Trump SAVES 1000 Carrier Jobs!....

[EBounding]

Through corporate welfare.

803764047300722688
803753692872654848

[Zippyjuan]

I will inform the rest of the flock. They will be very excited!

https://www.ericsson.com/thinkingahead/the-networked-society-blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/image001.jpg



At the same time, United Technologies (UTX), which owns Carrier, is a leading defense contractor that benefits from billions of dollars in federal spending, so it needs to maintain good relations with the incoming Trump administration.

(Over $6.5 billion worth just last year) Also Pence is governor of the state the plant is located in so he can give taxpayer money to the company. They said moving would save them $65 million a year in labor costs ($5000 a worker).


While terms of the deal are not yet clear, the sources indicated there were new incentives on offer from the state of Indiana, where Pence is governor, that helped clear a path for the agreement.


http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/28/news/companies/donald-trump-carrier-jobs/

[kpitcher]

It'll be interesting to find out how much Indiana is going to pay for each job.

[AuH20]

803764047300722688

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=2

[EBounding]

803753692872654848

[Sola_Fide]

Corporate Welfare...I mean...Murica First!

[AuH20]

Sounds like they cut their regulatory burden in the interim. Another reason why Trump was superior to Clinton.

[TheCount]

...

You were so excited to post this that you didn't even notice that the third thread from the top was on the same subject.

[nbhadja]

If it is corporate welfare at least he is using it to keep jobs here unlike the likes of Obama Bush Clinton who used it to destroy jobs in America. I'm sure a part of this is heavy tax credits.

[oyarde]

It'll be interesting to find out how much Indiana is going to pay for each job.

Ya hopefully Pence took a calculator with him and the costs do not exceed the ill gotten revenue of taxes collected from ea job and household in state tax , property tax , sales tax , vehicle tax and county tax .

[oyarde]

If it is corporate welfare at least he is using it to keep jobs here unlike the likes of Obama Bush Clinton who used it to destroy jobs in America. I'm sure a part of this is heavy tax credits.

Well , that is a legitimate point , I doubt those 5 would put in the effort.

[TheTexan]

Yay jobs !! Fuck yea! Jobs!!

[anaconda]

“This is a spot solution,” said Mohan Tatikonda, a professor at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. “If it goes through it helps some Carrier employees for a period of time, but it doesn’t address the loss of manufacturing jobs to technological change, which will continue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0

[jonhowe]

This IS what his supporters wanted. Government support of failing, well-connected businesses. Crony Capitalism.

[AuH20]

This IS what his supporters wanted. Government support of failing, well-connected businesses. Crony Capitalism.

Nope. We want the corporate tax rate slashed and a reversal of the corporate inversion exodus. All in good time.

[AuH20]

“This is a spot solution,” said Mohan Tatikonda, a professor at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. “If it goes through it helps some Carrier employees for a period of time, but it doesn’t address the loss of manufacturing jobs to technological change, which will continue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0

It's legacy costs, not technology. The dems don't want to confront legacy costs because that's taboo. Tackle pension waste & the healthcare boondoggle and we can have as many jobs as we desire. The unions need to wake up to the reality that a job is better than no job.

Look at the UAW burden from 2007:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/05/crippling-burden-of-uaw-legacy-costs.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/12/uaw-workers-actually-cost-the-big-three-automakers-70-an-hour


Earned Benefits

The remaining $33.58 an hour of hourly labor costs that GM reports--46 percent of total compensation--was paid as benefits. These benefits include[5]:

Hospital, surgical, and prescription drug benefits;
Dental and vision benefits;
Group life insurance;
Disability benefits;
Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB);
Pension payments to workers pensions accounts to be paid out at retirement;
Unemployment compensation; and
Payroll taxes (employer's share).

These benefits cost the Detroit automakers significant amounts of money. Critics contend that these benefit figures include the cost of providing retirement and health benefits to currently retired workers, not just benefits for current workers. Since there are more retired than active employees this makes it appear that GM employees earn far more than they actually do.

[TheCount]

Tackle pension waste & the healthcare boondoggle and we can have as many jobs as we desire.Those poor businesses having to fulfill their contracted obligations...

[AuH20]

Those poor businesses having to fulfill their contracted obligations...

Yes, but do the unions want to lose jobs for their members? There has to be a happy medium. Reduce benefits and offer stock options for employees. We shouldn't be losing any jobs if the government eased the regulatory burden and union mgt relented. There is enough of the pie for all to benefit.

[LibertyEagle]

“This is a spot solution,” said Mohan Tatikonda, a professor at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. “If it goes through it helps some Carrier employees for a period of time, but it doesn’t address the loss of manufacturing jobs to technological change, which will continue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0

The creation of a middle-class in China, India, etc. is not because all the jobs outsourced to them were automated. :rolleyes:

[enhanced_deficit]

He may have saved these manly (working class) jobs but killed one very important womanly historic job.

So net he saved 1000-1=999 jobs only.

