OK, most of us know that Trump picked up the phone, called Carrier, and convinced them to keep 1,000 jobs in Indiana.

In proof that there is indeed a God, and that He has a wonderful sense of humor, here is a youtube clip from the campaign. A Carrier employee asked Obama about saving those jobs (as Trump predicted he would do), and all Obama did was insult Trump and claim that it wasn't possible.

What was impossible for a career academic/politician, Trump accomplished with a phone call.

we literally had Mr Magoo minding the store for 8 years.

God Almighty. Did it occur to Obama to try do ANYTHING to save those jobs, before declaring it was impossible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkiudbI43iQ

Why should they need convincing ? to make america great again ?

While it is not clear the exact terms of the deal. Carrier said the state offered incentives to remain in Indiana, while other analysts of the deal said Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, made the deal to preserve its numerous contracts with the federal government.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/01/sanders-says-carrier-deal-sets-dangerous-precedent/94725614/

I thought you guys didn't like the government picking winners and losers ??
cheering trump for a 1000 jobs in his running mates state before he is the POTUS .. But not willing to give credit for the below FACTS to the the POTUS for the last 8 years .. I think your glasses need fixing

Why should they need convincing ? to make america great again ?

While it is not clear the exact terms of the deal. Carrier said the state offered incentives to remain in Indiana, while other analysts of the deal said Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, made the deal to preserve its numerous contracts with the federal government.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/01/sanders-says-carrier-deal-sets-dangerous-precedent/94725614/

I thought you guys didn't like the government picking winners and losers ??
cheering trump for a 1000 jobs in his running mates state before he is the POTUS .. But not willing to give credit for the below FACTS to the the POTUS for the last 8 years .. I think your glasses need fixing

My question is, before he concluded that it was impossible, why didn't he try and do something? Can you answer that?

"Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, made the deal to preserve its numerous contracts with the federal government.

I have no problem with that. None whatsoever.

"I thought you guys didn't like the government picking winners and losers ?? "

You're right, I do not. That's why I hope Trump offers everyone the same incentives and threats. See, you asked a question, and I answered it. Maybe you could show me the same courtesy once in a while.

"cheering trump for a 1000 jobs in his running mates state before he is the POTUS"

That's the point, man. Trump isn't president yet, and he tried to help these people. Obama is president, and as we see in the video, Obama couldn't be bothered to help, because he said it couldn't be done. Was he right, or was he wrong?

"But not willing to give credit for the below FACTS to the the POTUS for the last 8 years "

What facts, exactly? You posted an opinion piece by a socialist. I didn't see many facts in there.

So You're okay with the government giving tax breaks to keep a company from moving or laying people off?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So You're okay with the government giving tax breaks to keep a company from moving or laying people off?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't love it, no. But as long as they offer the same rewards/fines to everyone, then it reduces the government's ability to pick who wins and who loses.

I answered your question - right? Can you answer mine? If Trump pulled this of with a phone call, what does it say to you, that Obama said it couldn't be done, and that he mocked Trump for predicting he could do it?

I am not anti-government. I am anti-stupidity. I have no issue whatsoever with being taxed to help people who need my help.

Jim facts are fact and you just dont care... and I do answer your question you just dont accept my answers or my facts

your admiration with Trump is as open as your hate for Obama.. to bad you'll never hold trump to the same standard ..

Obama was talking about bringing Back Jobs trump didn't bring carrier back it .. (He may have postponed it ) seems he may have gotten Carrier a sweet Tax deal (Fortune reports that Carrier is still moving 1,300 jobs to Mexico, versus 1,150 that will be preserved in Indiana.)

I have no issue whatsoever with being taxed to help people who need my help.

Lack of tax revenues affect state budgets created buy theses tax deals for companys.. you support it to help 1150 and make more profit for big company ... but public unions are a bigger threat to a state ...???

The company should have done the right thing and stayed but it did not it used it employees their familys as human shields and extorted a deal with Trumps help Nationalistic propaganda coup d'état


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-first-big-promise-kept/509219/

I don't love it, no. But as long as they offer the same rewards/fines to everyone, then it reduces the government's ability to pick who wins and who loses.So you are ok with the tax breaks Malloy/CT gave bridgewater assoc. and other hedge funds? How is this offering the same rewards to everyone? The small manuf. up the street isn't getting anything. It is unfortunate this has to occur - esp. when 1 state does it to keep someone from moving over the border to another state.

I answered your question - right? Can you answer mine? If Trump pulled this of with a phone call, what does it say to you, that Obama said it couldn't be done, and that he mocked Trump for predicting he could do it?Don't know what it states bc I didn't listen to the link but is Trump gonna neg. and have the state (which is what I think happened) give tax breaks to every company that threatens to leave? 3rd world countries are still gonna have the same advantage over us they do know in terms of wages, etc.

I am not anti-government. I am anti-stupidity. I have no issue whatsoever with being taxed to help people who need my help.

I suspect he mentioned P&W jet engines.

Does anyone fish on this site?

Jim, your boy issued corporate welfare, this will only embolden every other corporation to threaten moving jobs to gain the same breaks. Obama didnt pick up the phone because its an insanely shortsighted economic move that wingnuts will share on facebook and feel great about. Trump promised to save the 2100 jobs that were threatened, he accomplished less than half and set a horrible precedent. Jesus, why is it so hard to see this man is a snake oil salesman. Goldman Sachs now runs your treasury. Way to drain the swamp.

Drain the swamp means to just get rid of all of the democrats. 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I suspect he mentioned P&W jet engines.

"So you are ok with the tax breaks Malloy/CT gave bridgewater assoc. and other hedge funds?"

I don't think that was done to keep those jobs from going to Mexico. If those hedge funds leave CT, those jobs pop up in another state, they aren't lost.

"The small manuf. up the street isn't getting anything"

You have a good point. But the small manufacturer isn't in competition with a hedge fund, he's in competition with other manufatcurers. I suspect that manufacturers are going to bet a nice corporate tax cut when Trump is sworn in.

Paul, you can make good points about whether or not these subsidies make sense. I responded to you, you make good points.

Now, for the third time...what does it say to you about Obama, that he mocked Trump for predicting he'd save these jobs, Obama said there wa sno magic wand to do it, yet Trump did it? Can you please, just once, respond to my question? Obama gave huge money to corporations he liked (Solyndra, automakers). So instead of mocking Trump for talking about Carrier, why the hell didn't Obama try to help these people?

It gets very very tiresome when I respond to your challenging questions, but you constantly dodge mine.

"I suspect he mentioned P&W jet engines. "

Good for him if he did.

Does anyone fish on this site?

Jim, your boy issued corporate welfare, this will only embolden every other corporation to threaten moving jobs to gain the same breaks. Obama didnt pick up the phone because its an insanely shortsighted economic move that wingnuts will share on facebook and feel great about. Trump promised to save the 2100 jobs that were threatened, he accomplished less than half and set a horrible precedent. Jesus, why is it so hard to see this man is a snake oil salesman. Goldman Sachs now runs your treasury. Way to drain the swamp.

Trump is my boy now? I doubt you'd find anyone as honestly critical of him as me.

"this will only embolden every other corporation to threaten moving jobs to gain the same breaks"

True, but MAYBE only until Trump (and the GOP congress) create a pro-business climate, whereby companies don't have the incentives to leave in the first place. If Trump gets in, and (1) cuts the corporate tax rate, and (2) imposes stiff tariffs for companies that leave, then the necessity of these incentives is reduced, correct?

That's what Trump wants to do - create an atmosphere where companies have a disincentive to leave. Apply that disincentive equally to all companies. Then, we don't need to offer tax breaks to save jobs.

Does anyone fish on this site?
Goldman Sachs now runs your treasury. .

(1) yeah, and the Dow is up 1,000 since election day
(2) you're working in the private sector should preclude someone from serving in the cabinet? You'd rather have a bunch of lawyers and professors who have never done anything?

I'm not sure I see it as a bad thing, that we might have a Treasury Secretary who was a successful executive at Goldman Sachs.

Check out his wife the Maxim girl
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, these guys seem to miss the point that Trump has said all along that he wants to reduce the FEDERAL corporate tax rate from 35% to about 15%. That is a huge incentive in itself for many companies to stay here. And he has said that he wants to greatly reduce FEDERAL regulations on business, which is another big incentive to keep companies here. And the way he stated it implies those reductions would be across the board, not selective. Obama did not do either of those things. Nor would they be compatible with his progressive agenda.

Whatever Trump promised to Carrier could only be at the FEDERAL level, and it would have to be universal. So it would not be picking winners and losers. The STATE of Indiana is not tied down by obligations not to choose. If the people of Indiana want to choose Carrier and neglect some other company, it is free, at its own peril, or benefit, to do so.

Indiana's portion would have to be granted by Indiana, not Trump--whether Trump bargained for it or not. It would not be Trump's call. And I would guess Indiana would be more than glad to give Carrier a tax incentive to keep it there. And if that incentive, along with Trump's desire to lower taxes and regs, was attractive enough for Carrier to keep part of its work in Indiana, it would mean that Indiana would have a business and employee tax revenue that it wouldn't have if Carrier completely left in which case all tax revenue from that company and its employees would be lost. And the State would be burdened with more unemployment benefits to dole out. And if Indiana also promised companies that don't reside there tax incentives, along with Trumps Federal incentives, the State's tax revenue would grow. As I said to wdmso, why on earth would you refuse the tax incentive that inflows wealth into your State. After all, for the most part, companies pass the cost of taxes along to its customers. So it would be citizens of Indiana who would eventually pay for the taxes it imposed on Carrier. But it would make Carrier just that much less competitive at the sales level.

