Trump Alone at the Top

[GG]

 

As much as Trump is taking the credit...was it a Presidential action that kept Carrier in Indiana? I've been under the impression that it was the State of Indiana that cut the deal, and Trump's just riding the coattails.

 

Which is a hell of a piddling shade of difference, given that even though the reports I've read say Holcomb negotiated it, Pence is still technically the governor...

 

(Gee, I wonder why they chose an Indiana factory for this...)

 

My understanding is that the Indiana tax breaks have been on the table for a while. So what was new in the offer to Carrier? I'm guessing it was the stick threatening the DoD business to UT.

[Nanker]

Okay. NO Executive orders for Trump. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Or we'll set our hair on fire. Got it.

 

Wait a minute. Did he do this through an executive order?

 

All I can say is it's nice to see the guy in charge actually giving a s hit about Americans.

Remember eight years ago at about this time, his Highness was getting awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and not the least concerned with American workers.

After the dearth of leadership of the Obama regime, it's kind of refreshing to think that the new guy at least says he puts America first.

 

 

So was Truman wrong to send in the Army to run the Philadelphia Transit Company in 1945?

Was Kennedy out of line to strong arm the Steel industry into rolling back prices in '62?

In an April 11, 1962 press conference, Kennedy called the price hikes “a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.” He criticized “a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility.” The execs had “utter contempt” for the U.S., Kennedy said.

Of course, both of those men were actually sworn into office at the time of their actions.

[GG]

 

So was Truman wrong to send in the Army to run the Philadelphia Transit Company in 1945?

Was Kennedy out of line to strong arm the Steel industry into rolling back prices in '62?

In an April 11, 1962 press conference, Kennedy called the price hikes “a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.” He criticized “a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility.” The execs had “utter contempt” for the U.S., Kennedy said.

Of course, both of those men were actually sworn into office at the time of their actions.

 

Since you're a history buff, tell us what happened to the railroad industry within a decade of the President inserting himself in commercial decisions?

[Nanker]

AMTRAK!

Oh, and the 707 had something to do with it, and the automobile too.

 

I'm perhaps a wee mite more "liberal" than some here WRT the federal government's involvement in creating an environment that will allow enterprise to flourish. I think the TVA was a good thing. Helped win the War and brought electricity to areas in the southern states that would probably still be powerless today if that hadn't happened.

 

If nothing else, Trump's on record for serving notice that he's not going to let companies run overseas without consequences. Frankly, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's just another factor businesses have to account for in their calculus.

[GG]

AMTRAK!

Oh, and the 707 had something to do with it, and the automobile too.

 

I'm perhaps a wee mite more "liberal" than some here WRT the federal government's involvement in creating an environment that will allow enterprise to flourish. I think the TVA was a good thing. Helped win the War and brought electricity to areas in the southern states that would probably still be powerless today if that hadn't happened.

 

If nothing else, Trump's on record for serving notice that he's not going to let companies run overseas without consequences. Frankly, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's just another factor businesses have to account for in their calculus.

 

Then this logic is no different than Obama declaring a victory by renewables over fossil fuels. He's picking the winners, just like Trump is picking Carrier furnaces over competitors' furnaces.

 

Kennedy hamstrung the railroads by taking away the needed revenues for upgrades, while at the same time using federal dollars to subsidize the automotive & truck industries. And many, especially in the Northeast are still paying for that executive decision.

 

If you thought that Obama was wrong in favoring his pet commercial projects, Trump is equally wrong.

 

Which shouldn't come as a surprise, since both are attention seeking thin skinned populists.

[Tiberius]

Obama saved the auto industry. He also got 20 million Americans health care so he did do things, big things

[unbillievable]

If Trump installs a putting green on the white house lawn, he will be just as bad as Obama!

[IDBillzFan]

Obama saved the auto industry. He also got 20 million Americans health care so he did do things, big things

 

It's impossible to explain what a moron you are, but this post by you is pretty damn close to doing it.

[unbillievable]

What the hell, people?

 

Look, I understand the battle lines are drawn. Progressives like gatorman just spent the past eight years creating excuses for Obama's lack of leadership and protocol. It's natural to want to take that kind of fight back at them.

 

But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now.

 

Stand for principle, wouldcha?

 

You don't want the President to save jobs?

There is a big difference between giving a company tax-payer money vs lowering taxes for that same business.

[Chef Jim]

 

You don't want the President to save jobs?

 

 

Sure we want the President to save jobs just not cherry pick which company's jobs he's going to save.