Sexist.




http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-polls-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-leading-battleground-states-win-lose-670x388.jpg

Hillary Clinton signs the cover of Newsweek declaring her Madam President on Monday, November 7



BTW, Neil C of Fox news cites 1100 saved jobs, @ 0:15 in this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc4s_pXjLzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc4s_pXjLzE

[Brian4Liberty]

Sounds like they cut their regulatory burden in the interim. Another reason why Trump was superior to Clinton.

If the "inducements" are just for Carrier, then it's a bad deal. Cut regulatory burden and taxes for all.

[CPUd]

Will they also be exempt from forced child care?

[asurfaholic]

Do all the citizens in Indiana now own a percentage of stock in the company?

Sounds like a forced investment into a company that may or may not have actually needed it.

[fcreature]

If it is corporate welfare at least he is using it to keep jobs here unlike the likes of Obama Bush Clinton who used it to destroy jobs in America.

And there is is folks. What else do you really need to know?

Let me paraphrase:

Who gives a shit about our principles as long as those evil libtards lost.

[CaptUSA]

I vaguely seem to remember a time when we would all be against this... Something about picking winners and losers???

Can anyone help me here? It's been a while since sanity reigned in here.

[AuH20]

If the "inducements" are just for Carrier, then it's a bad deal. Cut regulatory burden and taxes for all.

That's coming, but he's only President Elect. Corporate taxes will be cut across the board and look for a onetime tax holiday for the corporate inversion reversal. The people screaming about this are the typical naysayers who said he wouldn't keep his promises. I wonder what the next outrage will be after he cuts corporate and small business taxes?

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/21/502918106/president-elect-trump-proposes-to-slash-taxes-on-businesses

[luctor-et-emergo]

I vaguely seem to remember a time when we would all be against this... Something about picking winners and losers???

Can anyone help me here? It's been a while since sanity reigned in here.

You are not alone in that. I fully agree with you.

[TheCount]

Will they also be exempt from forced child care?They will be exempt from paying for it. You and I will be paying for the child care of their workers' children.

[Dr.No.]

That's coming, but he's only President Elect. Corporate taxes will be cut across the board and look for a onetime tax holiday for the corporate inversion reversal. The people screaming about this are the typical naysayers who said he wouldn't keep his promises. I wonder what the next outrage will be after he cuts corporate and small business taxes?

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/21/502918106/president-elect-trump-proposes-to-slash-taxes-on-businesses

The consequences might lead to tax hikes elsewhere.

[TheCount]

Yes, but do the unions want to lose jobs for their members?

Why should the retirees be forced to subsidize the company and/or the new workers? Why should the company abandon its financial obligation to its stockholders?



There has to be a happy medium. Reduce benefits and offer stock options for employees. We shouldn't be losing any jobs if the government eased the regulatory burden and union mgt relented. There is enough of the pie for all to benefit.By all to benefit... you mean the corporations and (maybe) the workers involved at the expense of everyone else in every thriving business sector. The government should prop up the buggy whip industry in order to keep it alive despite waning profitability. What happens if the industry/corporation continues to decline? At what point do we let the market do what markets do? Is there any end to the government's obligation to ensure the employment of its citizens?

[silverhandorder]

God emperor saved some jobs and people who are always wrong are talking about corporate welfare. Well I seem to remember corporate welfare on the level of trillions.

So all the chicken littles want to tell all of us where this corporate welfare is?

[osan]

Corporate Welfare...I mean...Murica First!


Just curious as to why you label it as welfare? I know nothing of the deal and you assertion seems a bit strident in its tone.

[EBounding]

Carrier is getting extra money from Indiana taxpayers with special tax credits and grants that are not available to anyone else.

[osan]

Sounds like they cut their regulatory burden in the interim. Another reason why Trump was superior to Clinton.

That is what I am wondering. If so, I see no vein of welfare in this.

What many call "welfare", I call "freedom". I am 100% opposed to subsidies, e.g. "too big to fail" measures and the like. But any measures such as tax cuts and deregulation are precisely the kinds of things we need to see.

I also believe in an engineered tariffing system to be applied to all foreign market players whose labor markets are of the slave variety. One establishes the threshold and range for a competitive labor cost advantage and any nation not within that range gets slapped with anti-competitive tariffs. Some will bristle at this, but I maintain that the only way to have freely competitive markets is to have freely competitive markets. Where there are those who play in bad faith, hit them where it hurts.

Yes, I know this is not the liberty ideal. In a world choking on thieves, liars, and despots, this is the penultimate solution. We cannot militarily force China to open their labor forces such that $0.60/hr goes by the wayside. But we can tariff the living hell out of them and deregulate our own manufacturers as well as unburden them tax-wise such that the competition is brought into a better balance. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone with a shred of sense to start a business in America. Indeed, you have to be borderline stupid to do so these days, under most circumstances.

[osan]

“This is a spot solution,” said Mohan Tatikonda, a professor at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. “If it goes through it helps some Carrier employees for a period of time, but it doesn’t address the loss of manufacturing jobs to technological change, which will continue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0

Different issue, and not government's bailiwick.