Divesting companies of taxes allows them to lower prices and be more competitive. Isn't that part of the reason why the corporations move to other countries? Wouldn't reversing that reverse the flow of jobs being shipped elsewhere? And even more so if companies can lower their pension costs.

The left is stuck on the idea that higher business tax rates strictly leads to more tax revenue. That is not empirically true. Many countries that lowered their corporate tax rates actually increased their tax revenue because they attracted business that otherwise would not come.

Of course, there's the problem of doing too well. The more a State's economy grows, the wealthier it gets, and the more ambitious it allows the politicians to promise to give goodies for votes. And the slightest economic downtick sticks them with a bill that they cannot afford to pay. The answer, of course, unless they're facing a bankruptcy, is to squeeze more taxes from the public sector. Which, of course, begins to chase people and business elsewhere.

Does anyone fish on this site?

Jim, your boy issued corporate welfare, this will only embolden every other corporation to threaten moving jobs to gain the same breaks.

And that would force the other states to lower business taxes. And that would force the Federal government to lower its taxes. And that would invite more corporations to come here.

Unfortunately, the economy would boom, some would say "overheat," which would just give the politicians the incentive to "overspend" even more. Which would cause them to blame everybody else and make it necessary to punish us with more taxes. Which, of course, would not solve the problem . . .

Drain the swamp means to just get rid of all of the democrats. ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. Same people, different party. Prob more billionaires though.

And to MikeD. Actually just got back. Had about 8- 10. Mostly dinks with 1 to about 30" so I came home to eat and am about to run to basketball.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I shouldn't have said your boy. There's enough tension without being a little pissy in my statement. First off, I'm a democrat and we effed this thing up beyond all belief. They railroaded Bernie and shoved a candidate that inspired no one down our throats. The arrogance was ridiculous.

I'm genuinely concerned about our president elect. The floating of climate change deniers for head of the epa, big energy people for minding of our national parks, Goldman et al. for our treasury. I'm just freaking the eff out these days. I don't think everyone that voted trump is a racist, I want change too. My pay vs. inflation has been losing. I don't even know what my point is.

I like to cast pencils over boulder fields.

also, talking to pakistan without security briefings is horrifying.

Jim, as I said I didn't listen to the link cuz I was on my work computer. It's nice the jobs were saved but at what cost. I thought it was like 7 million dollars although I couldn't tell you the exact amount I'm probably way off. So now every manufacturing company knows claim you're going to move and end up getting money. All the money that was lent including solyndra ended up making money for the government. the reason some of the companies went out of business because they were risky loans that's why the government and not private sector lent them the money. Why focus on one company when the whole program brought back more money than it it lent out. Does Trump as President elect now have the authority to promise tax breaks to companies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I shouldn't have said your boy. There's enough tension without being a little pissy in my statement. First off, I'm a democrat and we effed this thing up beyond all belief. They railroaded Bernie and shoved a candidate that inspired no one down our throats. The arrogance was ridiculous.

I'm genuinely concerned about our president elect. The floating of climate change deniers for head of the epa, big energy people for minding of our national parks, Goldman et al. for our treasury. I'm just freaking the eff out these days. I don't think everyone that voted trump is a racist, I want change too. My pay vs. inflation has been losing. I don't even know what my point is.

I like to cast pencils over boulder fields.

also, talking to pakistan without security briefings is horrifying.

I wasn't miffed, just pointing out that I think he's a vile narcissist.

"They railroaded Bernie and shoved a candidate that inspired no one down our throats. The arrogance was ridiculous"

Agreed.

"I'm just freaking the eff out these days."

8 years ago, I was trying to fathom how we rejected a hero like McCain for a guy whose spiritual mentor (Rev Wright) is a lunatic who hates the country, whose political mentor (Bill Ayers) is a lunatic who hates the country, and whose wife said she wasn't proud of the country until he got the nomination (her words). I promise you, you aren't more freaked out than I was. I hope you conclude he's not as bad as you feared.

"I like to cast pencils over boulder fields."

I always had more luck with Dannys.

Why focus on one company when the whole program brought back more money than it it lent out. Does Trump as President elect now have the authority to promise tax breaks to companies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The guy isn't in office yet, and he has a real accomplishment under his belt. The market seems absolutely euphoric.

Interesting article from the WaPost:

MEXICO CITY — For the Mexican government, few goals seem more important than winning new foreign investment. The competition among Mexican states to bring the next automobile plant or aerospace factory is intense and produces big-time incentives for foreign companies that make the move. But the announcement that Carrier, the Indiana-based company that makes air conditioners and heaters, would be keeping some 1,000 jobs in its Indianapolis plant instead of moving them to Monterrey, Mexico, was greeted by Mexican officials with little more than a shrug.

“I see this as something that should occupy us, not worry us,” said Hector Castillo Olivares, the mayor of Santa Catarina, the Monterrey suburb where the new Carrier plant is being built.

“The United States is not the world,” the state’s governor, Jaime “El Bronco” Rodriguez, told a radio station. “We don’t depend on them, nor do we have to depend on them.”

Or as Fernando Turner Davila, the state’s economic development secretary put it: “We are confident about the future.”

While some of this might be positive government-speak to mask a painful loss of hundreds of jobs, other dynamics also are at work.

For one thing, the Carrier decision is not a disaster for the company’s Mexico operations. As Turner explained, the new plant will still open in coming months and will create jobs, although fewer than planned. The company currently employs about 3,000 people in the Monterrey area, he said, and this is going to increase to about 4,100, compared to about 5,000 anticipated before Trump arrived on the scene.

Monterrey and other cities in northern Mexico’s manufacturing belt are a success story for the country. They have recovered from some brutal drug-war years and are now home to a robust network of plants making cars, electronics, steel and other products.

But the United States isn’t really key to that success. In the state of Nuevo Leon, where Monterrey is the capital, 92 percent of the total investment is domestic. Of the 8 percent that comes from abroad, the United States accounts for 40 percent, a contribution that has been declining over the years as companies from Europe and Asia bring more jobs to the state, Turner said.

South Korea is now one of the most important; it has opened a Kia car plant in Monterrey and brought in other parts suppliers.

“You can’t forget that we are already a globalized world,” said Castillo, the mayor. “I have received visitors from countries in Europe and Asia who are interested in investing here: Korea, Great Britain, they are interested in manufacturing and also in the automobile industry.”

Mexican officials don’t see Carrier’s decision as the first of a series of dominoes that will fall. The Carrier issue came up in the middle of the campaign, in a Rust Belt state of which Vice President-elect Mike Pence is governor. The closure of a plant also attracts more political opposition than a company just opening a new plant in Mexico, Turner said.

“We don’t think it’s a sign [of things to come], I think it’s something extraordinary,” Turner said. “Globalization is not going to end with Mr. Trump. The United States cannot and will not isolate. It is not possible.”

Trump’s electoral victory has already caused some tangible damage to Mexico. The value of the Mexican peso has plummeted, and it fell further Thursday on the news that the widely respected Central Bank governor, Agustin Carstens, would be moving in the summer to a new job as the general manager of the Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlements.

But for now, cautious optimism seems to be one thing Mexico still has in abundance to export. END OF ARTICLE


It seems that "incentives" and lower labor costs attract a global market. They are helping Mexico to reduce its unemployment and create a better life for its people. Why wouldn't it work for the depressed high unemployment areas in the U.S.?

Another article in the WSJ says:

Though a great deal of manufacturing jobs have moved to Mexico, a US manufacturer is "devoting significant investment dollars to innovation, particularly on high-tech, higher-wage engineering jobs, almost all of which are in the U.S.” That's nice, but how many of those jobs are there to significantly employ Americans? And how many will be filled with better qualified immigrants?

It also says that:

"Mexican manufacturing has enjoyed a boom under NAFTA. At the same time, U.S. farmers ship oceans of grain to Mexico." That makes it sound like there's these many thousands or millions of U.S. farmers shipping grain to Mexico. In reality it's big agricultural firms doing it.

If the trade-off is that Mexico and other South American countries are going to dominate the manufacturing sector and a great deal of the plant food production because of their tax "incentives" and lower labor costs, what does that leave in terms of jobs that Americans can have to meet the standard of current middle class and union compensation? The lower wage service and retail businesses? And what to do with the 90 million who are out of the employment market and no longer looking for jobs?

Maybe the Federal and State and municipal governments can quadruple their number of employees, unionize them, and tax the hell out of what's left of the middle class and the high techies and engineers and financiers and health workers and the evil corporations in order to pay for health care, education, and general improvement of everybody else.

Or better yet, unionize the entire service industry (especially those like McDonalds) and make America great again.

I don't recall that Trump said he was in favor of isolationism, or trade wars, or indiscriminate and vengeful tariffs. It seemed like he was calling for agreements which were more balanced, which could restore and sustain our American quality of life to far more of us than enjoy it now. And that includes immigration and trade policies. If we had the same immigration policy and trade advantage that Mexico has for instance, and more sensible wage and benefit compensation, as well as the Mexican penchant for giving business "incentives, it might be that we could do better in the global market.

The guy isn't in office yet, and he has a real accomplishment under his belt. The market seems absolutely euphoric.

I think bonds are down. Mortgage rates are way up.

