"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.

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.

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.

"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?

Very, very fair point.

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

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.

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.