Ordinarily, I would say that the markets are not really their bailiwick, either. However, since we are going all global-happy, the impact of foreign players is now central to the rights of Americans in that if we presume free-markets, it doesn't do at all to be trading with slaver states on slaver-state terms. They must be forced to trade on the terms of free market principles and rules. Competitive advantage must be "organic" in the sense that it is not brought into being and maintained through the artifice and might of a national government. China is a slaver state, no question about that. Their bargain-basement labor rates are artificially maintained through the force of the state's men with guns. Were China to unleash their laborers today, by tomorrow they would already have raises.

Free market economies can, in principle, ONLY trade with other free market entities and remain free. The moment market power is used to distort the market in question, things begin going awry. Welcome to Planet Awry.

[osan]

Carrier is getting extra money from Indiana taxpayers with special tax credits and grants that are not available to anyone else.

Assuming this is true, then I cannot call the deal anything about which to start crowing. Taxpayer subsidies are theft, pure and simple. If Company A's tax credits are not available to all others, they are invalid.

[TheCount]

So all the chicken littles want to tell all of us where this corporate welfare is?


Just curious as to why you label it as welfare? I know nothing of the deal and you assertion seems a bit strident in its tone.When the government decides winners and losers in the markets, in this case the President (elect) himself directly making that decision, that is corporate welfare. Is an equal benefit going to be given to every other player in the HVAC industry?

[osan]

Nope. We want the corporate tax rate slashed and a reversal of the corporate inversion exodus. All in good time.


Slashed to 0%.

As for "all in good time", agreed. One is not well advised to cut off one's own O2 supply in one fell motion. Administer help and allow the economy to adjust. Then more. Rinse and repeat until the government is out of the business of regulating the economy.

Some quail on about the "environment" and so forth... Oh, we have to have government in order to stop pollution... blobbity hoo...

That may be true, but it does not mean that we need government in the ways in which we've had it. There are courts of equity, as well as those designed to address criminal proceedings. God knows there is case law by the shit-loads to provide precedents for addressing both tort, equity, and criminal acts. We need no lick more of statutory noise. In fact, we need a whole lot less. Let the courts do what they were designed to do.

[silverhandorder]

When the government decides winners and losers in the markets, in this case the President (elect) himself directly making that decision, that is corporate welfare. Is an equal benefit going to be given to every other player in the HVAC industry?

What benefit?

[Swordsmyth]

What benefit?
Exactly.
I am no Trump lover, I wrote in Ron Paul.
But the trump haters are premature on this one, please wait for the facts, then maybe we will all join in the Trump ripping if you are right.

[Sola_Fide]

Carrier is getting extra money from Indiana taxpayers with special tax credits and grants that are not available to anyone else.

That's how I understood it.

[Zippyjuan]

Welfare to rich corporations: good.
Welfare for poor people: bad.

And people are concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor- the haves and the have nots.

[Swordsmyth]

I have yet to hear anything but vague rumors.
As far as I know there are not yet any facts to discuss, if any of you have as source of real knowledge about this deal please let the rest of us in on it.

[TheCount]

What benefit?The benefit of less pain from the government.

[silverhandorder]

The benefit of less pain from the government.

You drunk go away.

[silverhandorder]

Welfare to rich corporations: good.
Welfare for poor people: bad.

And people are concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor- the haves and the have nots.

What are you going on about?

[TheCount]

You drunk go away.Do you have a reason for supporting this besides "all hail His Orangeness" or is this just pure sack riding on your part?

[Zippyjuan]

Trump is not yet in a position where he could offer Carrier anything (unless he paid out of his own pocket- highly unlikely) but his VP as Governor could offer state incentives so Trump himself didn't save anything. Also looking at early numbers, about a third of them are still going to lose their jobs- 1400 were working there and "almost 1000" were saved so over 400 lost.

[silverhandorder]

Do you have a reason for supporting this besides "all hail His Orangeness" or is this just pure sack riding on your part?
You are making shit up. You lost. I am happy with leaving my argument as it is. Again you lost.

Trump is not yet in a position where he could offer Carrier anything (unless he paid out of his own pocket- highly unlikely) but his VP as Governor could offer state incentives so Trump himself didn't save anything. Also looking at early numbers, about a third of them are still going to lose their jobs- 1400 were working there and "almost 1000" were saved so over 400 lost.
You lost. Stop being such a sore loser.

[tod evans]

Carrier is getting extra money from Indiana taxpayers with special tax credits and grants that are not available to anyone else.

Are they "getting money" or are they not paying as large a tax as they were?

There's a world of difference.

[Zippyjuan]

Are they "getting money" or are they not paying as large a tax as they were?

There's a world of difference.

Lower taxes means higher profits. Net effect is the same as giving them cash but tax breaks can go on for years while cash would be a one shot deal.

[Madison320]

Lower taxes means higher profits. Net effect is the same as giving them cash but tax breaks can go on for years while cash would be a one shot deal.