So you're saying giving money to a company to keep them from moving is a positive? Just want to get that straight so when I go back and search about all the times Malloy gave money to a company to keep them from moving i want to see if you complained about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The guy isn't in office yet, and he has a real accomplishment under his belt. The market seems absolutely euphoric.

There has been a bump in equities. Running right off the Obama admin if you want to slap fives. Look at US muni bond market. Big fund groups are selling off US debt. Groups like Goldman. The conflicts are many.

imagine what great things Obama could have accomplished without a house and senate full of obstructionists.


:hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

imagine what great things Obama could have accomplished without a house and senate full of obstructionists.


:hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeez Nebe, Thats inflammatory!

ISo you're saying giving money to a company to keep them from moving is a positive?.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying, like, if a thug, decided not to rob me of the $10 I had in my wallet he would actually be giving me $10?

Interesting way of looking at it. I guess I'm missing something. After I was told that the thug gave me $10, I would have expected that when I looked in my wallet I would see $20. But if when I looked, there was only the $10 I had already--maybe, somehow, I lost the ten he spotted me. Maybe then I should go to the thug and ask him not to rob me again. And if I made absolutely sure that the $10 he gave me didn't somehow get lost, I would have the twenty. And if I could persuade him not to rob me of my $10 a hundred more times, I'd have earned an extra $1,000 on top of the ten I already had. If I then could persuade him to do that with the $1,010 that I had in my wallet and if I could keep doing it that way with the new amount (like compound interest) for every day, for a couple of weeks I'd be a one percenter without having to do a damn thing but sit there and have him keep on not robbing me.

I really like that. I would only have to actually work to earn few dollars, then have the government not take any of it nor the compounded money I would get by it not taking any of that, and I could retire a gazillionaire in a few months--without doing anything except having the government not take any.

You sure? It sounds really good. But something tells me that in a few months, instead of being a gazillionaire, I'd still only have the $10 that I originally had in my wallet.

imagine what great things Obama could have accomplished without a house and senate full of obstructionists.


:hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

name one (1)

name one (1)

Over 500 bills blocked. And yet people then go on to say he did it do #^&#^&#^&#^&.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-legislation-obama-dccc-event-106481
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying, like, if a thug, decided not to rob me of the $10 I had in my wallet he would actually be giving me $10?



What I'm asking is Jim's opinion on whether the State of Indiana giving $7M to save 800 jobs was a good thing or not.

Frankly I want to see if he thinks it was a good thing (maybe more of a necessary evil). I'm gonna look to see what he said when the evil D's did it to keep companies from leaving Conn.

Over 500 bills blocked. And yet people then go on to say he did it do #^&#^&#^&#^&.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-legislation-obama-dccc-event-106481
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yet 3000 passed during that same time....you didn't answer the question...

be specific...

name 1 "great thing Obama could have accomplished without a house and senate full of obstructionists."

shouldn't be too hard...right??????

I think bonds are down. Mortgage rates are way up.

So you're saying giving money to a company to keep them from moving is a positive? Just want to get that straight so when I go back and search about all the times Malloy gave money to a company to keep them from moving i want to see if you complained about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I think bonds are down. Mortgage rates are way up. "

Yes, interest rates are up. They had nowhere to go but up. And they will go up more in 2017, regardless of the election outcome.

"So you're saying giving money to a company to keep them from moving is a positive?"

I am torn on the issue of corporate welfare. I am beyond thrilled for the families of the 1,000 workers. Going forward, if we cut corporate tax rates and impose tariffs, we may not need to dangle further incentives in front of companies to keep them. The way the business environment is today, that may have been the only way to save those jobs.

Again, I answered your question directly. Can you do the same? Are you happy for those families?

Let me also say this...I have no problem whatsoever, with some of my tax dollars being used to save good jobs for hard-working Americans. Generally speaking, I like that concept. I would prefer that it be done in a way as to create a level playing field, not favoring one company over another.

It was a brilliant, brilliant move for Trump. Those thousand families, plus countless others who own restaurants and shops in that area, owe their livelihoods to Trump. And he gets to claim, correctly, that he meant what he said. And the cherry on top, is that as usual, Obama comes out looking like a boob.

"search about all the times Malloy gave money to a company to keep them from moving i want to see if you complained about it."

Malloy gave big incentives for hedge funds. I don't know if that's the same thing, as those jobs were not going to Mexico if Malloy didn't act. If that hedge fund moved to New Hampshire, the finance wizards can either follow the jobs, or get decent jobs elsewhere in CT (insurance companies are always hiring CFAs and accountants and such). Those people have options. The factory workers at Carrier did not.

But if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy on the issue, you may have a point.

I watched the press conference yesterday. Pence looked so much better than Trump. - coherent, speaks in sentences, keeps his train of thought, etc. etc.

4 years of what Jim would call a village idiot.

There has been a bump in equities. Running right off the Obama admin if you want to slap fives. Look at US muni bond market. Big fund groups are selling off US debt. Groups like Goldman. The conflicts are many.

Equities shot up after the election. Let's be honest, OK?

"Big fund groups are selling off US debt"

Interest rates are going to rise. That has nothing to do with Trump. When interest rates rise, the value of bonds goes down.

"Groups like Goldman. The conflicts are many"

Again, you seem to be saying that to avoid conflicts of interest, the Treasury department should be prohibited from hiring people who have any real-world experience in business. I think the last 8 years have shown me, exactly what happens, when you rely on academics who are well-schooled on theory, but have zero practical experience. No thanks.

Yes, I think you are a hypocrite on this subject. You would be the first to complain if a company moved from Stamford to Rye.

I don't like the govern. having to pick winners and losers and give $ to rich folks to keep their company from moving 6 miles over the border.

And I said earlier that it is good the jobs where saved. It means everything to those families. I believe it is 800 jobs not the 1100 Trump claimed.

I watched the press conference yesterday. Pence looked so much better than Trump. - coherent, speaks in sentences, keeps his train of thought, etc. etc.

4 years of what Jim would call a village idiot.

Agreed, Pence is a decent guy, and Trump is not. You have never heard me claim otherwise.

Trump is offensive, sophomoric, and crude. That's not the same as being an idiot. An idiot is someone who says there was 'no magic wand' to save those Carrier jobs, while someone else did it with a phone call. Come on, Paul, you have to agree that makes Obama look pathetic.

Trump he is poised to accomplish some real things (cut taxes, bring back some manufacturing jobs, secure the border, make life easier for working moms). I don't like Bannon, but other than that, I think his people selections have been awesome. Mad Dog Mattis as SecDefense?

I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US.

Yes, I think you are a hypocrite on this subject. You would be the first to complain if a company moved from Stamford to Rye.

I don't like the govern. having to pick winners and losers and give $ to rich folks to keep their company from moving 6 miles over the border.

And I said earlier that it is good the jobs where saved. It means everything to those families. I believe it is 800 jobs not the 1100 Trump claimed.

"You would be the first to complain if a company moved from Stamford to Rye"

Wrong as usual. When companies leave CT, I point out (correctly) that it's a symptom of the real problem, and the real problem here in CT, is unchecked liberalism. I feel for the families when companies leave for neighboring states, but it is validation of my opinion that liberalism doesn't work.

"I don't like the govern. having to pick winners and losers and give $ to rich folks to keep their company from moving 6 miles over the border. "

Me either. So instead of giving them money, let's create a pro-business environment that applies to all companies evenly, in which companies have every reason to want to stay. What's wrong with that idea, exactly?

I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US.

Very, very fair point.

I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US.

Will his tie manufacturing be given the incentives to come here?

but have zero practical experience. No thanks.

Hey we're giving it a try with the most powerful position in the world, why not keep it rolling! :lama:

Hey we're giving it a try with the most powerful position in the world, why not keep it rolling! :lama:

You could not be more wrong, despite your little dancy thing-y.

The President is the chief executive of the federal government. Trump has significant experience as an executive. I have seen estimates that he has 22,000 employees. Those people are making a living thanks in part to him.

Obama, at the time he was elected, had never run anything. Not a thing. HE was the one with no practical experience as an executive , and I would argue that the results speak for themselves.

Many people argue, quite convincingly, that having decades of nothing but political experience, is a bad thing, not a good thing.

Practical experience, my friend, trumps theory every day, and twice on Sunday.

Let me rephrase that. Trump is a Liar that preys on peoples fears and ignorance. He will happily screw over 99.9% of this country to forward his personal agendas and line his own pockets and those of his fellow billionaires. Mr. executive pants is calling highly unstable nuclear countries and having conversations without proper military and security briefings. Tensions between India and Pakistan are sky high and this baffoon is making things worse. He's not in office yet and he's already screwing up.

That little dance guy is awesome. Always wanted to use it.

How is this different than bailing out the auto manuf. 7 years ago?

QUOTE=Jim in CT;1113101]"So you're saying giving money to a company to keep them from moving is a positive?"

I am torn on the issue of corporate welfare. I am beyond thrilled for the families of the 1,000 workers. Going forward, if we cut corporate tax rates and impose tariffs, we may not need to dangle further incentives in front of companies to keep them. The way the business environment is today, that may have been the only way to save those jobs.

I am still baffled by the idea that not taking earned money from business is giving money to it. I am comfortable with labeling as corporate welfare the government "investment" which actually gives or loans money to business when that business does not have or has not earned that money.

Do we say that when government lowers the tax rate for the employees of business, the "workers," that it is putting them on welfare? I think that most "workers" would be offended by the notion that government taking less of their paycheck is welfare. In the case of the "workers," versus those who do not have a job, it is the non-workers who we claim are getting "welfare" when government assists them. Otherwise, if paying less taxes while working and not paying taxes while getting government assistance can both be called "welfare," then we all are on welfare. In which case the word "welfare" in the context of government assistance would have no distinct meaning. It would be a useless unnecessary label in linguistic terms, but highly useful as a polemical weapon of persuasion.