[Maury Ballstein]

Obama saved the auto industry. He also got 20 million Americans health care so he did do things, big things

Is that why my 2016 F150 was made in Mexico and has been in the shop 5x already ?

[Doc]

Sure we want the President to save jobs just not cherry pick which company's jobs he's going to save.

He's not saving companies. He's giving companies the option to save themselves.

[Chef Jim]

He's not saving companies. He's giving companies the option to save themselves.

 

And the difference is..............?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

You don't want the President to save jobs?

There is a big difference between giving a company tax-payer money vs lowering taxes for that same business.

You need to understand that the President cannot, fundamentally cannot, "save jobs" by picking winners and losers.

 

The President, under the Obama Doctrine you seem so quick to embrace, can only choose to save some jobs at the expense of other jobs.

[GG]

You need to understand that the President cannot, fundamentally cannot, "save jobs" by picking winners and losers.

 

The President, under the Obama Doctrine you seem so quick to embrace, can only choose to save some jobs at the expense of other jobs.

Seems that Carrier jobs are more important than Burnham and Dunkirk jobs.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Seems that Carrier jobs are more important than Burnham and Dunkirk jobs.

That's because, as we both know, politicians are more interested in optics than realities; and while the "saved jobs" at Carrier are very visible, the corresponding job losses with their competitors will be in the shadows.

[reddogblitz]

But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now.

 

Our president didn't do this. In fact, our president doesn't like it.

 

This is how business is done in America.

 

Dallas Cowboys threaten to move jobs and the City of Arlington doe$ whatever it take$ (1/2 cent sales tax)to keep them. Boeing threatens to move jobs to North Carolina and the state of Washington holds a special session OVER THE WERKEND (couldn't even wait til Monday) and backs up the Brinks Truck to save the jobs.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-12/boeing-grabs-jumbo-subsidies-from-washington-state-for-777x-jobs

 

As 30,000 Boeing workers prepare to vote on a new contract, the company made its bargaining position clear by threatening to move a major jet program out of Washington. The take-it-or-were-leaving posture appears to have workedat least with state lawmakers.

 

In a special session over the weekend, the Washington state legislature passed an $8.7 billion package of tax breaks for Boeing through 2040 to help keep assembly work on the new 777X jumbo jet. Good Jobs First, a group that tracks government subsidies to business, says the states new Boeing package is the largest in U.S. history. Now the Puget Sound region is waiting to see how the machinists will respond to a contract offer that many in the union consider an insult.

 

Generous subsidies for the giant plane maker are part of a long-established pattern in Washington State. A decade ago, for example, the legislature gave Boeing a $3.2 billion tax package to land work on the 787 Dreamliner. Even so, the company has since opened a second 787 production facility in South Carolina at a site that could become home to the 777X.

 

Bidness as usual ... Edited December 2, 2016 by reddogblitz

[IDBillzFan]

When you've lost Sarah Palin...

 

Another conservative is calling “crony capitalism” on Donald Trump’s deal with Carrier, albeit an unexpected one — Sarah Palin

In an op-ed for the website Young Conservatives, the former Alaska governor allowed that the details behind the manufacturer’s decision to keep some 1,000 jobs in Indiana at the president-elect’s behest, rather than move them to Mexico, are not yet clear. But touting the value of free markets, Palin signaled her disapproval if it was a case of “political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist.”

[Tiberius]

When you've lost Sarah Palin...

 

Wow!

[Dorkington]

Any opinions on Trump talking to the President of Taiwan? First POTUS(elect) to do so since 1979, I believe.

[Deranged Rhino]

Any opinions on Trump talking to the President of Taiwan? First POTUS(elect) to do so since 1979, I believe.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of opinions in Beijing right about now...

[Benjamin Franklin]

What the hell, people?

 

Look, I understand the battle lines are drawn. Progressives like gatorman just spent the past eight years creating excuses for Obama's lack of leadership and protocol. It's natural to want to take that kind of fight back at them.

 

But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now.

 

Stand for principle, wouldcha?

The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this?

 

Hamilton. Flag-burning.

 

Squirrel.

[Deranged Rhino]

The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this?

 

Hamilton. Flag-burning.

 

Squirrel.

 

You forgot the word "allegedly" in that first sentence. There has been zero evidence offered to prove Russia was Assange's source. None. Zero.

 

Isn't it best to know exactly who the enemy is, and have definitive evidence of their guilt, before you light the pitchforks? Especially when said enemy has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world?

