Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
That is an oft-raised point, but what is the cost for those jobs in tax cuts and changes in revenue? You can't rail on Obama for raising the debt vs the economy without seeing if the same is true for a Trump deal. If you rail against Obama picking winners and losers, how can you justify it for Trump?
Some thoughts on this from national Review, which makes the point that this is a great deal if it is your job saved, but maybe not overall.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...s-indiana-cost
Maybe the tax breaks aren't a big deal though, there was a Forbes article I can't find right now that looked at this as more of a stick (Carrier was afraid of tariffs and such if they moved) rather than the carrot of taxes. That may not work with many companies. |
Fair point. It's up to the people of Indiana to decide if it was a good deal or not.
Obama didn't say "I could save those jobs but I don't think it's the government's job to spend money this way". Obviously, Obama was not conceptually opposed to the concept of spending federal money. But still, he specifically said those jobs could not be saved, and he mocked Trump for claiming he could save them.
And it wasn't just the state tax cuts that did it. Carrier's parent company is a huge defense contractor (United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, something like that). Trump reminded the parent company that they depend a lot on sales to the federal government, and used that to leverage the deal.
Trump also go tone of the car companies to agree not to ship as much work to Mexico as they were planning to do.
"If you rail against Obama picking winners and losers, how can you justify it for Trump? "
I don't like picking winners and losers. You are correct, I am opposed to that. That doesn't negate the fact that Trump did (in an afternoon) that which Obama said could not be done. That's the beauty of electing a complete outsider who could not care less about doing things the way they have always been done.
My point was, there is more to Trump than his ego. But only one TV station will ever discuss any of the positive things he does. I thought the media went off the deep end with Bush, this is a whole new level of bias.