Obama the village idiot
 

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/p...dent/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

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/...e-kept/509219/

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

"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.

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.

(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.

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 . . .

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 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.

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.

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

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

Jeez Nebe, Thats inflammatory!

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.

name one (1)

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

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...c-event-106481
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

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??????