36 AM
Nice editorial. It doesn't answer the question. How much of Carrier's operation is still moving to Mexico?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
I haven't taken the time to research it this morning. My "editorial" as you put it is based in fact as the MSM has been twisting this story in order to make Trump look bad. Therefore, just because the MSM says it's so doesn't mean anything.
And you are fully capable of researching this as well.
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 11:19:12 AM
I wonder how much congressional support he would be able to muster.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Depends. Depends on a lot of things. Please, take the time to do a bit of research on these topics.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 03, 2016, 11:21:17 AM
I haven't taken the time to research it this morning. My "editorial" as you put it is based in fact as the MSM has been twisting this story in order to make Trump look bad. Therefore, just because the MSM says it's so doesn't mean anything.Yes. I've read that some Carrier operations will indeed still move to Mexico. Of course that is what MSM will focus on. It's kind of amazing how obvious the Dems and MSM are making their slants ... they're going positively perpendicular. As yet they don't have a strategy for actually reporting good things about Republicans. That is in itself a good thing ... it creates more Republican voters.
And you are fully capable of researching this as well.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 11:25:19 AM
I haven't taken the time to research it this morning. My "editorial" as you put it is based in fact as the MSM has been twisting this story in order to make Trump look bad. Therefore, just because the MSM says it's so doesn't mean anything.Oh, the research was done. There is consensus among the reports that Trump saved approximately 700-800 jobs from being outsourced to Mexico. 200-300 jobs were never leaving, however they got lumped in with the total.
And you are fully capable of researching this as well.
The reporting then differs. Reports range estimates between 1000-2000 Carrier jobs that will still move to Mexico. While the manufacturing of units will remain in Indiana, most reports state the manufacturing of parts will occur in Monterey.
Depends. Depends on a lot of things. Please, take the time to do a bit of research on these topics.(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161203/e5122f09135056a4e15cc8ad2036ee78.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 01:08:29 PM
The MSM has zero credibility. Have they shown all of the real numbers or only gleaned and twisted the ones to make their narrative?
Come back when you have real information. I noticed you didn't even link where your "reports" were coming from.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 03:10:27 PM
Again, you are using "reports". Did you take the time to verify the reports? Or are you just dependent on whatever the MSM is feeding you?https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461
The MSM has zero credibility. Have they shown all of the real numbers or only gleaned and twisted the ones to make their narrative?
Come back when you have real information. I noticed you didn't even link where your "reports" were coming from.
Sounds like two thirds of Carrier's workers will be collecting unemployment, and Carrier still gets $7 million in tax breaks from the State of Indiana. So 800 jobs get "saved." Parent company United Technologies will get credits as well: they are keeping 300 jobs in Indiana that they never had intentions of moving.
It's obvious Trump needed a campaign promise fulfilled. And quickly. He accomplished that, but the devil is in the details. Two thirds of Carrier's workforce will be Mexican. That sounds fitting, considering two thirds of United Technologies' 200,000 workers also are not in the United States.
Why does United Technologies matter? One of the corporation's largest customers happens to be the United States government. Makes me wonder if Trump will offer lucrative contracts in exchange for more jobs "saved." I hope Trump is smarter than that.
PS. You're not very good at this.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Number7 on December 03, 2016, 03:20:19 PM
Funny how Mark can't remember any of those things while playing MSM stupid about Trump.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 03:28:10 PM
I recall when the Obama administration pretended that they created or saved millions of jobs, when the truth was that they created an entire myth around every single thing, including counting each part time job as ten jobs because they 'calculated' that the job would last ten years, even if it was a minimum wage, part time job.We aren't talking about Obama, are we?
Funny how Mark can't remember any of those things while playing MSM stupid about Trump.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 05:01:46 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461
Sounds like two thirds of Carrier's workers will be collecting unemployment, and Carrier still gets $7 million in tax breaks from the State of Indiana. So 800 jobs get "saved." Parent company United Technologies will get credits as well: they are keeping 300 jobs in Indiana that they never had intentions of moving.
So are some of those job reductions due to attrition or retirement? Could it possible be that those jobs will phase out as people retire and not be removed all at once? Could it be there is no plan to backfill those jobs? The article doesn't bother to give those details.
BTW, the WSJ has their liberal bias and conveniently writes stories to fit their narrative.
It's obvious Trump needed a campaign promise fulfilled. And quickly. He accomplished that, but the devil is in the details. Two thirds of Carrier's workforce will be Mexican. That sounds fitting, considering two thirds of United Technologies' 200,000 workers also are not in the United States.
You do realize that UT is a global corporation that encompasses many different companies, right?
And as far as "the Devils in the details", you are correct. Details the WSJ didn't bother to cover. Wonder why?