I hate when tax cuts get lumped together with corporate welfare. A tax cut means the govt is STEALING LESS not GIVING the business money.


Now that being said selective tax cuts are wrong. They need to be across the board, equal treatment under the law.

[tod evans]

Lower taxes means higher profits. Net effect is the same as giving them cash but tax breaks can go on for years while cash would be a one shot deal.

And higher profits means more money to spend..

Only difference is government isn't spending it.

No amount of twisting tax cuts is going to convince me it's the same as welfare.

The bum on the street corner could put tax-dollars to better use than the suits in DC.

[Zippyjuan]

Is that money to spend going to the workers in salaries? Or to the bosses and shareholders? Did government spending go down because of tax breaks? Or do they just keep spending and borrowing more? Are the breaks going to all or a select few companies? Is it contributing to a free market or distorting it- playing favorites?

[Superfluous Man]

If it is corporate welfare at least he is using it to keep jobs here unlike the likes of Obama Bush Clinton who used it to destroy jobs in America.

How do you figure?

[tod evans]

Is that money to spend going to the workers in salaries? Or to the bosses and shareholders?

It makes no difference when the goal is to keep it out of the hands of government.

[AuH20]

Lower taxes means higher profits. Net effect is the same as giving them cash but tax breaks can go on for years while cash would be a one shot deal.

That's not our concern.

[Zippyjuan]

Then the bailouts during the economic crisis were definitely a good thing.

[tod evans]

Then the bailouts during the economic crisis were definitely a good thing.

Giving a business money isn't the same as cutting their tax burden.

If I keep typing will it sink in?

[TheCount]

Giving a business money isn't the same as not collecting taxes.

If I keep typing will it sink in?If government decides, based upon purely political reasons, which business will pay tax and which will not, I do not view that as a good thing.

There's no difference, in my eyes, between that and a direct subsidy.

[tod evans]

If government decides, based upon purely political reasons, which business will pay tax and which will not, I do not view that as a good thing.

There's no difference, in my eyes, between that and a direct subsidy.

And you're entitled to your viewpoint.

[Zippyjuan]

Giving a business money isn't the same as cutting their tax burden.

If I keep typing will it sink in?

Only in terminology. The fiscal impact on the company is the same. The fiscal impact on the government is the same.

[tod evans]

Only in terminology. The fiscal impact on the company is the same. The fiscal impact on the government is the same.

Oh good grief, the company actually has to earn money before it could be taxed at any percentage compared to having it given to them....

Send the other Zippy in for a while.

[Madison320]

If government decides, based upon purely political reasons, which business will pay tax and which will not, I do not view that as a good thing.

There's no difference, in my eyes, between that and a direct subsidy.

I don't know if they're the same, but they're both bad.

[presence]

Not the president(-elect)'s job.
We live in a constitutional republic, not an autocracy.
Business-specific meddling shouldn't be normalized.
https://t.co/usHTsZaw46

— Justin Amash (@justinamash)
November 25, 2016 (https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/801944103986536448)

[Zippyjuan]

Oh good grief, the company actually has to earn money before it could be taxed at any percentage compared to having it given to them....

Send the other Zippy in for a while.

Fair enough.

[Madison320]

Only in terminology. The fiscal impact on the company is the same. The fiscal impact on the government is the same.

Never mind.

[Zippyjuan]

The revenue to pay for it has to come from someplace (unless it is offset by spending cuts- rarely happening). If not from taxpayers then from government borrowing. Cutting taxes reduces their revenues.

[TheCount]

That's true but you're leaving something out. The fiscal impact on the taxpayers. A tax cut in place of a handout doesn't burden the taxpaying citizens. A handout does. It has to be stolen from them.If the government does not cut spending to an equal degree then the financial burden absolutely does fall upon the taxpayer. The financial impact of a tax cut is exactly the same as a cash subsidy.

[Madison320]

If the government does not cut spending to an equal degree then the financial burden absolutely does fall upon the taxpayer. The financial impact of a tax cut is exactly the same as a cash subsidy.

You're right. The difference is that with a tax cut (vs a subsidy) the money stays with its owner.

[presence]

The issue here as I see it is preferential treatment; uncle picking winners and losers.

[UWDude]

Nobody even knows the details of the deal... ..but they are talking very authoritatively about how wrong it is.

[Superfluous Man]

The revenue to pay for it has to come from someplace

Wait. Are you talking about "paying for" a tax cut?

If so, you're 100% wrong, and ridiculously so. You don't pay for not getting money that was never yours. You pay for things you buy.

[Superfluous Man]

Nobody even knows the details of the deal... ..but they are talking very authoritatively about how wrong it is.

We don't need to know the details to be able to know how wrong it is.

You just so badly want your idol to be right that you're unwilling to accept the obvious.

[presence]

Nobody even knows the details of the deal... ..but they are talking very authoritatively about how wrong it is.

