Obama the village idiot

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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??????

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

ISo you're saying giving money to a company to keep them from moving is a positive?.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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?

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

"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?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.So that is not a complaint? Look at which states have the highest income levels

"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?

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No. The state of Indiana decided that. Unless I am wrong.

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.

[PaulS]

I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US.

Very, very fair point.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I wonder if his tie manufacturing w/be brought back to the US.

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

Given all the conflicts with his other businesses - probably.

[detbuch]

Quote: Originally Posted by detbuch View Post:
Will his tie manufacturing be given the incentives to come here?

Originally Posted by PaulS

Given all the conflicts with his other businesses - probably.

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?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

You're funny.

[MikeD]

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by MikeD

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by MikeD

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.

"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.

[PaulS]

How is this different than bailing out the auto manuf. 7 years ago?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How is this different than bailing out the auto manuf. 7 years ago?

Carrier is not being bailed out.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Carrier is not being bailed out.

Semantics. looks to me like those 800 jobs are being bailed out. The auto manuf. paid back what they were lent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How is this different than bailing out the auto manuf. 7 years ago?

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[detbuch]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

QUOTE=Jim in CT;1113101]

[COLOR="Blue"]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?

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"