[B-Man]

How Trump Turned the National Media Into Impotent Hecklers.

[keepthefaith]

 

You forgot the word "allegedly" in that first sentence. There has been zero evidence offered to prove Russia was Assange's source. None. Zero.

 

Isn't it best to know exactly who the enemy is, and have definitive evidence of their guilt, before you light the pitchforks? Especially when said enemy has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world?

Correct, allegedly. You could argue the idea that Russian government had zero to do with it as the conspiring media and dem leaders were all heard pushing the russian hacker story within hours or less of each other which supports the DC Tom theory that the AP or some other "source" put that crap out there and they all just ran with it. A lazy convenient excuse.

[North Buffalo]

Correct, allegedly. You could argue the idea that Russian government had zero to do with it as the conspiring media and dem leaders were all heard pushing the russian hacker story within hours or less of each other which supports the DC Tom theory that the AP or some other "source" put that crap out there and they all just ran with it. A lazy convenient excuse.

Yeh it all hurt HRC, but in reality her lack of economic message to the midwest killed her. Also, they never came back with anymore dirt on Trump after the fingering issue. Another dropped ball... Blame campaign staff for all of this... whether you believe him or not... in the midwest it was the economy stupid again.

[keepthefaith]

Yeh it all hurt HRC, but in reality her lack of economic message to the midwest killed her. Also, they never came back with anymore dirt on Trump after the fingering issue. Another dropped ball... Blame campaign staff for all of this... whether you believe him or not... in the midwest it was the economy stupid again.

Hillary was a terrible candidate with probably the most baggage of any candidate that ever won a major party nomination. She had poor policy positions on most issues, was surrounded by evidence of dishonesty and corruption, had no meaningful accomplishments in elected office and is not likeable.

 

Any number of the other Republican candidates would have mopped the floor with her IMO.

[North Buffalo]

Hillary was a terrible candidate with probably the most baggage of any candidate that ever won a major party nomination. She had poor policy positions on most issues, was surrounded by evidence of dishonesty and corruption, had no meaningful accomplishments in elected office and is not likeable.

 

Any number of the other Republican candidates would have mopped the floor with her IMO.

Oh I disagree on the corruption stuff, but she was successfully painted that way and never effectively countered it. The rumor and innuendo campaign was successful and again, she was a bad candidate that I'll agree on because she was a bad campaigner.

 

Her policy positions were ok, but scattered, no unifying theme and no message for everyone. She less polarizing than Trump, but she misunderstood again the depth of the economic angst out there especially in the midwest. Trump figured this out in the campaign, not so sure the Indiana bailout will be a long term success 1,0000 job loss is still a 1000 job loss even if it cost 7million to keep another 1000 for how long?. The rest of the Republican field was too ideological imo in someways the same as HRC. She never pivoted effectively from going up against Bernie and just wasn't a good public speaker. Again her economic message or philosophy was not coherent, except to help out women and minorities? Leaving out men by insinuation, which is why she lost the midwest.

[unbillievable]

That's because, as we both know, politicians are more interested in optics than realities; and while the "saved jobs" at Carrier are very visible, the corresponding job losses with their competitors will be in the shadows.

So you believe that there are a finite amount of jobs, and by saving one, another company has to lose one?

[Nanker]

 

Then this logic is no different than Obama declaring a victory by renewables over fossil fuels. He's picking the winners, just like Trump is picking Carrier furnaces over competitors' furnaces.

 

Kennedy hamstrung the railroads by taking away the needed revenues for upgrades, while at the same time using federal dollars to subsidize the automotive & truck industries. And many, especially in the Northeast are still paying for that executive decision.

 

If you thought that Obama was wrong in favoring his pet commercial projects, Trump is equally wrong.

 

Which shouldn't come as a surprise, since both are attention seeking thin skinned populists.

Sorry, I don't get it. Eight of their competitors already moved their manufacturing plants to Mexico. You expect Trump to enter a time machine and go back and try to convince them to stay in America because when he becomes POTUS he'll lower their corporate tax rate, and if they do he'll place a tariff on their goods when imported into the US? I don't see this as him picking and choosing a winner/loser. I see him as genuinely concerned about stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs due to an unfair trade agreement that incentivizes companies to bail on their US base because there are no consequences for them doing so. It's radical, I grant you. But not as radical as suborning 200 years of US Bankruptcy laws, or having government loans siphoned through a corporation and put back into the campaign coffers of ones cronies. THAT's what the GM "bailout" and scams like Solyndra were. There is a yuge difference.