Let me also say this...I have no problem whatsoever, with some of my tax dollars being used to save good jobs for hard-working Americans. Generally speaking, I like that concept. I would prefer that it be done in a way as to create a level playing field, not favoring one company over another.[/QUOTE]

If someone's job is saved, that someone will pay taxes. Your tax contributions will not be needed to save that job. Keeping a company in your state contributes its employees taxes to the state budget. Taxing the company will generally raise the cost of its business which it must figure into what it will charge its customers for its product. Taxing the company actually raises your financial burden when you buy the product. That is a sort of tax that you will actually have to pay.

Your Catholic socialism pushes you into the same linguistic trap of labels that leftists use to muddy our thinking in order to make us sympathetic to their cause. "Corporate welfare" when applied to tax incentives is one of those tricky labels which misuse a word to gather power. But it destroys any useful meaning for the word "welfare" except to give credence to the notion that tax incentives are actually giving money to corporations rather than not taking it from them.

"You would be the first to complain if a company moved from Stamford to Rye"

Wrong as usual. When companies leave CT, I point out (correctly) that it's a symptom of the real problem, and the real problem here in CT, is unchecked liberalism. I feel for the families when companies leave for neighboring states, but it is validation of my opinion that liberalism doesn't work.So that is not a complaint? Look at which states have the highest income levels

"I don't like the govern. having to pick winners and losers and give $ to rich folks to keep their company from moving 6 miles over the border. "

Me either. So instead of giving them money, let's create a pro-business environment that applies to all companies evenly, in which companies have every reason to want to stay. What's wrong with that idea, exactly?

So Trump just violated that by helping to pick who should get tax breaks.

Let me rephrase that. Trump is a Liar that preys on peoples fears and ignorance. He will happily screw over 99.9% of this country to forward his personal agendas and line his own pockets and those of his fellow billionaires. Mr. executive pants is calling highly unstable nuclear countries and having conversations without proper military and security briefings. Tensions between India and Pakistan are sky high and this baffoon is making things worse. He's not in office yet and he's already screwing up.

That little dance guy is awesome. Always wanted to use it.

Exactly correct. Got to give him credit for knowing what the people want to hear and blowing that whistle loud and long.

How is this different than bailing out the auto manuf. 7 years ago?

Carrier is not being bailed out.

So Trump just violated that by helping to pick who should get tax breaks.

Trump wants to give all businesses Federal tax breaks. That can "help" states to do the same.

Will his tie manufacturing be given the incentives to come here?

Given all the conflicts with his other businesses - probably.

Carrier is not being bailed out.

Semantics. looks to me like those 800 jobs are being bailed out. The auto manuf. paid back what they were lent.

Quote: Originally Posted by detbuch View Post:
Will his tie manufacturing be given the incentives to come here?


Given all the conflicts with his other businesses - probably.

So what was the point of your saying: "I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US." If his business is given incentives to relocate here, is that a bad thing?

QUOTE=Jim in CT;1113101]"So you're saying giving money to a company to keep them from moving is a positive?"

I am torn on the issue of corporate welfare. I am beyond thrilled for the families of the 1,000 workers. Going forward, if we cut corporate tax rates and impose tariffs, we may not need to dangle further incentives in front of companies to keep them. The way the business environment is today, that may have been the only way to save those jobs.

I am still baffled by the idea that not taking earned money from business is giving money to it. I am comfortable with labeling as corporate welfare the government "investment" which actually gives or loans money to business when that business does not have or has not earned that money.

Do we say that when government lowers the tax rate for the employees of business, the "workers," that it is putting them on welfare? I think that most "workers" would be offended by the notion that government taking less of their paycheck is welfare. In the case of the "workers," versus those who do not have a job, it is the non-workers who we claim are getting "welfare" when government assists them. Otherwise, if paying less taxes while working and not paying taxes while getting government assistance can both be called "welfare," then we all are on welfare. In which case the word "welfare" in the context of government assistance would have no distinct meaning. It would be a useless unnecessary label in linguistic terms, but highly useful as a polemical weapon of persuasion.

Let me also say this...I have no problem whatsoever, with some of my tax dollars being used to save good jobs for hard-working Americans. Generally speaking, I like that concept. I would prefer that it be done in a way as to create a level playing field, not favoring one company over another.

If someone's job is saved, that someone will pay taxes. Your tax contributions will not be needed to save that job. Keeping a company in your state contributes its employees taxes to the state budget. Taxing the company will generally raise the cost of its business which it must figure into what it will charge its customers for its product. Taxing the company actually raises your financial burden when you buy the product. That is a sort of tax that you will actually have to pay.

Your Catholic socialism pushes you into the same linguistic trap of labels that leftists use to muddy our thinking in order to make us sympathetic to their cause. "Corporate welfare" when applied to tax incentives is one of those tricky labels which misuse a word to gather power. But it destroys any useful meaning for the word "welfare" except to give credence to the notion that tax incentives are actually giving money to corporations rather than not taking it from them.[/QUOTE]

I agree that confiscating less revenue from a company, isn't the same thing as "giving them" something.

I can't argue with what you are saying. All I can say is that I don't have a problem with some of my income being used to help others.

So Trump just violated that by helping to pick who should get tax breaks.

No. The state of Indiana decided that. Unless I am wrong.

Again, once he is in office, he will try to level the playing field, and hopefully create an environment where no businesses have an incentive to leave.

And I'm not sure that this deal gives Carrier an advantage over their competitors. If they had left without consequences, their costs would have gone down, and that would force competitors to follow suit.

How is this different than bailing out the auto manuf. 7 years ago?

The companies that got bailed out, were poorly run companies that needed public money to correct for their incompetence. That's not even close to what happened here.

Let me rephrase that. Trump is a Liar that preys on peoples fears and ignorance. He will happily screw over 99.9% of this country to forward his personal agendas and line his own pockets and those of his fellow billionaires. Mr. executive pants is calling highly unstable nuclear countries and having conversations without proper military and security briefings. Tensions between India and Pakistan are sky high and this baffoon is making things worse. He's not in office yet and he's already screwing up.

That little dance guy is awesome. Always wanted to use it.

"Trump is a Liar that preys on peoples fears and ignorance. He will happily screw over 99.9% of this country to forward his personal agendas and line his own pockets and those of his fellow billionaires"

And if I replaced "Trump" with "Hillary", I see no decrease in the accuracy of that statement.

"He's not in office yet and he's already screwing up. "

I disagree. The market loves him clearly, and I don't, YET, see the downside you describe. I may, eventually. But you're speculating.

The companies that got bailed out, were poorly run companies that needed public money to correct for their incompetence. That's not even close to what happened here.

Sure it is. They had problems and most of the companies fixed those problems and stayed in business. We wouldn't have GM today w/o the bailout. Overall, the gov. got back more than they lent out.

You can't be for one and not the other.

Quote: Originally Posted by detbuch View Post:
Will his tie manufacturing be given the incentives to come here?




So what was the point of your saying: "I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US." If his business is given incentives to relocate here, is that a bad thing?

You're funny.

Sure it is. They had problems and most of the companies fixed those problems and stayed in business. We wouldn't have GM today w/o the bailout. Overall, the gov. got back more than they lent out.

You can't be for one and not the other.

Nope. Carrier wasn't faced with bankruptcy. They were faced with a reality that they could generate higher profits for their owners, by producing in Mexico.

The auto companies were circling the drain (thanks to liberal policies and unions). That's why not all auto companies needed bailouts.

Apples and oranges.

"You can't be for one and not the other"

Creating a pro-business environment that applies equally to everyone, is not giving bailouts to anyone. We aren't there yet. But that would be different.

But you have a point, I can't disagree. But the incentives given to Carrier were not for the purposes of keeping them solvent. It was done to keep jobs here.

Semantics. looks to me like those 800 jobs are being bailed out. The auto manuf. paid back what they were lent.

No, it's fact. Claiming that giving tax incentives to Carrier is giving money to them is semantics. "Bailing out" the jobs is not bailing out the company. The company was going to move. It didn't ask for a bail out. It was not in the position of going out of business, bail out or not.

The auto companies were not in the process of relocating to another country. And many "conservatives" were against the TARP bailout. Even Mitt Romney argued that the auto companies should go through the private bankruptcy process instead of the government giving them corporate "welfare."

The government incentives given to Carrier did not cost the government money, it saved the government some money that it would have lost if all the jobs were deported.

If the auto companies had gone through bankruptcy (which they basically did except with government financing) there would not have been government picking winners and losers. If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business, the other car manufacturers would have provided the cars that the public needed. They would probably have had to expand and hire more workers.

As it was, the old GM and Chrysler did essentially go out of business under government restructuring and became the new and different GM and Chrysler.

And, as a minor point, it is debatable whether the companies actually paid back all the money. But whether they did or not, is beside the point. The point is should our government be in the business of bailing out business. And if it should, should it choose which businesses to bail out while leaving others to fail. Many, many businesses fail in this country every year. Only a very select few have the government bail them out as it did with the auto companies. The real threat of government control of private industry when it "saves" business, especially selected business, is a facilitator of the cronyism between big business and big government that we see growing today.

No. The state of Indiana decided that. Unless I am wrong.



