GG Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 As much as Trump is taking the credit...was it a Presidential action that kept Carrier in Indiana? I've been under the impression that it was the State of Indiana that cut the deal, and Trump's just riding the coattails. Which is a hell of a piddling shade of difference, given that even though the reports I've read say Holcomb negotiated it, Pence is still technically the governor... (Gee, I wonder why they chose an Indiana factory for this...) My understanding is that the Indiana tax breaks have been on the table for a while. So what was new in the offer to Carrier? I'm guessing it was the stick threatening the DoD business to UT.
Nanker Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Okay. NO Executive orders for Trump. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Or we'll set our hair on fire. Got it. Wait a minute. Did he do this through an executive order? All I can say is it's nice to see the guy in charge actually giving a s hit about Americans. Remember eight years ago at about this time, his Highness was getting awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and not the least concerned with American workers. After the dearth of leadership of the Obama regime, it's kind of refreshing to think that the new guy at least says he puts America first. So was Truman wrong to send in the Army to run the Philadelphia Transit Company in 1945? Was Kennedy out of line to strong arm the Steel industry into rolling back prices in '62? In an April 11, 1962 press conference, Kennedy called the price hikes “a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.” He criticized “a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility.” The execs had “utter contempt” for the U.S., Kennedy said. Of course, both of those men were actually sworn into office at the time of their actions.
GG Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 So was Truman wrong to send in the Army to run the Philadelphia Transit Company in 1945? Was Kennedy out of line to strong arm the Steel industry into rolling back prices in '62? In an April 11, 1962 press conference, Kennedy called the price hikes “a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.” He criticized “a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility.” The execs had “utter contempt” for the U.S., Kennedy said. Of course, both of those men were actually sworn into office at the time of their actions. Since you're a history buff, tell us what happened to the railroad industry within a decade of the President inserting himself in commercial decisions?
Nanker Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 AMTRAK! Oh, and the 707 had something to do with it, and the automobile too. I'm perhaps a wee mite more "liberal" than some here WRT the federal government's involvement in creating an environment that will allow enterprise to flourish. I think the TVA was a good thing. Helped win the War and brought electricity to areas in the southern states that would probably still be powerless today if that hadn't happened. If nothing else, Trump's on record for serving notice that he's not going to let companies run overseas without consequences. Frankly, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's just another factor businesses have to account for in their calculus.
GG Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 AMTRAK! Oh, and the 707 had something to do with it, and the automobile too. I'm perhaps a wee mite more "liberal" than some here WRT the federal government's involvement in creating an environment that will allow enterprise to flourish. I think the TVA was a good thing. Helped win the War and brought electricity to areas in the southern states that would probably still be powerless today if that hadn't happened. If nothing else, Trump's on record for serving notice that he's not going to let companies run overseas without consequences. Frankly, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's just another factor businesses have to account for in their calculus. Then this logic is no different than Obama declaring a victory by renewables over fossil fuels. He's picking the winners, just like Trump is picking Carrier furnaces over competitors' furnaces. Kennedy hamstrung the railroads by taking away the needed revenues for upgrades, while at the same time using federal dollars to subsidize the automotive & truck industries. And many, especially in the Northeast are still paying for that executive decision. If you thought that Obama was wrong in favoring his pet commercial projects, Trump is equally wrong. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, since both are attention seeking thin skinned populists.
Tiberius Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Obama saved the auto industry. He also got 20 million Americans health care so he did do things, big things
unbillievable Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 If Trump installs a putting green on the white house lawn, he will be just as bad as Obama!
IDBillzFan Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Obama saved the auto industry. He also got 20 million Americans health care so he did do things, big things It's impossible to explain what a moron you are, but this post by you is pretty damn close to doing it.
unbillievable Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 What the hell, people? Look, I understand the battle lines are drawn. Progressives like gatorman just spent the past eight years creating excuses for Obama's lack of leadership and protocol. It's natural to want to take that kind of fight back at them. But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now. Stand for principle, wouldcha? You don't want the President to save jobs? There is a big difference between giving a company tax-payer money vs lowering taxes for that same business.
Chef Jim Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 You don't want the President to save jobs? Sure we want the President to save jobs just not cherry pick which company's jobs he's going to save.
Maury Ballstein Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Obama saved the auto industry. He also got 20 million Americans health care so he did do things, big things Is that why my 2016 F150 was made in Mexico and has been in the shop 5x already ?
Doc Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Sure we want the President to save jobs just not cherry pick which company's jobs he's going to save. He's not saving companies. He's giving companies the option to save themselves.
Chef Jim Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 He's not saving companies. He's giving companies the option to save themselves. And the difference is..............?
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 You don't want the President to save jobs? There is a big difference between giving a company tax-payer money vs lowering taxes for that same business. You need to understand that the President cannot, fundamentally cannot, "save jobs" by picking winners and losers. The President, under the Obama Doctrine you seem so quick to embrace, can only choose to save some jobs at the expense of other jobs.
GG Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 You need to understand that the President cannot, fundamentally cannot, "save jobs" by picking winners and losers. The President, under the Obama Doctrine you seem so quick to embrace, can only choose to save some jobs at the expense of other jobs. Seems that Carrier jobs are more important than Burnham and Dunkirk jobs.
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Seems that Carrier jobs are more important than Burnham and Dunkirk jobs. That's because, as we both know, politicians are more interested in optics than realities; and while the "saved jobs" at Carrier are very visible, the corresponding job losses with their competitors will be in the shadows.
reddogblitz Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now. Our president didn't do this. In fact, our president doesn't like it. This is how business is done in America. Dallas Cowboys threaten to move jobs and the City of Arlington doe$ whatever it take$ (1/2 cent sales tax)to keep them. Boeing threatens to move jobs to North Carolina and the state of Washington holds a special session OVER THE WERKEND (couldn't even wait til Monday) and backs up the Brinks Truck to save the jobs. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-12/boeing-grabs-jumbo-subsidies-from-washington-state-for-777x-jobs As 30,000 Boeing workers prepare to vote on a new contract, the company made its bargaining position clear by threatening to move a major jet program out of Washington. The take-it-or-were-leaving posture appears to have workedat least with state lawmakers. In a special session over the weekend, the Washington state legislature passed an $8.7 billion package of tax breaks for Boeing through 2040 to help keep assembly work on the new 777X jumbo jet. Good Jobs First, a group that tracks government subsidies to business, says the states new Boeing package is the largest in U.S. history. Now the Puget Sound region is waiting to see how the machinists will respond to a contract offer that many in the union consider an insult. Generous subsidies for the giant plane maker are part of a long-established pattern in Washington State. A decade ago, for example, the legislature gave Boeing a $3.2 billion tax package to land work on the 787 Dreamliner. Even so, the company has since opened a second 787 production facility in South Carolina at a site that could become home to the 777X. Bidness as usual ... Edited December 2, 2016 by reddogblitz
IDBillzFan Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 When you've lost Sarah Palin... Another conservative is calling “crony capitalism” on Donald Trump’s deal with Carrier, albeit an unexpected one — Sarah PalinIn an op-ed for the website Young Conservatives, the former Alaska governor allowed that the details behind the manufacturer’s decision to keep some 1,000 jobs in Indiana at the president-elect’s behest, rather than move them to Mexico, are not yet clear. But touting the value of free markets, Palin signaled her disapproval if it was a case of “political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist.”
Dorkington Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Any opinions on Trump talking to the President of Taiwan? First POTUS(elect) to do so since 1979, I believe.
Recommended Posts