 

Could hardly agree more on the bolded part.

[grinreaper]

The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this?

 

Hamilton. Flag-burning.

 

Squirrel.

Repeating something over and over whether it has a factual basis or not, is not going to make it true. You might fool the gullible though, Harry Reid.

[Nanker]

The pres elect is making up dance routines with Putin after Russian intel hacked emails in order to derail our democratic process and you want people to pay attention to this?

 

Hamilton. Flag-burning.

 

Squirrel.

You must be simply beside yourself upon hearing that Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from Tsai Ing-wen.

Granted it wasn't a trip to Cuba to bow before and kiss the ring of Fidel, but it's provocatory nonetheless.

[B-Man]

Obama’s pathetic ‘Blame Fox’ excuse

by Joe Simonson

 

Original Article

 

It’s been a rough few weeks for President Obama. Voters in so-called “Blue Wall” states seemingly rejected the vast majority of the president’s legacy.

 

Whether it was ObamaCare, lax immigration enforcement or the Trans Pacific Partnership, millions of voters (many of whom voted for him in 2008 and 2012) decided they didn’t want to hand the White House keys over to someone who campaigned almost entirely on the status quo. Voters told Obama and the Democratic Party that they were out of touch with their concerns.

 

So how did the president respond? Essentially: It’s all Fox News’ fault.

 

As he put it in a recent interview with Rolling Stone, the reason Democrats can’t attract voters beyond the East and West coasts isn’t their policies but the fact that “Fox News [is] in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.”

Sure, Mr. President, millions of Americans across the country leave their jobs and homes at the end of the day, go to their neighborhood eatery or watering hole, watch “The O’Reilly Factor” and have their brains washed. Please.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

So you believe that there are a finite amount of jobs, and by saving one, another company has to lose one?

...

 

Exactly how elastic do you believe the demand for industrial heating and cooling systems to be?

 

Exactly how many government contracts for these types of products are needed?

Edited December 3, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

Any opinions on Trump talking to the President of Taiwan? First POTUS(elect) to do so since 1979, I believe.

 

 

Wait, weren’t we just in the middle of a big “pivot to Asia” to try to unite Pacific countries to deter Chinese aggression?

 

[unbillievable]

...

 

Exactly how elastic do you believe the demand for industrial hearing and cooling systems to be?

 

Exactly how many government contracts for these types of products are needed?

 

One saved job in America is one less job in Mexico.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

One saved job in America is one less job in Mexico.

You didn't answer the questions.

 

You posted a bumper sticker slogan.

[outsidethebox]

What the hell, people?

 

Look, I understand the battle lines are drawn. Progressives like gatorman just spent the past eight years creating excuses for Obama's lack of leadership and protocol. It's natural to want to take that kind of fight back at them.

 

But this Carrier thing is PRECISELY the kind of thing you DON'T want your president doing. He should have absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Why the hell is that so difficult to understand? Cripes, if this were Obama, you guys would be pissing yourselves right now.

 

Stand for principle, wouldcha?

Principle????

Really???

 

When has there ever been principles in government? Anyways, Having two jobs lost to Mexico, all I can say is, I'm happy for the people who didn't lose there jobs. I'm all for morals and principles, but in the end , it doesn't pay your bills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by westside

[unbillievable]

You didn't answer the questions.

 

You posted a bumper sticker slogan.

 

Neither did you.

...

 

Exactly how elastic do you believe the demand for industrial heating and cooling systems to be?

 

Exactly how many government contracts for these types of products are needed?

 

The population grows. The demand increases. The jobs will change. There is a lot of competition coming from outside the US. It is very elastic. We're not talking about oil here.

 

People have options as the technology changes, it will affect the types of jobs needed. The manufacturing jobs (now staying in the US) will probably have to focus on operating machinery rather than brute labor force in Mexico (or other low wage earning country). I have no doubt that the margins are thin, so giving a company willing to give jobs to citizens should be given some incentive. It might even entice others to follow.

 

Government contracts (like tax payer money) is a not finite amount either, but rewarding AMERICAN companies should be a priority. Unlike Obama's administration who outsourced the ACA website to a foreign business.

I keep hearing this theory from the left that EVERYTHING is a finite resource. You can only be rich by making someone else poor. One job here means one less somewhere else.

 

Who's teaching this?

[IDBillzFan]

 

One saved job in America is one less job in Mexico.

 

That sounds remarkably like "If the Affordable Care Act can help one person..."