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.

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

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

Carrier is not being bailed out.

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

Given all the conflicts with his other businesses - probably.

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?


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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

You're funny.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Nice talking to ya. Have fun with your guests.

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.

"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.

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

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

Agree that any stupid spending should be cut.

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...

"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

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

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/georgele.../#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.