Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
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.