So Trump had no part in this? He didn't pick (by advocating for) Carrier to get tax incentives over Bloomington tool and die?

He has been claiming he helped keep 800 (he claims 1,000 which is incorrect) jobs in Ind. If he didn't have any part in this why was he there claiming he did?

Ind. in fact is the party who put up the $. Funny, manuf. can't stay in the crappy, liberal Conn. but for some reason can't make it in the conservative utopia of Ind. either.

No, it's fact. Claiming that giving tax incentives to Carrier is giving money to them is semantics. "Bailing out" the jobs is not bailing out the company. The company was going to move. It didn't ask for a bail out. It was not in the position of going out of business, bail out or not.



right...they were not going bankrupt due to a failed business model, bad business decisions or indebtedness...they were moving parts of their operation to a more favorable business climate where there was apparently plenty of incentive to do so

So Trump had no part in this? He didn't pick (by advocating for) Carrier to get tax incentives over Bloomington tool and die?

He has been claiming he helped keep 800 (he claims 1,000 which is incorrect) jobs in Ind. If he didn't have any part in this why was he there claiming he did?

Ind. in fact is the party who put up the $. Funny, manuf. can't stay in the crappy, liberal Conn. but for some reason can't make it in the conservative utopia of Ind. either.

"So Trump had no part in this?"

I didn't say that. He helped facilitate the deal, at least. As he said he would. But he's not in a position yet, to set policy.

Nope. Carrier wasn't faced with bankruptcy. They were faced with a reality that they could generate higher profits for their owners, by producing in Mexico.

The auto companies were circling the drain (thanks to liberal policies and unions). That's why not all auto companies needed bailouts.

Apples and oranges.

"You can't be for one and not the other"

Creating a pro-business environment that applies equally to everyone, is not giving bailouts to anyone. We aren't there yet. But that would be different.

But you have a point, I can't disagree. But the incentives given to Carrier were not for the purposes of keeping them solvent. It was done to keep jobs here.

It was done to keep that business unit solvent. W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind. Lending $ to an auto manuf. so they can retool and bc more efficient is basically the same as lowering someone's taxes so their cost structure is lower. W/o the incentive the financials would have made no sense to stay in Ind and thus the jobs would have eventually gone away (according to Carrier).

Manuf. jobs are leaving and soon when UBER starts w/driverless cars, those jobs are gone. Eventually Coke/Pepsi's trucks will be driverless and those jobs are gone. McDonald's order taker jobs will be gone in a few years also. Amazon's warehouse jobs will eventually be gone. And when Amazon starts delivering packages with drones, Fed Ex jobs will go away also.

So Trump had no part in this? He didn't pick (by advocating for) Carrier to get tax incentives over Bloomington tool and die?

Presidents are free to advocate for. But they are not free (well . . . Progressives think they are) to step outside their constitutional power and act in place of a state's power. And if Bloomington tool and die discovers that it can more profitably move to Mexico if it doesn't get the same incentives as carrier gets, then Indiana will have to give them the incentives to stay if it wants them to stay.

He has been claiming he helped keep 800 (he claims 1,000 which is incorrect) jobs in Ind. If he didn't have any part in this why was he there claiming he did?

Everyone IS saying he had a part in it. But the only part that he can financially implement is the incentives he is promising for all businesses. He can advocate that the State do its legally financial share and added to that will be the Federal financial share. Why is that so hard to understand?

Ind. in fact is the party who put up the $. Funny, manuf. can't stay in the crappy, liberal Conn. but for some reason can't make it in the conservative utopia of Ind. either.

Indiana did not give any money to Carrier. It didn't loan it any money. It did not bail it out. It is not semantics to say that reducing taxes and regulations is not giving money. It is semantics to say that it is giving (putting up) money.

Carrier can make it easier in Indiana than it can in Connecticut. And it can make it easier in Mexico than anywhere in the U.S. So Indiana made it a bit easier to make it in Indiana. And if Trump's policies (gosh we are actually now talking about Trump's policies when we were told he had none) are enacted it will be easier for companies to make it here.

Trump went from saying he would put tariffs on Carrier's products imported from Mexico to helping them get a tax incentive. Sort of like negotiating against yourself.

Indiana did not give any money to Carrier. It didn't loan it any money. It did not bail it out. It is not semantics to say that reducing taxes and regulations is not giving money. It is semantics to say that it is giving (putting up) money.



I tried. This the point where I would say nice meeting you but I have to go talk to some other guests.

It was done to keep that business unit solvent.

No. It was done to keep it in place. Otherwise it was going to be solvent in Mexico. Solvency was not an issue. Keeping it in Indiana was the issue.

W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind.

It would have been able to survive there but at a less attractive tax structure.

Lending $ to an auto manuf. so they can retool and bc more efficient is basically the same as lowering someone's taxes so their cost structure is lower.

No it is not the same. And it shouldn't be done by the same agent. Businesses should be borrowing from the private sector financial agents, not from government. Making the government a loan agency puts the private agencies in danger of being "insolvent."

But even if government is the loan agent, it is not the same as lowering taxes. Taxes are more permanent and compulsory, while loans are more temporary and voluntary as well as negotiable.

And tax incentives attract businesses to states who give them, and government is the sole agent of taxation. Loans are not a useful, actually a precarious, tool to attract business. They can, and should, be transacted with the various private agents who have less power over business than government has with its ability to permanently regulate and levy taxes.

W/o the incentive the financials would have made no sense to stay in Ind and thus the jobs would have eventually gone away (according to Carrier).

Exactly why it made sense to offer Carrier incentives to stay. Both at the state and federal levels.

Manuf. jobs are leaving and soon when UBER starts w/driverless cars, those jobs are gone. Eventually Coke/Pepsi's trucks will be driverless and those jobs are gone. McDonald's order taker jobs will be gone in a few years also. Amazon's warehouse jobs will eventually be gone. And when Amazon starts delivering packages with drones, Fed Ex jobs will go away also.

Well, those jobs can't be shipped to Mexico. So they don't need any incentives to stay here.

I tried. This the point where I would say nice meeting you but I have to go talk to some other guests.

Nice talking to ya. Have fun with your guests.

It was done to keep that business unit solvent. W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind. Lending $ to an auto manuf. so they can retool and bc more efficient is basically the same as lowering someone's taxes so their cost structure is lower. W/o the incentive the financials would have made no sense to stay in Ind and thus the jobs would have eventually gone away (according to Carrier).

Manuf. jobs are leaving and soon when UBER starts w/driverless cars, those jobs are gone. Eventually Coke/Pepsi's trucks will be driverless and those jobs are gone. McDonald's order taker jobs will be gone in a few years also. Amazon's warehouse jobs will eventually be gone. And when Amazon starts delivering packages with drones, Fed Ex jobs will go away also.

I don't see Carrier's situation as even remotely comparable with that of the auto companies, or AIG, which were on the brink of ruin.

You are correct, many types of jobs will be going away, and we need to train our kids for the types of jobs that will remain.

However, there are people out there who don't do well in school, but who have other skills, trade-type skills, and we need to give them the best possible shot for success as well. I am certain you agree with that.

Cut stupid spending (of which there is a lot), pass that savings to corporate America, to stimulate them to grow. It ain't rocket science.

Indiana did not give any money to Carrier. It didn't loan it any money. It did not bail it out. It is not semantics to say that reducing taxes and regulations is not giving money. It is semantics to say that it is giving (putting up) money.

Carrier can make it easier in Indiana than it can in Connecticut. And it can make it easier in Mexico than anywhere in the U.S. So Indiana made it a bit easier to make it in Indiana. And if Trump's policies (gosh we are actually now talking about Trump's policies when we were told he had none) are enacted it will be easier for companies to make it here.

"Carrier can make it easier in Indiana than it can in Connecticut. "

Carrier could make it easier in North Korea than it can in Connecticut.

"And if Trump's policies (gosh we are actually now talking about Trump's policies when we were told he had none) are enacted it will be easier for companies to make it here"

Trump is promising to make changes that will make it easier for companies to grow here. If he is moderately successful, then that will be a dagger in the heart of liberalism. Liberals have long believed that business is evil and should be used as an ATM to fund everything.

He has a very, very friendly Congress to work with (the Carrier deal increases the political capital he has to work with, hell he may get some Democrats behind him), So there's little stopping him. He ought to be able to give his policies a shot, then we can decide whether or not they work. Time to stop speculating and put it to the test.

It's an either/or, not that one negates the other.

Correct, both are designed to make it more expensive to move the jobs, and less expensive to stay in Indiana.

"Carrier can make it easier in Indiana than it can in Connecticut. "

Carrier could make it easier in North Korea than it can in Connecticut.

"And if Trump's policies (gosh we are actually now talking about Trump's policies when we were told he had none) are enacted it will be easier for companies to make it here"

Trump is promising to make changes that will make it easier for companies to grow here. If he is moderately successful, then that will be a dagger in the heart of liberalism. Liberals have long believed that business is evil and should be used as an ATM to fund everything.

He has a very, very friendly Congress to work with (the Carrier deal increases the political capital he has to work with, hell he may get some Democrats behind him), So there's little stopping him. He ought to be able to give his policies a shot, then we can decide whether or not they work. Time to stop speculating and put it to the test.

Yeah, but he's an evil, crass, liar who preys on people's fear and ignorance. That's what really counts.

