Ford first and now Carrier

[TexasTiger 12,962]

On 11/29/2016 at 8:31 PM, japantiger said:

All the unemployment rate does is look at 1st time claims .... Blue is correct...we have fewer American's working than at anytime since Carter was President...and when Carter was president there were only ~227m people in the country...now there are ~330m....

Let me help you with figuring out that complicated Google thing you referenced:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/08/american-future-fund/ad-says-workforce-smaller-under-barack-obama-any-t/

 

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, AUUSN said:

It has to be paid for! Budgets are planned based on future tax income! This wasn't forcasted, hence, taxpayers have to make it up,

 

Good grief.

Seriously.  It goes to the bottom line no matter what you call it.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Leftists live in a world where tax $ belong to the Gov't, and we ungrateful plebeians are " allowed " to keep what the ImperialFederalGovt deems necessary.  Tax ' cuts ' , or any reduction in taxes are viewed as payments BY the got, not productive citizens willingly giving less of their $ to be spent. 

Nevertheless, tax liabilities show up on the "right side" of the ledger.  

Your understanding of financial accounting is lacking.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Blue, I didn't ask anything remotely related to your response, not that I disagree with its content.  I simply asked, What were the details of the deal to keep Carrier in Indiana ?  The Fortune magazine article is beginning to elucidate that conservative principles are not being followed as Trump would like to make us think, the great "conservative" that he is.  Appropriating state tax funds to retain jobs is not free-market capitalism.  It's politics and it's not good for the citizens of Indiana.  Just as with Trump's Ford foray, the Carrier escapade is more bluster than substance.  If this is his vision of making America great again, then hold on to your wallet.

ET, you should already know that diversion is Raptor's 'stock in trade'.

[TexasTiger 12,962]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Blue, I didn't ask anything remotely related to your response, not that I disagree with its content.  I simply asked, What were the details of the deal to keep Carrier in Indiana ?  The Fortune magazine article is beginning to elucidate that conservative principles are not being followed as Trump would like to make us think, the great "conservative" that he is.  Appropriating state tax funds to retain jobs is not free-market capitalism.  It's politics and it's not good for the citizens of Indiana.  Just as with Trump's Ford foray, the Carrier escapade is more bluster than substance.  If this is his vision of making America great again, then hold on to your wallet.

Trump is about promoting Trump. That won't change. That's his operating principle. Blue can't see that because he's more about hating the opposition.

[AURaptor 1,125]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Nevertheless, tax liabilities show up on the "right side" of the ledger.  

Your understanding of financial accounting is lacking.

Oh , I fully understand.  Politicians way over spend our money, then speak of 'tax liabilities ' as if such things appeared out of the ether, and are now set in stone. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

10 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Blue, I didn't ask anything remotely related to your response, not that I disagree with its content.  I simply asked, What were the details of the deal to keep Carrier in Indiana ?  The Fortune magazine article is beginning to elucidate that conservative principles are not being followed as Trump would like to make us think, the great "conservative" that he is.  Appropriating state tax funds to retain jobs is not free-market capitalism.  It's politics and it's not good for the citizens of Indiana.  Just as with Trump's Ford foray, the Carrier escapade is more bluster than substance.  If this is his visi among others,.on of making America great again, then hold on to your wallet.

Sorry for the late response, I'm in and out doing a little work when I can. You pose a fair question but I think its premature to already start pronouncing the deal not good for Indiana. I can think of a 1000 reasons why it IS good but as time goes by we'll see what the details are.  My hunch is a mixture of tax cuts and assurances on the defense contracts that mean so much to that company. It seems, however, there is so much hope that Trump is an immediate failure nobody is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and simply allow this, among other things, to play out. Time will certainly tell us if it is good for the citizens of Indiana but, again, I can think of at least 1000 people who probably have a different take than yours.

There's no doubt this is a political win but I don't recall many lining up to criticize Obama and his political wins. By contrast, most in here lined up to sing his praises yet, many were bigtime stinkers. Where did all those shovel ready jobs go?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

2 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Sorry for the late response, I'm in and out doing a little work when I can. You pose a fair question but I think its premature to already start pronouncing the deal not good for Indiana. I can think of a 1000 reasons why it IS good but as time goes by we'll see what the details are.  My hunch is a mixture of tax cuts and assurances on the defense contracts that mean so much to that company. It seems, however, there is so much hope that Trump is an immediate failure nobody is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and simply allow this, among other things, to play out. Time will certainly tell us if it is good for the citizens of Indiana but, again, I can think of at least 1000 people who probably have a different take than yours.

