The Carrier deal stinks

The new common core math, 1100 jobs staying in Indianapolis = 800 jobs.

The left seems to be awfully upset that these people are not losing their jobs just before Christmas.

 

I agree. Keeping manufacturing jobs here is good at first glance, but may lead to price hikes which will make those on limited incomes seek out competitors that have comparable quality at a lower price.

 

This may come as a shock to you, but the OP was written by a conservative, not a "hyperlib." I ought to know. I wrote it. I know, for example, this is not about the election and it is not about Obama. This is about our President-elect. Try not to change the subject.

You appear to have some intelligence. Here we have the Vice-President-elect who just happens to be the short-lived governor of Indiana negotiating this deal. Why didn't this happen in another state with another company? Because it couldn't. Pence provided a neat opportunity for a cheap political trick that will get a lot of good publicity, theoretically. The responsibility of managing the debt paid to Carrier will not be Pence's, but the future governor of Indiana. What about the other 6 1/2 million people living in Indiana. What special benefits are they expected to receive from Pence? Actually, their benefits are going to be cut to pay for the tax largess given to Carrier. Surely you are bright enough to see that was a neat trick played on the Indiana taxpayer.

It all so perfect for Trump and Pence. That said, many are asking questions. When one takes a closer look at the deal, it starts to smell, beginning with the fact that 1300 Carrier jobs will still be going to Mexico. How about those workers? How about the workers in other troubled plants in Indiana or across the country, for that matter? Can they expect to have their jobs saved?

In other words, did Trump set an extremely expensive precedent for the American taxpayer or was it a political stunt? As a conservative I am very concerned about our ballooning National Debt. Trump's tax cuts plus his commitment to spend billions on our military is already promising to increase our debt exponentially. Is he now promising to bail out companies that threaten to leave our country? Is Carrier a one time deal, meaning a deal that stinks, or is it the beginning of taxpayer subsidies to American businesses?

As a conservative, I am interested in the answers to those questions. Care to provide your sage advice on those matters?

 

Well, that's one way of looking at it. BTW, Obama created 15 million jobs during his tenure.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/07/news/economy/obama-15-million-jobs/

No, I will not get into a debate about Obama. I am certainly not his apologist.

 

Well was Obama to stupid to pick up his phone and pen and do the same thing. Hmmmmmm.

 

from what I can understand, this is keeping 1100 jobs in the country, and at no expense to the tax payer. In fact, the tax payer (carrier in this instance) gets to keep more of their money, which is the incentive to stay in the country.

Where is the downside here?

 

I am trying to find a parallel with efforts to save jobs in the automotive industry in 2008
At the time, I understood that the proper conservative approach was to keep the government out of such market adjustments and not to underwrite poor management... and especially it was not considered appropriate to use tax dollars to save jobs. But then again perhaps jobs going to Mexico deserve government investment in a way not appropriate for jobs disappearing through automotive company bankruptcy

 

I am happy for those workers and their families, but that is not the point. What about other workers in other troubling industries? Can they now expect to be bailed out by Trump? The Carrier deal is wonderful for 1069 workers and their families. What about the other 6 1/2 million citizens in Indiana? Many of them are struggling and they are going to have pay for the benefits of the very few.

This is the kind of move that would be expected of liberals. It is a spread the wealth concept paid for by the government.

 

You are wrong.Carrier is receiving $7 million dollars in tax relief. Now if Carrier isn't paying that $7 million, it means that money must be deducted from benefits due to the citizens of Indiana or their taxes will go up to make up the difference. Of more concern is the possible precedent being set. Is it a one-time deal or is it the beginning of tax bailouts for American companies threatening to leave? If the latter is true, how much will that cost the taxpayer? How much will the already huge National Debt increase?

 

That 7 million is carrier's money. You can't count that as something being taken.

try again?

all of your math is based on the assumption that tax belongs to the government. It does not belong to the government. They were going to take all of their money, all the jobs, and head south.

Will this result in more companies saying they are going to work out deals with the government in order to stay? Jeez.... yes, that could happen.

Until you can work your head around the fact that taxes are not something owned by the government but rather money owned by people, your math is always going to be wrong.

 

Less Dem voting welfare recipients.

 

As long as we save jobs and do so without the inefficiencies of central bureaucratic control, I'm happy.

 

Sorry if you felt maligned, but in this thread you've sounded like all the "hyperlibs" that can always be counted on to come to the fore when there's any opportunity to snipe at a victorious Republican president. This really sticks out like the proverbial sore-thumb in your snarky comment that says, in essence, "Well, so what if Trump and Pence saved 1,000 jobs -- because 1,300 jobs are still going to be going to Mexico!" Ever been in business yourself? Ever been in situations where you had to negotiate and compromise?