I don't see Carrier's situation as even remotely comparable with that of the auto companies, or AIG, which were on the brink of ruin.AIG was partly about the # of jobs but more about the cascading effect it would have on our economy bc of the credit default swaps. I believe it is comparable so we would end up going round and around all day. As an aside, I used to work w/a company who occasionally did business with entities where AIG was also involved. The ees where always very arrogant and condesending. There would be people from 10 companies there and no one liked the AIG folks.

You are correct, many types of jobs will be going away, and we need to train our kids for the types of jobs that will remain.Totally agree and if anyone isn't flexible enough to adapt is going to be in trouble.

However, there are people out there who don't do well in school, but who have other skills, trade-type skills, and we need to give them the best possible shot for success as well. I am certain you agree with that.Totally agree and I don't like it when funding for our tech schools gets lowered.

Cut stupid spending (of which there is a lot), pass that savings to corporate America, to stimulate them to grow. It ain't rocket science.

Agree that any stupid spending should be cut.

Yeah, but he's an evil, crass, liar who preys on people's fear and ignorance. That's what really counts.

Of course, it would be nice to have a conservative in there who was also a nice person. We tried that in 08 and 12, and it didn't work.

Integrity wasn't on the ballot this year, not on either side...

Agree that any stupid spending should be cut.


"I don't like it when funding for our tech schools gets lowered"

Now THAT is a great point, we need to keep those options available to those kids. But in addition to getting good training, they also need the prospect of good jobs when they graduate.

Over a half million jobs open for machinists and cnc programmers right now, no degree required, maybe tech school and an associates for a progammer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

QUOTE=Jim in CT;1113101]

[COLOR="Blue"]I am still baffled by the idea that not taking earned money from business is giving money to it. I am comfortable with labeling as corporate welfare the government "investment" which actually gives or loans money to business when that business does not have or has not earned that money.

Do we say that when government lowers the tax rate for the employees of business, the "workers," that it is putting them on welfare?

great isn't it...reducing taxes...which allow one to keep some more of the THEIR OWN EARNED money = giving them welfare...

I guess instead of asking for tax cuts we can now ask for "bailouts" since they mean the same thing.....and bailout carries more urgency and need than "tax cut"

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

It's just another way of expanding on trickle down economics, which I think we all know does not work as well as trickle up economics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's just another way of expanding on trickle down economics, which I think we all know does not work as well as trickle up economics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Trickle down economics" is a term meant to debunk what is not actually trickle down. Mostly the phrase is meant to make Reagan's economic policies sound elitist, a disparaging of the poor or middle classes who must depend on the rich to "trickle down" portions of their wealth in order for the underclasses to survive. But, in reality, Reagan's lowering of taxes and loosening of regulations was not only about wealth distribution, if at all, but was meant to allow more freedom for all classes to thrive by their own initiative. It was, basically, about more personal freedom and less government. And it did work.

Here's a brief article in Forbes that talks about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/2/#750f5471fd33

A couple of key paragraphs from the article:

"The tax cuts during the Reagan administration somewhat increased the resources of the taxpayers, while at the same time, repeal of some regulations gave them more freedom to take advantage of opportunities for gain through exchange. The result was a large increase in production and employment. Increasing wealth did not “trickle” to anyone, but the climate of freer markets enabled many Americans to earn more. Some who had previously been poor found jobs that paid well, saved money so they’d have investment capital, and then began their own businesses. Their increased incomes were a gusher, not a trickle, and it was earned."

And:

"If anything, the epithet “trickle-down” applies to the government method of taxing those who earn money so that officials can then do with that money as they please. A little of the money will be given to the poor through giveaway programs such as Food Stamps and Obamaphones, but most of it will wind up in the pockets of much wealthier, politically-connected people who know how to play the system."

"Trickle down economics" was a deceptive epithet not created by Reagan, but used by the Dems to fool the public into thinking Reagan's economic policy was pro-rich and anti-poor. The irony is that what is really "trickle down" is not the freedom that Reagan preached, but government confiscation and control. The real trickle down is from government to the people--the forced economic distribution trickling from the government to the people.

So your right. Trickle down doesn't work. But trickle down is not what the left has portrayed it to be. It is actually what leftist government does, not what the free market does.

And your also right in thinking trickle up is what works. But for it to work, we must be free enough from governmental over-taxation and over-regulation.

Actually, if we must use the world "trickle," the best would be trickle around economics.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38194371


Mr Trump's decision to turn his back on four decades of US protocol on Taiwan and speak directly to a president of Taiwan has stunned policymakers in Beijing.

and many here in the US ... whats next?

His bravado our Blood ?? and he isn't even sworn in yet..

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

Bill Clinton signed major capital gains tax cuts into law. The economy took off like a rocket.

You can use the biggest, boldest font you want to claim it's a lie. But if you ever took Economics 101, you would know that when the cost of something goes down, the demand for that something, no matter what it is, goes up. Taxes are the "cost" of income. When you reduce corporate income taxes, it makes more sense for companies to invest in growth. Growing a business involves "risk". Allowing companies to keep more of their income, changes the risk/reward math, it necessarily makes growth a more attractive option.

Just because you have been told you are supposed to hate that concept, doesn't mean it's not true.

Why are companies moving overseas? Because it's CHEAPER. If we lower the cost of doing business here, there's less incentive to move jobs overseas.

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

Remember that post. Because Trump is very likely to slash corporate income taxes, very early on. If it does nothing, I will admit I was wrong. If companies start growing, will you admit you were wrong? Or will you claim it was because of something Obama did, which took awhile to take effect?

Companies can not grow without consumers who have more money in their pocket.

You can only squeeze a sponge so hard before you have to give it more water to fill a bucket
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

US unemployment rate falls to nine-year low

Figures from the Labor Department showed the US economy created 178,000 jobs in November, while the jobless rate fell to 4.6% from 4.9% in October.

wow Trump kept that number from being 177,000

I guess the economy is bad shape .. and corporations need more tax breaks

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38181041

Why are companies moving overseas? Because it's CHEAPER. If we lower the cost of doing business here, there's less incentive to move jobs overseas.

thats wishful thinking and not based on Historical business trends below is the biggest reason why the head leaves and the body stays in the US ... but they need lower taxes its comical

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-inversions/

Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas.
Corporations that invert continue to enjoy the benefits of operating here — they just dodge a lot of taxes.
A dozen U.S. firms are currently considering doing a corporate inversion.
Walgreens could dodge up to $4 billion in U.S. taxes over five years if it inverts. One-quarter of its sales are from Medicare and Medicaid.
Medtronic plans to move its corporate address to Ireland, a tax haven, to avoid paying U.S. taxes on $20.5 billion in offshore profits.
U.S. corporations already dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here. An inversion can let firms dodge paying taxes on those profits.
Big corporations say that the 35% U.S. corporate income tax rate is too high. But many companies pay much less because of loopholes in our tax code — many pay at a rate of less than 20%.

26 corporations paid no U.S. income taxes from 2008 to 2012, including General Electric, Boeing and Verizon. 111 companies paid no income taxes in at least one of those five years.