There's no doubt this is a political win but I don't recall many lining up to criticize Obama and his political wins. By contrast, most in here lined up to sing his praises yet, many were bigtime stinkers. Where did all those shovel ready jobs go?

I thought your response to be more than timely.  I'm usually very late in responding, like weeks or months.

Maybe I'm one of those who just wants the government (whoever that current administration is with its ideology about gov't) out of making deals at the expense of taxpayers.  This comes back to our tax code and how it's manipulated on both state and federal levels to induce or twist arms by both parties.  This is not the purpose of government, yet this practice is commonly accepted as the way to do business.  It isn't.  

Douglas Holtz-Eakin (OMB Director, Bush admin and conservative) on CNN this morning spoke about the Carrier deal and stated that this is not the kind of negotiation he would consider to be good.  He posed the thought of, What's next ?  Is DJT going to chase companies one by one and strike deals like this ?  He shouldn't.  

For me, this is similar to a professional sports franchise demanding that taxpayers foot the bill for a new stadium or arena.  This isn't the purpose of government, yet it's commonly practiced.  

I agree with you that "at least 1,000 people" are happier today than they were yesterday, but how about the 100's of thousands of Indiana taxpayers on the hook now for those obligations made by DJT/Pence ?   Am I, as a resident of Alabama, roped in on this deal too ?  Again, this is not the purpose of government.  How many more "deals" will be made?  The responsibility of government is to make laws and enforce them to create a safe environment where citizens and businesses may freely trade, not dole out $$$$ to individuals or businesses.  I liken this to Obamacare.

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

57 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

agree with you that "at least 1,000 people" are happier today than they were yesterday, but how about the 100's of thousands of Indiana taxpayers on the hook now for those obligations made by DJT/Pence ?   Am I, as a resident of Alabama, roped in on this deal too ?  Again, this is not the purpose of government.  How many more "deals" will be made?  The responsibility of government is to make laws and enforce them to create a safe environment where citizens and businesses may freely trade, not dole out $$$$ to individuals or businesses.  I liken this to Obamacare.

Well DJT has said all along that he was going to cut the corporate tax rate. Some may argue that's bad but, I for one, would argue that it is good given we have one of if not the highest corporate rates in the world. I agree its not the govt's job but Trump is still a private citizen until Jan 20, he's just got a stronger bargaining position now that he's the Pres elect. At this point, I'd say the positives, even if just psychological, far outweigh the negatives.

As far as a former Bush official arguing points that are currently moot about what Trump is going to do in the future, that doesn't mean much to me but back to the tax issue. If by cutting corporate tax rates we see Carrier and others reinvesting dollars that were previously going to the govt and the result is job creation even remotely similar to what happened in the Reagan years, how can that be a bad thing? Again, pundits talk, that's their job but they've been so wrong for so  long on all things Trump, I'm willing to suspend judgement until we see results that can be objectively measured before I reflexively jump to the conclusion this is a bad deal for tax payers in Indiana and the rest of the country. If it is, we'll know soon.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

I thought your response to be more than timely.  I'm usually very late in responding, like weeks or months.

Maybe I'm one of those who just wants the government (whoever that current administration is with its ideology about gov't) out of making deals at the expense of taxpayers.  This comes back to our tax code and how it's manipulated on both state and federal levels to induce or twist arms by both parties.  This is not the purpose of government, yet this practice is commonly accepted as the way to do business.  It isn't.  

Douglas Holtz-Eakin (OMB Director, Bush admin and conservative) on CNN this morning spoke about the Carrier deal and stated that this is not the kind of negotiation he would consider to be good.  He posed the thought of, What's next ?  Is DJT going to chase companies one by one and strike deals like this ?  He shouldn't.  

For me, this is similar to a professional sports franchise demanding that taxpayers foot the bill for a new stadium or arena.  This isn't the purpose of government, yet it's commonly practiced.  

I agree with you that "at least 1,000 people" are happier today than they were yesterday, but how about the 100's of thousands of Indiana taxpayers on the hook now for those obligations made by DJT/Pence ?   Am I, as a resident of Alabama, roped in on this deal too ?  Again, this is not the purpose of government.  How many more "deals" will be made?  The responsibility of government is to make laws and enforce them to create a safe environment where citizens and businesses may freely trade, not dole out $$$$ to individuals or businesses.  I liken this to Obamacare.

 

I like where you are going.  Primarily because, it is free of any partisan hypocrisy.  