Here's a news flash -- sometimes you realistically have to settle for "half a loaf", or get NONE. Believe me, I've seen that attitude completely wreck negotiations that were supposed to secure a corporation's presence in a location right here in Colorado. Company representatives wanted some tax concessions, but the local self-styled "tough negotiators" wouldn't budge an inch. They took the position that, "Hey, this is Colorado! You're supposed to be blown away with the mountains, the skiing, and the lovely National Geographic backgrounds. Guess what? The corporations WALKED....

But, honestly, are you really not aware that over many decades, in nearly every state, and in so many large and medium-sized cities, government officials (mayors, county commissioners, state assemblies, governors, etc.) have offered special incentives to companies to attract them, and to keep them? If you research this even a little bit, you'll see that Democrats have been as good at this as Republicans, and maybe a little better overall.

But because Trump/Pence pulled this rabbit out of a hat you're calling foul? And you're a Conservative... in California? Yeah, OK, I guess you Conservatives in the "Golden State" are constructed a little differently from most of the rest of Conservatives then....

 

Hate to tell you, but it is the conservative side of the spectrum that has been subsidizing businesses and economic development every bit as much as the liberal side. There are lots of troubled companies, industries and communities. One can either throw up their hands or they can do what they can. I personally find that too much of this money is spent on poaching existing jobs from other places in the country, but conceptually I don't see it as less than the very real alternative.

 

My assessment of the Carrier deal is that it is consistent with what Trump has been saying all along. He has been campaigning openly on the promise of a 15% corporate tax, down from 35%, as an inducement to get industry to come here or to stay here. So if Indiana gave Carrier a break on its taxes, that is consistent. It might interest you to know that Nike is based in Beaverton, OR. A few years ago they asked the State of Oregon for a big tax break, threatening to relocate if they didn't get it. With almost no debate from anybody, the tax break was granted. States know that it is better to keep its people employed than it is to lose employers to other states. Trump, as president, is going to do the same thing, only with other countries.

And, I don't think this will start a trend of companies threatening to offshore jobs in exchange for benefits and breaks. Remember, Trump is going to seek the authority to punish companies that do that. It will be interesting to see what happens when companies can get a better deal here in the U.S. through less taxation and fewer burdensome regulations, and with the threat of consequences if they do go offshore.

 

Yes, it is very consistent with his basic philosophy, and his campaign promises of stopping the haemorrhaging of American jobs going outside. This is also one of the reasons progressive collectivists consider him nuts. To them, that money is already the government's. It belongs to the government, and allowing them to keep it is the same as the government giving it to them.

It is commie math, and one of the many reasons why they lost.

 

Where is Carrier being gifted $7 million dollars? From the way I heard it, they are getting a tax break, nothing more.

 

You're exactly right. Basically, the government is letting them keep some of their own money. That's exactly what Oregon did with Nike. Washington state does it with Boeing, etc, etc, etc. All it took was a little leadership.

I hope they do it another 10,000 times.

 

Meanwhile while the taxpayer subsided Tesla to the tune of $4.9 Billion, the state gave Tesla $1.3 billion in special incentives, including an exemption from paying property taxes for 20 years and $195 million in transferable tax credits Tesla could sell for cash. That’s 15 times the size of any previous package of incentives offered by Nevada and one of the largest giveaways in American history.

And don't forget those shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready lol

And yet Liberals (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about this. In other words, get ready, Trump could do the exact same thing as Obama, liberals will purr and get tingles up their legs in support of Obama but go stompy foot and cry like babies dare Trump do it.

Here is something that's been missed (or should we say, unreported)

All of a sudden, NATO countries are starting to suggest they will pay more for their own defense. Isn’t it amazing what a little jawboning will do? President Obama, Hillary, and Kerry had the option to tell NATO to pay more for eight years, and they didn’t do a darn thing.

 

He made 1000 people very happy and he started keeping his promise before he even took office. This is what matters to most people, not your take on it, with your bias.

 

You need to review the OP. Is this the kind of bailout you want happening across American for the next four years? This combined with Trump's plan to significantly lower taxes will greatly increase our National Debt, and it is already ridiculously huge.

 

Just tell the left to look upon this as a $700,000 a year government jobs program for the unemployed.

 

Because you think our money is the governments. What do you have against jobs not going to Mexico?

 

Cut the corporate rate from 35% to 15%, and kill some of those job killing 0bama EPA regulations, and it may just ripple across 10,000 businesses