INVERSION YEAR COMPANY NAME TYPE COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION REVENUE
1983 McDermott International Engineering Panama $2.7 billion
1994 Helen of Troy Consumer Products Bermuda $1.3 billion (FY 2014)
1996 Triton Energy Oil and Gas Cayman Islands Acq by Hess in '01
1996 Chicago Bridge & Iron (CBI) Engineering Netherlands $11.1 billion
1997 Tyco International Diversified Manufacturer Bermuda $10.6 billion
1997 Santa Fe International Oil and Gas Cayman Islands Acq by Transocean in '07
1998 Fruit of the Loom Apparel Manufacturer Cayman Islands private company
1998 Gold Reserve Mining Bermuda N/A
1998 Playstar Corp. Toys Antigua Acq by Premier Mobile in '06
1999 Transocean Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands $9.4 billion
1999 White Mountain Insurance Insurance Bermuda $2.3 billion
1999 Xoma Corp. Biotech Bermuda $35.5 million
1999 PXRE Group Insurance Bermuda Acq by Argonaut Group in '07
1999 Trenwick Group Insurance Bermuda Acq by LaSalle Re Holdings in '00
2000 Applied Power Engineering Bermuda Now called Actuant $494 million
2000 Everest Reinsurance Insurance Bermuda $5.6 billion
2000 Seagate Technology Data Storage Cayman Islands $14.4 billion
2000 R&B Falcon Drilling Cayman Islands Acq by Transocean in '00
2001 Global Santa Fe Corp. Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands Acq by Transocean in '07
2001 Foster Wheeler Engineering Bermuda $559 million
2001 Accenture Consulting Bermuda $28.6 billion (FY 2013)
2001 Global Marine Engineering Cayman Islands Acq by Bridgehouse Capital in '04
2002 Noble Corp. Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands $4.2 billion
2002 Cooper Industries Electrical Products Bermuda Acq by Eaton in '12
2002 Nabor Industries Oil and Gas Bermuda $1.6 billion
2002 Weatherford International Oil and Gas Bermuda $15.2 billion
2002 Ingersoll-Rand Industrial Manufacturer Bermuda $12.3 billion
2002 PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Consulting Bermuda N/A
2002 Herbalife International Nutrition Cayman Islands $4.8 billion (sales)
2005 Luna Gold Corp Mining Canada $85.3 million
2007 Lincoln Gold Group Mining N/A
2007 Western Goldfields Mining N/A Acq by New Gold in '09
2007 Star Maritime Acquisition Grp Shipping N/A Now Star Bulk $69 million
2007 Argonaut Group Insurance Bermuda $1.4 billion
2007 Fluid Media Networks Music Distribution
2008 Tyco Electronics Industrial Manufacturer Switzerland Now TE Connectivity $3.4 billion (FY '13)
2008 Foster Wheeler Engineering Bermuda $3.3 billion
2008 Covidien Healthcare Ireland $10.2 billion
2008 Patch International Inc Oil and Gas Canada
2008 Arcade Acquisition Group Financial
2008 Energy Infrastructure Acquisition Group Energy
2008 Ascend Acquisition Group Electronics N/A Acq by Kitara Media in '13
2008 ENSCO International Oil and Gas United Kingdom $4.9 billion
2009 Tim Hortons Inc Restaurant Chain Canada $3.2 billion
2009 Hungarian Telephone & Cable Corp. Telecommunications Denmark $219 million
2009 Alpha Security Group Security N/A
2009 Alyst Acquisition Group Financial N/A Acq by China Networks Media in '09
2009 2020 ChinaCap Acquirco Financial N/A Acq by Exceed Co. in '09
2009 Ideation Acquisition Grp Private Equity N/A Acq by SearchMedia in '09
2009 InterAmerican Acquisition Grp Business Management N/A Acq by Sing Kung Ltd in '09
2009 Vantage Energy Services Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands $732 million
2009 Plastinum Polymer Tech Corp. Industrial Manufacturer
2010 Valient Biovail Pharmaceuticals Canada $5.7 billion
2010 Pride International Offshore Drilling United Kindom Acq by Ensco in '11
2010 Global Indemnity Insurance Ireland $319 billion
2011 Alkermes, Inc. Biopharmaceutical Ireland $575 million
2011 TE Connectivity Industrial Manufacturer Switzerland $13.3 billion
2011 Pentair Water Filtration Switzerland $7.5 billion
2012 Rowan Companies Oil Well Drilling United Kindom $1.5 billion
2012 AON Insurance United Kindom $11.8 billion
2012 Tronox Inc Chemical Australia $1.9 billion
2012 Jazz Pharmaceuticals / Azur Pharma Pharmaceuticals Ireland $872 million
2012 D.E. Master Blenders Coffee Netherlands $3.5 billion
2012 Stratasys Printer Manufacturer Israel $486.7 million
2012 Eaton/Cooper Power Management Ireland $22 billion
2012 Endo Health Solutions Pharmaceuticals Ireland $2.6 billion
2013 Liberty Global PLC Cable Company United Kindom $17.3 billion
2013 Actavis / Warner Chilcott Pharmaceuticals Ireland $8.7 billion
2013 Perrigo/Elan Pharmaceuticals Ireland $3.5 billion (FY 2013)
2013 Cadence Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals Ireland $110 million
2014 Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals Ireland $2.2 billion
2014 Chiquita Brands Produce Ireland $3 billion
2014 Medtronic Pharmaceuticals Ireland $16.5 billion

Make them bring all their money back and pay owed taxes then lower the tax rate

Why are companies moving overseas? Because it's CHEAPER. If we lower the cost of doing business here, there's less incentive to move jobs overseas.

thats wishful thinking and not based on Historical business trends below is the biggest reason why the head leaves and the body stays in the US ... but they need lower taxes its comical

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-inversions/

Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas.
Corporations that invert continue to enjoy the benefits of operating here — they just dodge a lot of taxes.
A dozen U.S. firms are currently considering doing a corporate inversion.
Walgreens could dodge up to $4 billion in U.S. taxes over five years if it inverts. One-quarter of its sales are from Medicare and Medicaid.
Medtronic plans to move its corporate address to Ireland, a tax haven, to avoid paying U.S. taxes on $20.5 billion in offshore profits.
U.S. corporations already dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here. An inversion can let firms dodge paying taxes on those profits.
Big corporations say that the 35% U.S. corporate income tax rate is too high. But many companies pay much less because of loopholes in our tax code — many pay at a rate of less than 20%.

26 corporations paid no U.S. income taxes from 2008 to 2012, including General Electric, Boeing and Verizon. 111 companies paid no income taxes in at least one of those five years.

Inversion does not contradict Jim's reason companies physically move elsewhere. The reason they do so, as Jim stated, IS to lower the cost of production.

Inversion, as you have pointed out, is not about physically moving production to another country in order to lower production costs such as employee wage compensation packages, more attractive regulatory structure, and lower infrastructure costs, etc. Instead, inversion ships the "head" elsewhere to save not on production costs pers se, but in order to save on taxes.

So, yes, as Jim said, corporations physically move in order to save on production costs.

And, yes, corporations invert their "heads" elsewhere to save on taxes.

Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers. The U.S. governments lose corporate tax revenue. But the employees keep their jobs.

But both types of perfectly legal moves depend on lower costs elsewhere. So competitively lowering the costs of production and taxes here would help in reversing both trends.

Inversion could also describe the democrats sudden embracing of conservative principles as it relates to all things Trump :rotf2:

Paul, Wayne..if you wander over to the National Review you will find the editors and "Never Trumpers" making the identical arguments against the Carrier episode that you've been making....

news flash....Conservatives don't like the Carrier deal and government intervention picking winners and losers and all of that...

that you can't differentiate between a bail out of a failing company, pouring money into new startups who happen to be politically connected and offering tax incentives to keep a thriving company with existing jobs was just an aside...

Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

ironically the left didn't seem to mind Obama doing this sort of "investment" but is outraged that Trump may in some shape or form and is even more OUTRAGED that there is not more outrage from Conservatives toward Trump :uhuh:

this has been a pattern throughout the campaign if you've been paying attention.....

sorry....just don't share your outrage I guess....:confused:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38194371


Mr Trump's decision to turn his back on four decades of US protocol on Taiwan and speak directly to a president of Taiwan has stunned policymakers in Beijing.

and many here in the US ... whats next?

His bravado our Blood ?? and he isn't even sworn in yet..

if Obama did this he'd be "brilliant", "courageous", "forward thinking"......

and....who cares that policymakers in Beijing are stunned?



great headline....

December 4, 2016

Liberals outraged by Trump using a phone


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/liberals_outraged_by_trump_using_a_phone.html#ixzz 4RrVZ13C7
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Why are companies moving overseas? Because it's CHEAPER. If we lower the cost of doing business here, there's less incentive to move jobs overseas.

thats wishful thinking and not based on Historical business trends below is the biggest reason why the head leaves and the body stays in the US ... but they need lower taxes its comical

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-inversions/

Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas.
Corporations that invert continue to enjoy the benefits of operating here — they just dodge a lot of taxes.
A dozen U.S. firms are currently considering doing a corporate inversion.
Walgreens could dodge up to $4 billion in U.S. taxes over five years if it inverts. One-quarter of its sales are from Medicare and Medicaid.
Medtronic plans to move its corporate address to Ireland, a tax haven, to avoid paying U.S. taxes on $20.5 billion in offshore profits.
U.S. corporations already dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here. An inversion can let firms dodge paying taxes on those profits.
Big corporations say that the 35% U.S. corporate income tax rate is too high. But many companies pay much less because of loopholes in our tax code — many pay at a rate of less than 20%.

26 corporations paid no U.S. income taxes from 2008 to 2012, including General Electric, Boeing and Verizon. 111 companies paid no income taxes in at least one of those five years.

You deny that companies move overseas because it's cheaper?

Please, tell me why companies move manufacturing out of the country? Because it's more expensive?

"Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas"

So what happened to all the manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the last 30 years? Are all the workers still in the US, hiding somewhere?

What was going to happen if Carrier moved all those jobs to Mexico?

God Almighty, anything to avoid admitting I am correct about anything.

Put down the Kool Aid and think for two seconds...

Inversion does not contradict Jim's reason companies physically move elsewhere. The reason they do so, as Jim stated, IS to lower the cost of production.

Inversion, as you have pointed out, is not about physically moving production to another country in order to lower production costs such as employee wage compensation packages, more attractive regulatory structure, and lower infrastructure costs, etc. Instead, inversion ships the "head" elsewhere to save not on production costs pers se, but in order to save on taxes.

So, yes, as Jim said, corporations physically move in order to save on production costs.

And, yes, corporations invert their "heads" elsewhere to save on taxes.

Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers. The U.S. governments lose corporate tax revenue. But the employees keep their jobs.

But both types of perfectly legal moves depend on lower costs elsewhere. So competitively lowering the costs of production and taxes here would help in reversing both trends.

"Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers."

Exactly. 5 years ago, my insurance company moved its "headquarters" to Bermuda. We rent a tiny, tiny office, and they have a Board Of Directors meeting there once a year, to prove that it is really the HQ. Even though the office is vacant 51 weeks out of the year.

That saves us a few million each year in taxes. Much of which was used to grow the company, meaning more people have good, white collar jobs, with which they pay mortgages and put their kids through college.

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulation and Inversions all combined to see these companys leave

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

"Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers."

Exactly. 5 years ago, my insurance company moved its "headquarters" to Bermuda. We rent a tiny, tiny office, and they have a Board Of Directors meeting there once a year, to prove that it is really the HQ. Even though the office is vacant 51 weeks out of the year.

That saves us a few million each year in taxes. Much of which was used to grow the company, meaning more people have good, white collar jobs, with which they pay mortgages and put their kids through college.

ok keep drinking that Kool aid. and you just answered why Conn budget it off ... your company bailed to not pay its taxes Sweet

Inversion could also describe the democrats sudden embracing of conservative principles as it relates to all things Trump :rotf2:

Paul, Wayne..if you wander over to the National Review you will find the editors and "Never Trumpers" making the identical arguments against the Carrier episode that you've been making....

news flash....Conservatives don't like the Carrier deal and government intervention picking winners and losers and all of that...

that you can't differentiate between a bail out of a failing company, pouring money into new startups who happen to be politically connected and offering tax incentives to keep a thriving company with existing jobs was just an aside...

Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

ironically the left didn't seem to mind Obama doing this sort of "investment" but is outraged that Trump may in some shape or form and is even more OUTRAGED that there is not more outrage from Conservatives toward Trump :uhuh:

this has been a pattern throughout the campaign if you've been paying attention.....

sorry....just don't share your outrage I guess....:confused:


A bail out that is paid back and a Tax deal that requires no re payment

How are they the Same ?? and if Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

their awful silent in there opposition

if Obama did this he'd be "brilliant", "courageous", "forward thinking"......

and....who cares that policymakers in Beijing are stunned?



great headline....

December 4, 2016

Liberals outraged by Trump using a phone







Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/liberals_outraged_by_trump_using_a_phone.html#ixzz 4RrVZ13C7
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



If you dont see this unilateral disregard for US protocol or see it as Tough Talk towards China by the President elect or see the bigger implications on the world stage ... I can't help with that .. and to pull the if Obama did it card it would be seen differently is a weak argument Like But But Bush

Looks like the American thinker Blog has a nationalistic appeal

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

You focused on one thing, inversions, and disregarded production. I guess it's ok when you do it. Actually, I focused on both being methods of evading costs. And both can be addressed by changing our government regulations and tax structure, as well as wage contracts--all which, as they are now, make it significantly cheaper to move either production or tax liability elsewere.

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulations and inversions all combined to see these companys leave.

That's basically what I said, but not in as a demeaning manner as you.

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

In the global economy, they made profits worldwide. Why should they only satisfy the greed of the U.S.government and of American workers (to use the same demeaning rhetoric you use)?

If you dont see this unilateral disregard for US protocol or see it as Tough Talk towards China by the President elect or see the bigger implications on the world stage ... I can't help with that .. and to pull the if Obama did it card it would be seen differently is a weak argument Like But But Bush

Looks like the American thinker Blog has a nationalistic appeal

1) from what I understand SHE called HIM to congratulate him on his victory

2) she is the democratically elected President of Taiwan...I assume she can call whoever she wants

3) F*@k the Chinese "policy makers"..a corrupt and authoritarian regime threatening everyone in the region

A bail out that is paid back and a Tax deal that requires no re payment

How are they the Same ?? and if Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

their awful silent in there opposition

Paul insisted there was no difference...ask him

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulation and Inversions all combined to see these companys leave

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

The CT budget is tanking because of stupid spending. We have high tax rates applied to very high incomes. Add to that, hundreds of millions a year from the casinos. That's more than enough.

Yes, you are right about why companies leave. Companies exist to make money. Do you not make decisions based on your financial self-interest?

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay, and less attractive for them to leave. Do that, and more will stay.

I presume you have never worked for a business that ever had to balance revenue with expenses.

The CT budget is tanking because of stupid spending. We have high tax rates applied to very high incomes. Add to that, hundreds of millions a year from the casinos. That's more than enough.

Yes, you are right about why companies leave. Companies exist to make money. Do you not make decisions based on your financial self-interest?

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay, and less attractive for them to leave. Do that, and more will stay.

I presume you have never worked for a business that ever had to balance revenue with expenses.


The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..

By basically giving them what ever they want ? maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities reducing their regulation . pass the risk to the tax payer . to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset .. not my idea of the Big picture .. I get it greed is good ... but these are muti billion dollar profit companies .. not the man on the street plumber company or guy who runs 4 trucks ... no ones giving them a thing Because they cant leave nobody cares about them.. they are sold the same BS about de regulation and taxes but the reality it never trickles down to them

So dont even try to compare local business with Carrier

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..

By basically giving them what ever they want ? maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities reducing their regulation . pass the risk to the tax payer . to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset .. not my idea of the Big picture .. I get it greed is good ... but these are muti billion dollar profit companies .. not the man on the street plumber company or guy who runs 4 trucks ... no ones giving them a thing Because they cant leave nobody cares about them.. they are sold the same BS about de regulation and taxes but the reality it never trickles down to them

So dont even try to compare local business with Carrier

"By basically giving them what ever they want "

Again, you are responding to something that I never said (you have that habit, in case you didn't know). No - not give them whatever they want. But we need to take our boots off of their throats. Reasonable taxes, reasonable regulations. Stop acting like business is some limitless ATM that your labor union can raid whenever it feels like.

Have you ever worked in the private sector? Ever?

"to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset "

Oh, so now you're a fortune teller, too. Impressive.

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..

By basically giving them what ever they want ?

You keep phrasing it as if government is the giver. Government does not give. It takes. It restricts. It limits freedom.

If you believe that government governs best when it governs least, then you probably have an understanding of why and how this country was founded. And if so, you probably favor the freest market possible which is cherished and protected by government. And you probably view that market as the free association and exchange among the citizens. And you probably believe that government does not give us freedom, rather it protects our freedom.

If you believe that government governs best when what is most important is its needs, and those needs are decided by it, and it ultimately decides what the market is--that it decides what association and exchange is allowed among the citizens, then you probably reject the principles upon which this country was founded, even if you think you don't. And, if so, then any belief you have that the Constitution is being followed by a government which decides what the market is and how the citizens must associate and exchange, and that you actually defend and protect that document when you support such a government, then your belief is based on ignorance. And you probably believe that government gives us freedom.

maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities

"Responsibility" cuts both ways. In a global market, it is the responsibility of our government to protect our market against the competitive burden placed on it by other governments which can entice our competitors to produce goods more cheaply than we, and can thus damage our companies' ability to not only compete in the global market, but to do so at home against products produced by foreign companies who take advantage of cheaper production costs elsewhere. Tariffs might be the worst way. It would actually be best to not tax companies at all. Taxing their employees and executives, if anything is to be taxed, should be the extent of it. Otherwise, make the taxes and regulations competitive rather than deterrent.

reducing their regulation .

That phrasing evinces the notion that being regulated is a responsibility of those who are regulated. And it reinforces the progressive ideal that government has unlimited power to regulate.

pass the risk to the tax payer .

The tax payers are more at risk when the production of the goods they buy is taxed more rather than less. The more the goods are taxed, the less possible pool of money there is for the companies to distribute to its tax paying employees. Or the more it will cost in higher prices to those tax payers who buy the goods. Most of the tax will be paid by the tax paying customers twice--sales taxes and the transfer of company or corporate taxes to the price of the goods.

Of course, at least I guess, by "risk to the tax payer" you mean that the less taxes the government collects, the more that "tax payers" will have to foot the bill for government's notion of what it's responsibilities are (re this go back to what government is best, that which governs least or most). Well . . . see . . . it's government expansion of its "responsibilities" which is the greatest risk to the tax payers. Corporations aren't going to pay those taxes. If those taxes are not evaded, they will be passed on to the consumer. Ergo, the government will have effectively raised the taxes of "tax payers" while persuading them that it didn't, that it socked it to the corporations.

The least "risk" to the tax payers would be to shrink government "responsibility" and, if taxing is necessary and right, to tax the actual people who work for or own the companies not the company as a separate entity. Even less risk to the tax payers would be smaller government--placing the "tax payers" responsibilities for their well being more on themselves rather than giving that responsibility to government. Making the people responsible for themselves, to greater self-governance rather than being responsible for supporting an over-reaching nanny state.


to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset ..

They shouldn't sunset. To be effective, they should be permanent policy for all companies.

not my idea of the Big picture ..

Your idea of the big picture is too narrow.

I get it greed is good ...

Are you referring to government "greed"? Or is that a good "greed"? That's a very judgmental word.

but these are muti billion dollar profit companies .. not the man on the street plumber company or guy who runs 4 trucks ... no ones giving them a thing Because they cant leave nobody cares about them.. they are sold the same BS about de regulation and taxes but the reality it never trickles down to them

So dont even try to compare local business with Carrier

Is the man on the street plumber paying corporate taxes as well as income tax? The "little" guy doesn't have to incorporate. Who do the small business guys want to care about them? Maybe their customers, friends and family? Do they want government to "care" about them? Or would they prefer to get it off their back, as the phrase goes? Do they want less government regulation? Do they find ways to minimize their tax "responsibilities"? Do they want government to take care of them? Or are they what stands in the way of government control of our society.

In our high tech time, some (many) things are more efficiently and cheaply mass produced by large corporations rather than by small businesses. Does that necessitate big, all-powerful government to combat the expansion and consolidation of such corporations? Or is that combat merely a cover for those who prefer all-powerful centralized government? Can a model of self-government exist in a world dominated by giant corporations?

I think so. I think those giants can only dominate in concert or collusion with giant government. I do not think they can dominate a free, self-governing people. That is obviously debatable. But I think that we can only be dominated if we allow ourselves to be, either by corporations or government . . . or their fascistic combination.

Does less regulation and taxation of business, whether that business is small or huge, create more of a bond with it? Or does greater taxation and regulation create more of a bond between government and business.

With lesser control, the bond is amicable, and protective of each for the other. With greater control, the bond is resentful, coercive, corruptive, and prone to consolidation, either by force of government, or necessity of business survival. The ultimate consolidation being business and government in a fascistic consolidation.

The "big picture" is far bigger than talking points about "greedy" corporations and the little guys. It involves system of government, liberty, and the "road to serfdom."