IMHO, it is just as foolish to believe that you can artificially "buy" jobs as it is, to artificially raise the minimum wage.  We cannot manage our role in a global economy on the micro level.  What we can do is protect the integrity of the American version of capitalism.  We can tariff all goods coming into this country from anywhere in the world in which labor is exploited and, environmental regulations do not exist or, are not enforced.  That is how you level the playing field.  That is how you end the hypocrisy of not exploiting our own, not raping our own environment but, being perfectly willing to do business with countries who do.  That is how you lead the global economy.  And that, is how you export the American version of capitalism and not, import the third-world version.  

When the rest of the world develops their own consumer bases and, opens up their markets, they will thank us. Then, we can talk about "free trade".  Until then, we will be mired in the death spiral of trading jobs for cheap consumer goods.  We will continue to watch the relative values of capital and labor move further apart.  We will continue to watch the working class lose it's ability to consume.  We will continue to watch government deficits/debt increase.  

[TheBlueVue 177]

8 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

wan

Presumably you're OK with the current corporate tax rates. I am not, as I have paid them and believe they're confiscatory. I don't think the thought that Trump was "buying jobs" in the Carrier negotiation would have ever occurred to me were it not for you. Funny how people see what they want to see. I'm less about theoretical parsing and whining about partisanship and more about doing something, anything to stop the bleeding our current economy is experiencing. I'm glad Trump saved those jobs and I feel pretty strongly there are at least 1000 people who agree with me.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Presumably you're OK with the current corporate tax rates. I am not, as I have paid them and believe they're confiscatory. I don't think the thought that Trump was "buying jobs" in the Carrier negotiation would have ever occurred to me were it not for you. Funny how people see what they want to see. I'm less about theoretical parsing and whining about partisanship and more about doing something, anything to stop the bleeding our current economy is experiencing. I'm glad Trump saved those jobs and I feel pretty strongly there are at least 1000 people who agree with me.

Your partisanship and hypocrisy are fundamental to the ignorance of your posts.

[TheBlueVue 177]

 

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Your partisanship and hypocrisy are fundamental to the ignorance of your posts.

Not surprisingly nor unexpectedly you failed to specifically point out what was hypocritical or partisan about my post but I understand...you're a genius and I'm a moron.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, TheBlueVue said:

 

Not surprisingly nor unexpectedly you failed to specifically point out what was hypocritical or partisan about my post but I understand...you're a genius and I'm a moron.

It was rather self-explanatory.  ET has already done that.

You are only a moron because,,,,,,,you have chosen to be.  Stop being angry and inane.  Maybe you will be taken seriously.

[TheBlueVue 177]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

It was rather self-explanatory.  ET has already done that.

You are only a moron because,,,,,,,you have chosen to be.  Stop being angry and inane.  Maybe you will be taken seriously.

No he didn't but he did make a good post w/o resorting to some puffed up myth about how smart he is. A strategy you have unsuccessfully leaned on as long as Ive been reading your posts. Oh and let me add, I could not possibly care less whether or not you take me seriously because that equation works both ways.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

6 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

No he didn't but he did make a good post w/o resorting to some puffed up myth about how smart he is. A strategy you have unsuccessfully leaned on as long as Ive been reading your posts. Oh and let me add, I could not possibly care less whether or not you take me seriously because that equation works both ways.

Sounds as though you are emotional and, have some sort of personal ax to grind.  Okay.  

Actually ET explained it very well.  Your personal issue with me does not change that fact.  Try rereading his post with your mind open.  It was very good.

[homersapien 11,393]

7 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Oh , I fully understand.  Politicians way over spend our money, then speak of 'tax liabilities ' as if such things appeared out of the ether, and are now set in stone. 

That doesn't make any sense.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

Well DJT has said all along that he was going to cut the corporate tax rate. Some may argue that's bad but, I for one, would argue that it is good given we have one of if not the highest corporate rates in the world. I agree its not the govt's job but Trump is still a private citizen until Jan 20, he's just got a stronger bargaining position now that he's the Pres elect. At this point, I'd say the positives, even if just psychological, far outweigh the negatives.

As far as a former Bush official arguing points that are currently moot about what Trump is going to do in the future, that doesn't mean much to me but back to the tax issue. If by cutting corporate tax rates we see Carrier and others reinvesting dollars that were previously going to the govt and the result is job creation even remotely similar to what happened in the Reagan years, how can that be a bad thing? Again, pundits talk, that's their job but they've been so wrong for so  long on all things Trump, I'm willing to suspend judgement until we see results that can be objectively measured before I reflexively jump to the conclusion this is a bad deal for tax payers in Indiana and the rest of the country. If it is, we'll know soon.

I'm all in favor of cutting tax rates.  The difference in the Carrier scenario is that it is a selective inducement and I get to pay for it, or most likely, the citizens of Indiana.  You get my drift.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That doesn't make any sense.