Why does United Technologies matter? One of the corporation's largest customers happens to be the United States government. Makes me wonder if Trump will offer lucrative contracts in exchange for more jobs "saved." I hope Trump is smarter than that.
You do realize that those "lucrative contracts" have a myriad of government procedures and typically the president doesn't handle that? Then again, you probably don't.
PS. You're not very good at this.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Let's see Mark, you have proven over and over how clueless you are to how businesses work and you have proven you have no clue to basic economics. And you use for references liberal slanted media.
You're exceptionally lousy at this.
And, from another thread:
Very well said.
If that be the case, would it not be safe to say that it would be foolhardy to draw conclusions when there is no evidence or data?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Absolutely.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 06:56:37 PM
So are some of those job reductions due to attrition or retirement? Could it possible be that those jobs will phase out as people retire and not be removed all at once? Could it be there is no plan to backfill those jobs?It could be, had Carrier not already openly stated the company was expatriating manufacturing. Again, you're attempting to counter facts and data with conjecture. Not smart.
The article doesn't bother to give those details.Unless you have information and facts, your bluster falls on deaf ears. I'm interested in facts, not conjecture or innuendo.
BTW, the WSJ has their liberal bias and conveniently writes stories to fit their narrative.When someone relies on denial of facts, this is all they're left with. Bluster.
You do realize that UT is a global corporation that encompasses many different companies, right?UT is a global corporation? No way!
Stay focused. This whole thread is about Trump winning and keeping jobs in the States. The mention of UT was merely a segue. The company's biggest client is the US government and it is a US company. UT may have global customers, but that doesn't change facts.
And as far as "the Devils in the details", you are correct. Details the WSJ didn't bother to cover. Wonder why?Please feel free to elaborate. I'm open minded and would love new information.
You do realize that those "lucrative contracts" have a myriad of government procedures and typically the president doesn't handle that? Then again, you probably don't.If Trump wants to "bring jobs back," UT may be a company he will engage. Or it might be Rexnord, which would be another convenient company for Pence to help (at least until January). Either way, Trump brilliantly utilized incentives to negotiate even a partial win.
What incentives will a POTUS Trump be able to offer? Tax breaks, contractual priorities? It's not that the POTUS doesn't typically handle these matters, but rather the POTUS in many ways cannot legally handle these matters. More importantly it's not my job to know those rules, but I sure as hell hope Trump does. Otherwise say hello to POTUS 46 Mr. Mike Pence.
I would love this Carrier story to be just the beginning. I'm curious to see how Trump - legally - "brings jobs home."
Let's see Mark, you have proven over and over how clueless you are to how businesses work and you have proven you have no clue to basic economics. And you use for references liberal slanted media.Cool story.
You're exceptionally lousy at this.
And, from another thread:
Absolutely.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Lucifer on December 03, 2016, 07:29:42 PM
It could be, had Carrier not already openly stated the company was expatriating manufacturing. Again, you're attempting to counter facts and data with conjecture. Not smart.
No, I'm asking pertinent questions to form a educated opinion. The media is purposely leaving out details to drive the narrative.
Unless you have information and facts, your bluster falls on deaf ears. I'm interested in facts, not conjecture or innuendo.
And you claim biased media deals only in "facts"?
When someone relies on denial of facts, this is all they're left with. Bluster.
Again, cite the facts.
Stay focused. This whole thread is about Trump winning and keeping jobs in the States. The mention of UT was merely a segue. The company's biggest client is the US government and it is a US company. UT may have global customers, but that doesn't change facts.
You brought up UT and the number of employees.
Please feel free to elaborate. I'm open minded and would love new information.
Yea, right. You won't even take the time to do any research on a subject, yet relying on getting your information from the MSM.
If Trump wants to "bring jobs back," UT may be a company he will engage. Or it might be Rexnord, which would be another convenient company for Pence to help (at least until January). Either way, Trump brilliantly utilized incentives to negotiate even a partial win.
What incentives will a POTUS Trump be able to offer? Tax breaks, contractual priorities? It's not that the POTUS doesn't typically handle these matters, but rather the POTUS in many ways cannot legally handle these matters. More importantly it's not my job to know those rules, but I sure as hell hope Trump does. Otherwise say hello to POTUS 46 Mr. Mike Pence.
You say you don't know the rules, but then you flip and Allende Trump will break these rules you don't know.
I would love this Carrier story to be just the beginning. I'm curious to see how Trump - legally - "brings jobs home."
Why don't you take the time to read and understand the laws that pertain to this?