Carrier: Trump gave us state 'incentives' to save jobs (http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/economy/trump-carrier-deal/index.html)

the details of the deal don't matter, the fact is that ENTITLEMENTS to STATE INCENTIVES are why carrier is staying

there is no way to twist that into a liberty position;
this is crony capitalism picking winners and losers not market forces

[Madison320]

Carrier: Trump gave us state 'incentives' to save jobs (http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/economy/trump-carrier-deal/index.html)

the details of the deal don't matter, the fact is that ENTITLEMENTS to STATE INCENTIVES are why carrier is staying

there is no way to twist that into a liberty position;
this is crony capitalism picking winners and losers not market forces

How can he make deals when he's not even president yet?

[Superfluous Man]

How can he make deals when he's not even president yet?

Do you also think that he shouldn't be interviewing potential cabinet appointments until after he's sworn in?

[UWDude]

Carrier: Trump gave us state 'incentives' to save jobs (http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/economy/trump-carrier-deal/index.html)

the details of the deal don't matter, the fact is that ENTITLEMENTS to STATE INCENTIVES are why carrier is staying

there is no way to twist that into a liberty position;
this is crony capitalism picking winners and losers not market forces

What incentives? what carrot and what sticks?

[UWDude]

We don't need to know the details to be able to know how wrong it is.

You just so badly want your idol to be right that you're unwilling to accept the obvious.

Trump is a master deal maker and negotiator. Nobody has any real idea how he encouraged Carrier to stay.

[Superfluous Man]

Trump is a master deal maker and negotiator. Nobody has any real idea how he encouraged Carrier to stay.

You're still doing it.

[TheCount]

Trump is a master deal maker and negotiator. Nobody has any real idea how he encouraged Carrier to stay.Of course. Maybe he offered them some Trump steaks and ties.

[UWDude]

You're still doing it.

You still have no idea what the offer was.

[presence]

What incentives? what carrot and what sticks?

I pretty sure they're getting a $700k annual tax break.

Thats certainly prefferential treatment.

I think I read something about a $10B defence contract for the parent company UTX

[TheCount]

You still have no idea what the offer was.I don't care if the offer was some Chicken McNuggets and a high five. The President should not be calling a particular company to offer them anything of any kind in exchange for some desired decision or activity on their part.

[Zippyjuan]

Wait. Are you talking about "paying for" a tax cut?

If so, you're 100% wrong, and ridiculously so. You don't pay for not getting money that was never yours. You pay for things you buy.

Government spends say $10 billion. They pay for that with taxes. If they give a company a reduction in the taxes they are paying by $100 million they now are short $100 million and need to get $100 million from someplace if they want to keep their books balanced (many states are required to balance their budgets). Unless they cut $100 million in spending, they have to get $100 million from somebody else. If one taxpayer is now paying less, somebody else gets to pay more. Federal government doesn't have to worry about that. They just borrow more money. That leaves future generations to pay for it. Unless of course you default on your debt like Russia did.

[oyarde]

Not the president(-elect)'s job.
We live in a constitutional republic, not an autocracy.
Business-specific meddling shouldn't be normalized.
https://t.co/usHTsZaw46

— Justin Amash (@justinamash)
November 25, 2016 (https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/801944103986536448)

I agree not his job , I have no problem with Pence doing it though as long as he did not give away more than it was worth.

[Zippyjuan]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

[Danke]

Do the people in those 1000+ jobs that are saved pay taxes?

do corporations pay taxes?

[silverhandorder]

The point is to stop bleeding of jobs. It starts somewhere. They won't stop the bleeding if they do as chicken littles here are claiming they doing. So we need to wait and see. Of course he is not going to approach this like an Austrian or a libertarian . Of course chicken littles will hate it. They hated him before he was elected.

I think if in his non libertarian way he boosts manufacturing sectors at the expense of services it will be a win for us. This is what I am looking for. If zippy and count are gnashing their teeth now wait until their preferred sectors going to feel the cuts. They going to be shrieking here.

[TheCount]

I think if in his non libertarian way he boosts manufacturing sectors at the expense of services it will be a win for us. This is what I am looking for.That really says it all.

[oyarde]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

In my home state it is common practice up front done by Mayors and City Councils to waive property tax to draw new business already . I live in a state where 20 percent of the people still work in Mnfg.

[Origanalist]

804194825708982272

804170300908781570

[tod evans]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

Tax breaks ARE NOT financial aid.

Furthermore companies are not evil, government is.

It's obvious which of the two you would rather see enriched by the working man.

[ghengis86]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

That's a good thing; all companies should ask for and be give the same tax breaks. If every company got the same incentives, there's no picking winners and losers, right?

[EBounding]

That's a good thing; all companies should ask for and be give the same tax breaks. If every company got the same incentives, there's no picking winners and losers, right?

But that's the complete opposite of what's going on here.

[presence]

I don't care if the offer was some Chicken McNuggets and a high five.

The President should not be calling a particular company to offer them anything of any kind in exchange for some desired decision or activity on their part.


^^^this

[presence]

Tax breaks ARE NOT financial aid.