Actually it does homer.  Rethink it, please.

[homersapien 11,393]

47 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

 

Not surprisingly nor unexpectedly you failed to specifically point out what was hypocritical or partisan about my post but I understand...you're a genius and I'm a moron.

Well, for one, you said paying a company a large amount of cash to retain a certain number of employees is "not buying jobs".

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

I'm all in favor of cutting tax rates.  The difference in the Carrier scenario is that it is a selective inducement and I get to pay for it, or most likely, the citizens of Indiana.  You get my drift.

From what was written in the WSJ United Technologies will get a $7million tax break over 10 years and they've agreed to spend $17 million on their facilities in Indianapolis. I'll have a hard time criticizing if that's the case

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, for one, you said paying a company a large amount of cash to retain a certain number of employees is "not buying jobs".

link to what was paid? You're as anti-business like any good leftist so I expect your resistance to job growth. If they made a deal that the company in question agreed to spend in Indianapolis more than twice what they were offered in inducements, is that still buying jobs?

[japantiger 4,051]

All this hand wringing is comical...so I guess he should have just let 1000 more jobs go to MX when he could do something about it, huh.  Real leaders don't stand around and let their teams get ****** over by ridiculous policies when they have the power to do something about it.  But hey, I guess some of you got your principles ruffled....poor things....I guess you would have slept fine while these 1000 families lost their livelihoods...breadwinners lost their  dignity and worth because they could no longer support their families and the welfare and food stamp roles continued to swell.    But hey, you'd sleep well, so I guess that would have been OK....I hope he does 50 more of these in the next few months...you know what that would mean?  it would mean we'd have 50,000 more jobs than we would have otherwise have had...50,000 more families will have breadwinners, 50,000 more families will be able to keep their homes, pay for their groceries , make their car payment, save for college....50000 more families paying taxes and the businesses they support with customers....I could go on.  At some point, someone, had to just say "no ******* more".  

I'm glad he did it...and he isn't even in office yet...if we had a real leader now; you know, a real president;  and not just one who plays one in front  of a teleprompter occasionally.  You know what that real president would do?...he'd go to Congress and ask for a bill tomorrow to allow him to do more of this until the next president gets in office...to give tax inducements to keep jobs in America...to save even more jobs....because, that is what is best for American families.  American citizens...the AMerican economy...And when the new President gets in office, one of his first acts will be to tear down our ridiculous corporate tax rate system and then companies won't be looking to MX or India or China to move American jobs to because their  tax rates are 50% of ours.   But in the mean time, if you had the ability to stop these jobs from leaving the US, it would have been immoral to stand around with your principles stuck up your ass while more American families went on the dole.    

[RunInRed 16,438]

If Trump did a Carrier-style deal every week for the next 4 years, he could bring back 4% of the manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 30, 2016

Another metric: Trump would have to do one Carrier-sized deal a week for 30 years to save as many jobs as Obama's auto bailout

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 30, 2016

[TexasTiger 12,962]

59 minutes ago, japantiger said:

All this hand wringing is comical...so I guess he should have just let 1000 more jobs go to MX when he could do something about it, huh.  Real leaders don't stand around and let their teams get ****** over by ridiculous policies when they have the power to do something about it.  But hey, I guess some of you got your principles ruffled....poor things....I guess you would have slept fine while these 1000 families lost their livelihoods...breadwinners lost their  dignity and worth because they could no longer support their families and the welfare and food stamp roles continued to swell.    But hey, you'd sleep well, so I guess that would have been OK....I hope he does 50 more of these in the next few months...you know what that would mean?  it would mean we'd have 50,000 more jobs than we would have otherwise have had...50,000 more families will have breadwinners, 50,000 more families will be able to keep their homes, pay for their groceries , make their car payment, save for college....50000 more families paying taxes and the businesses they support with customers....I could go on.  At some point, someone, had to just say "no ******* more".  

I'm glad he did it...and he isn't even in office yet...if we had a real leader now; you know, a real president;  and not just one who plays one in front  of a teleprompter occasionally.  You know what that real president would do?...he'd go to Congress and ask for a bill tomorrow to allow him to do more of this until the next president gets in office...to give tax inducements to keep jobs in America...to save even more jobs....because, that is what is best for American families.  American citizens...the AMerican economy...And when the new President gets in office, one of his first acts will be to tear down our ridiculous corporate tax rate system and then companies won't be looking to MX or India or China to move American jobs to because their  tax rates are 50% of ours.   But in the mean time, if you had the ability to stop these jobs from leaving the US, it would have been immoral to stand around with your principles stuck up your ass while more American families went on the dole.    

You've already been shown to have zero credibility.