Post by: Anthony on December 04, 2016, 08:55:50 AM
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 09:19:15 AM
Global, corporate business is very complex. However, at least Trump is talking about retaining, and creating jobs in the U.S. If he can improve the tax code, and reduce onerous regulations to a reasonable level. Businesses will stay in the U.S. and grow, but it has to make sense ECONOMICALLY. Businesses go where they can operate the most efficiently as their only reason for existing is to provide value for their owners (stockholders). They are NOT employment agencies.
This is where the liberal mindset fails when it comes to business. They simply cannot comprehend that a business is formed and operated to benefit the owners and produce for them a profit. The liberals tend to believe businesses are created to provide jobs for the masses.
And you're spot on about global corporate business. It's difficult to dumb down for the liberal minds who relies on sound bites and MSM for their information and education.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 04, 2016, 09:53:33 AM
Trump tweeted this morning ...read from the bottom up. I love it!
Donald J. Trump
4h4 hours ago
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
expensive mistake! THE UNITED STATES IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS
these companies are able to move between all 50 states, with no tax or tariff being charged. Please be forewarned prior to making a very ...
wanting to sell their product, cars, A.C. units etc., back across the border. This tax will make leaving financially difficult, but.....
without retribution or consequence, is WRONG! There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35% for these companies ......
fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. ......
The U.S. is going to substantialy reduce taxes and regulations on businesses, but any business that leaves our country for another country,
Post by: Number7 on December 05, 2016, 06:19:45 AM
The best thing ever is that Trump is opening the conversation and blasting PC. He is NOT signaling any willingness to do what RINOs have been doing for so long ... Cave to the left and their shutting down of the conversation with accusations of racism and whatever. That is one reason why their faces are melting. The left doesn't know what to do when their adversaries won't respond by the playbook!
Trump tweeted this morning ...read from the bottom up. I love it!
Donald J. Trump
4h4 hours ago
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
expensive mistake! THE UNITED STATES IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS
these companies are able to move between all 50 states, with no tax or tariff being charged. Please be forewarned prior to making a very ...
wanting to sell their product, cars, A.C. units etc., back across the border. This tax will make leaving financially difficult, but.....
without retribution or consequence, is WRONG! There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35% for these companies ......
fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. ......
The U.S. is going to substantialy reduce taxes and regulations on businesses, but any business that leaves our country for another country,
Liberal minds are reading this as...
Racist
Sexist
Homophobe
Islamaphobe
Hater
Racist!!!
Post by: Anthony on December 05, 2016, 06:26:48 AM
This is where the liberal mindset fails when it comes to business. They simply cannot comprehend that a business is formed and operated to benefit the owners and produce for them a profit. The liberals tend to believe businesses are created to provide jobs for the masses.
Liberal/Progressives only consider (feel) the surface of issues. Giving other people's money away for dubious reasons makes them feel good. They never look at the economic, nor social consequences of what looks on the surface as a "nice thing to do". Trump's message to inner city minorities was that Democrat control, and rule for the past sixty years has made their situation WORSE. Rewarding people for having multiple children by multiple men does not help their situation. Rewarding people not to work does not help their situation.
Over taxing people, and businesses to have the money go to a very, very inefficient government is counterproductive. Government solutions to every issue are counterproductive. The administrative, and waste cost of government is way too high.
Post by: PaulS on December 05, 2016, 07:42:31 AM
The best thing ever is that Trump is opening the conversation and blasting PC. He is NOT signaling any willingness to do what RINOs have been doing for so long ... Cave to the left and their shutting down of the conversation with accusations of racism and whatever. That is one reason why their faces are melting. The left doesn't know what to do when their adversaries won't respond by the playbook!
Trump tweeted this morning ...read from the bottom up. I love it!
Donald J. Trump
4h4 hours ago
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
expensive mistake! THE UNITED STATES IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS
these companies are able to move between all 50 states, with no tax or tariff being charged. Please be forewarned prior to making a very ...
wanting to sell their product, cars, A.C. units etc., back across the border. This tax will make leaving financially difficult, but.....
without retribution or consequence, is WRONG! There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35% for these companies ......
fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. ......
The U.S. is going to substantialy reduce taxes and regulations on businesses, but any business that leaves our country for another country,
Isn't that something? I keep telling the moonbats I talk to (I'm in Massachusetts and surrounded by them) not to listen to the ongoing assault on Trump by the press, but to listen to what he says. I swear their heads are going to explode.
Post by: Number7 on December 05, 2016, 08:28:48 AM
Over 70% of repeat offenders were raised in single, or no parent homes.
People raised without fathers and mothers appear to be dysfunctional, predatory and incapable to assimilating.
The US government publishes this in their own studies so what is so hard for liberals to understand?
Attacking the real problem diminishes the need for liberals to work for the government and spend other peoples money.
That's what.