Furthermore companies are not evil, government is.

It's obvious which of the two you would rather see enriched by the working man.

taxing the competition while giving tax breaks to your personal preferred cronies IS crony capitalism

that's the issue here, not "tax breaks" to an industry; an economic zone; etc. but "tax breaks to specific preferred parties"

the government should not be picking winners and losers

[presence]

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which

success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.

It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits,

government grants, special tax breaks,

or other forms of state interventionism.

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)




The agreement reportedly (http://fortune.com/2016/11/30/donald-trump-carrier-deal-jobs/) includes $700,000 in state tax breaks offered by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, a quasi-public entity that doesn't require legislative approval for its deals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/indiana-carrier-deal-federal-contracts-trump-232021


“For market-based economists or analysts, this is really a version of crony capitalism, and it’s the kind of thing you really don’t want to get into or have government get into,” Barfield said. “This gets back to who … actually has the ear of the government. So you get the situation where decisions are not made in terms of their economic sense, but in terms of gaming the political system.”



He said he thinks the choice is driven by concerns from Carrier’s parent company, United Technologies, that it could lose a portion of its roughly

$6.7 billion in federal contracts.

[tod evans]

taxing the competition while giving tax breaks to your personal preferred cronies IS crony capitalism

that's the issue here, not "tax breaks" to an industry; an economic zone; etc. but "tax breaks to specific preferred parties"

the government should not be picking winners and losers

^^^^^^^^^ This is true and honest, statements I can agree with. ^^^^^^

Aid or welfare, gifts or bailouts are all disingenuous language and are verbiage that is dishonest at its core.

So are statements that try to compare tax cuts to free shit..

The goal of any person or business should be to keep their money out of governments hands.

[youngbuck]

From Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-01/details-behind-trumps-deal-carrier-revealed):

As Fortune reports (http://fortune.com/2016/11/30/donald-trump-carrier-deal-jobs/), citing a source close to the company, Trump called Greg Hayes, CEO of Carrier’s parent company United Technologies, two weeks ago and asked him to rethink the decision to close the Carrier plant in Indiana. Hayes explained that the jobs were lower-wage and had high turnover, and the move was necessary to keep the plant competitive, according to the source. He said the plan would save the company $65 million a year.

Trump then replied that those savings would be dwarfed by the savings UTC would enjoy from corporate tax-rate reductions he planned to put in place. During the recent campaign, Trump threatened to slap tariffs on Carrier imports from Mexico.

So what were the "incentives"? In the end, UTC agreed to retain approximately 800 manufacturing jobs at the Indiana plant that had been slated to move to Mexico, as well as another 300 engineering and headquarters jobs. In return, the company will get roughly $700,000 a year for a period of years in state tax incentives. Still, some 1,300 jobs will still go to Mexico, which includes 600 Carrier employees, plus 700 workers from UTEC Controls in Huntington, Ind.

In summary, the "math" works out to $636 per year per job saved in tax savings: hardly an egregious sum, and one which could likely be extended to other companies (unless, of course, those other companies decide to hold Trump hostage and demand escalating pay schedules) if and when Trump's fiscal stimulus package is implemented. It remains to be seen if the popular response, outside of conservative groups, will interpret this trade off as taxpayer funded "moral hazard."

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmuGjSwxFhc

[AuH20]

From Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-01/details-behind-trumps-deal-carrier-revealed):

Carrier will receive their own funds back from the state, while Trump will reduce the corporate rate for everyone.

[CPUd]

Federal access likely biggest factor in Carrier deal


Carrier Corp.'s decision to keep hundreds of jobs in Indianapolis had more to do with access to the federal government than state incentives, sources familiar with the deal told IndyStar.

Carrier is maintaining its Indianapolis operations largely because of the business interests of its parent company, United Technologies Corp., said John Mutz, an Indiana Economic Development Corp. board member. The IEDC awards state incentives, primarily training grants and tax credits.

Mutz, who was briefed on the state's offer to Carrier, said United Technologies "wants to make sure they maintain a favorable relationship" with the incoming Trump administration.

"This is an enormous company with all kinds of subsidiaries that do government work, and I am sure they want to keep it," Mutz said.

...
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/30/federal-contracts-likely-biggest-factor-carrier-deal/94670496/

[jllundqu]

How can ANYONE who supports Trump, think that him injecting himself into the middle of what should be left to the market is a good thing? Do you want a President that assumes the power to pick winners and losers, to meddle in the free market, to..... ah well. I answered my own question. You DO want an authoritarian.

[AuH20]

How can ANYONE who supports Trump, think that him injecting himself into the middle of what should be left to the market, is a good thing? Do you want a President that assumes the power to pick winners and losers, to meddle in the free market, to..... ah well. I answered my own question. You DO want an authoritarian.

Can state taxes be characterized as the 'marketplace'? This was Carrier's revenue, no? Anytime tax input is diminished, it's a win. And look for this trend to continue at the federal level.

