Obama the village idiot

[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]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It was done to keep that business unit solvent.

No. It was done to keep it in place. Otherwise it was going to be solvent in Mexico. Solvency was not an issue. Keeping it in Indiana was the issue.

W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind.

It would have been able to survive there but at a less attractive tax structure.

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.

No it is not the same. And it shouldn't be done by the same agent. Businesses should be borrowing from the private sector financial agents, not from government. Making the government a loan agency puts the private agencies in danger of being "insolvent."

But even if government is the loan agent, it is not the same as lowering taxes. Taxes are more permanent and compulsory, while loans are more temporary and voluntary as well as negotiable.

And tax incentives attract businesses to states who give them, and government is the sole agent of taxation. Loans are not a useful, actually a precarious, tool to attract business. They can, and should, be transacted with the various private agents who have less power over business than government has with its ability to permanently regulate and levy taxes.

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).

Exactly why it made sense to offer Carrier incentives to stay. Both at the state and federal levels.

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.

Well, those jobs can't be shipped to Mexico. So they don't need any incentives to stay here.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

I don't see Carrier's situation as even remotely comparable with that of the auto companies, or AIG, which were on the brink of ruin.

You are correct, many types of jobs will be going away, and we need to train our kids for the types of jobs that will remain.

However, there are people out there who don't do well in school, but who have other skills, trade-type skills, and we need to give them the best possible shot for success as well. I am certain you agree with that.

Cut stupid spending (of which there is a lot), pass that savings to corporate America, to stimulate them to grow. It ain't rocket science.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't see Carrier's situation as even remotely comparable with that of the auto companies, or AIG, which were on the brink of ruin.AIG was partly about the # of jobs but more about the cascading effect it would have on our economy bc of the credit default swaps. I believe it is comparable so we would end up going round and around all day. As an aside, I used to work w/a company who occasionally did business with entities where AIG was also involved. The ees where always very arrogant and condesending. There would be people from 10 companies there and no one liked the AIG folks.

You are correct, many types of jobs will be going away, and we need to train our kids for the types of jobs that will remain.Totally agree and if anyone isn't flexible enough to adapt is going to be in trouble.

However, there are people out there who don't do well in school, but who have other skills, trade-type skills, and we need to give them the best possible shot for success as well. I am certain you agree with that.Totally agree and I don't like it when funding for our tech schools gets lowered.

Cut stupid spending (of which there is a lot), pass that savings to corporate America, to stimulate them to grow. It ain't rocket science.

Agree that any stupid spending should be cut.