[CPUd]

804398545948311553
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/804398545948311553

[AuH20]

804381031331753984

[AuH20]

Mexicans not happy.

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-mexico-got-clobbered-by-the-trump-train-theyre-unhappy-over-carrier-acs-decision/39044/

[AuH20]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CynX7dPXgAESwe1.jpg

[AuH20]

All this publicity is a boon for Carrier.

[robert68]

Mexicans not happy.

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-mexico-got-clobbered-by-the-trump-train-theyre-unhappy-over-carrier-acs-decision/39044/

No support of liberty is.

[AuH20]

Trump is on fire right now at his presentation in Indiana. He says they need to cut the corporate tax rate down to 15% from 35%. He also said that 53 federal regulations implemented over the last 6 years have cut into Carrier's productivity. The regulatory burden is far too taxing for American businesses.

[CPUd]

There are a total of (176) military contracts listed for United Technologies in the MiC database. Only those contracts with a value of $6.5 million USD or greater are reported by the U.S. DoD. * Indicates a "small business" classification per the US DoD. ** indicates a "small disadvantaged business" per the U.S. DoD. NOTE: the U.S. DoD only publicly reports contracts valued at $6.5 million USD or greater.

Contracts are listed by awarded date descending.
Total: $23,399,831,678


Contractor: United Technologies Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Military Engines
Department: Navy
Awarded: 11/8/2016
United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Connecticut, is being awarded a $167,502,348 fixed-price-incentive-firm target advance acquisition contract for long lead components, parts and materials associated with the low-rate initial production Lot XI of 48 F135-PW-100 propulsion systems for the Air Force; 14 F135-PW-600 propulsion systems for the Marine Corps; and 4 F135-PW-100 propulsion systems for the Navy. In addition, this contract provides for the long lead components, parts and materials associated with 41 F135-PW-100 and 3 F135-PW-600 propulsion systems for international partners and foreign military sales customers. Work will be performed in East Hartford, Connecticut (67 percent); Indianapolis, Indiana (26.5 percent); and Bristol, United Kingdom (6.5 percent), and is expected to be completed by May 2019. Fiscal 2016 aircraft procurement (Navy/Marine Corps and Air Force); international partner; and foreign military sales funding in the amount of $167,502,348 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($56,053,376; 33 percent); the Navy/Marine Corps ($45,257,275; 27 percent); international partners ($38,307,357; 23 percent); and foreign military sales ($27,884,340; 17 percent). This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland is the contracting activity (N00019-17-C-0020).

...

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/totals.asp?thisContractor=United%20Technologies

[Dr.No.]

As many have pointed out, this is not a long-term solution. If it isn't automated engineering, its going to be the fact that labor is so cheap in other parts of the world. That is just the fact of different standings of living.

If I were Trump, I'd notice that there are many job openings for highly-skilled workers. The market can't find those workers domestically, and often, not even abroad. Let the government set up some kind of training programs so that we can transition workers to these new fields.

[tennman]

Pay for each job? Tax cuts give people and businesses THEIR money back. The state doesn't "pay" for it. Just because it's Trump, don't assign something negative that is actually a positive.

[AuH20]

804425219800764416

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-lDl7RboHo

[presence]

..

[presence]

Let the government set up some kind of training programs so that we can transition workers to these new fields.
really?

smdh


"wants to make sure they maintain a favorable relationship"

thats all this is about; cozy relationships between politicians and their elite entourage of regulatory capture buddies

/end thread

[AuH20]

Hopefully, this is a beginning of a dialogue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfDnMg8v8w&feature=youtu.be&t=1m

[CPUd]

804428820208033793
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/804428820208033793

[Krugminator2]

If I were Trump, I'd notice that there are many job openings for highly-skilled workers. The market can't find those workers domestically, and often, not even abroad. Let the government set up some kind of training programs so that we can transition workers to these new fields.

Training programs in what? What does that even mean? What are these new fields of the future? Plastics? Is the future plastics?

And in what field do you have in mind would someone who was an hourly union worker be able to transition through a government training program that currently can't be found even internationally? And to the extent there is a demand for a high skill job and it can be trained through a government program, why wouldn't the business train those people?

[eleganz]

Bottom line : Trump is working on securing the mid-term elections and his second term.

[Krugminator2]

I am old enough to remember when Obama tried to strong arm hedge fund managers into investing in Chrysler when he first took office and Republicans were rightfully outraged. This situation is no different.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com//2009/05/05/a-hedge-fund-manager-strikes-back-at-obama/

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-this-hedge-fund-managers-not-afraid-of-big-bad-obama-2009-5

[nikcers]

--member Obama -This situation is no different.
I member Obama



“I worried that he was going to do crazy things that would blow the system up. So the fact that he’s appointing people from within the system is a good thing.” said hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson “I can take glee in that — I think Donald Trump conned them [Trump’s populist supporters],”

[anaconda]

The creation of a middle-class in China, India, etc. is not because all the jobs outsourced to them were automated. :rolleyes:

If domestic producers shift towards capital and away from labor for manufacturing, there is no labor to outsource. Domestic labor can lose their jobs to outsourced cheap labor or to robots locally. They're unemployed either way. I suspect that Chinese workers are facing competition for their jobs by automation. I see McDonald's is developing automated kiosks now. I believe the point that the Indiana Business School guy was trying to make is that many more Americans need to start sucking it up and doing the hard work of learning 21st century skills that are truly competitive. I'll add my own 2 cents and suggest that government needs to get out of our way.

[nikcers]

They absolutely were not automated, that's why they were sent abroad. Was cheaper to pay foreign labor plus shipping cost rather than pay local labor wages or automate locally. (I'll refrain from returning the eye-rolling emoticon :)).

If what western people call middle class is resembling the actual middle class in China and India then its our economy getting worse, not theirs getting better.

[anaconda]

If what western people call middle class is resembling the actual middle class in China and India then its our economy getting worse, not theirs getting better.

One economy needn't get worse just because another gets better. All can get better. America has tremendous resources for economic growth. However we've enabled a regulatory police state that is on a mission to snuff us. The Chinese nor the Indians are the enemy. Nations have comparative advantages economically. Americans should not be striving en masse to weave carpets or injection mold plastic toys or assemble toasters. With ambitious technological advancement and innovation, America should want the manufacturing jobs to go abroad so that we can engage in far more profitable endeavors.

[nikcers]

One economy needn't get worse just because another gets better. All can get better. America has tremendous resources for economic growth. However we've enabled a regulatory police state that is on a mission to snuff us. The Chinese nor the Indians are the enemy. Nations have comparative advantages economically. Americans should not be striving en masse to weave carpets or injection mold plastic toys or assemble toasters. With ambitious technological advancement and innovation, America should want the manufacturing jobs to go abroad so that we can engage in far more profitable endeavors.

Right i don't disagree, if you look back at what I wrote that's what I was saying. If every other country on the earth did better we would do better by proxy, if we do worse other countries do worse by proxy but not by correlation. Bigger economies in other countries buy more stuff from us.

[CPUd]

Right i don't disagree, if you look back at what I wrote that's what I was saying. If every other country on the earth did better we would do better by proxy, if we do worse other countries do worse by proxy but not by correlation. Bigger economies in other countries buy more stuff from us.

But if we can get them to bomb the shit out of each other, even the poor countries will be buying stuff from us.

[AuH20]

One economy needn't get worse just because another gets better. All can get better. America has tremendous resources for economic growth. However we've enabled a regulatory police state that is on a mission to snuff us. The Chinese nor the Indians are the enemy. Nations have comparative advantages economically. Americans should not be striving en masse to weave carpets or injection mold plastic toys or assemble toasters. With ambitious technological advancement and innovation, America should want the manufacturing jobs to go abroad so that we can engage in far more profitable endeavors.

Have you seen the state of our school system of late? The world will always need ditch diggers and assembly line workers. Secondly, tangible processed materials & goods are a mainstay for national independence. Moving exclusively towards vaporware and theorycraft isn't a sound move IMHO. There has to be some proverbial bone to go with the meat. A 100% service oriented economy will fail spectacularly as much as a 100% manufacturing one.

[anaconda]

Right i don't disagree, if you look back at what I wrote that's what I was saying. If every other country on the earth did better we would do better by proxy, if we do worse other countries do worse by proxy but not by correlation. Bigger economies in other countries buy more stuff from us.

Exactly. Americans' fears that they will soon be living in squalor like the worst of a third world country will likely come true if we allow the government to continue to engage in protectionism, regulatory interference, and the stifling of innovation. Again, macroeconomically speaking, America should rejoice that the low paying jobs are being exported. What they shouldn't rejoice in is that we are not learning job skills and innovating. If we leave that job to the government then I fear we are in for a real rough ride.

[anaconda]

But if we can get them to bomb the $#@! out of each other, even the poor countries will be buying stuff from us.

People huddled in bombed out rubble cannot buy things.

[CPUd]

People huddled in bombed out rubble cannot buy things.

Their militaries can buy weapons though.

[anaconda]

Have you seen the state of our school system of late? The world will always need ditch diggers and assembly line workers. Secondly, tangible processed materials & goods are a mainstay for national independence. Moving exclusively towards vaporware and theorycraft isn't a sound move IMHO. There has to be some proverbial bone to go with the meat. A 100% service oriented economy will fail spectacularly as much as a 100% manufacturing one.

Just because we offshore the assembly of ships and tanks doesn't mean we can't steadily buy LOTS of them and also defend the production facilities in times of chaos. Operation Weapons Freedom!

[nikcers]

Exactly. Americans' fears that they will soon be living in squalor like the worst of a third world country will likely come true if we allow the government to continue to engage in protectionism, regulatory interference, and the stifling of innovation. Again, macroeconomically speaking, America should rejoice that the low paying jobs are being exported. What they shouldn't rejoice in is that we are not learning job skills and innovating. If we leave that job to the government then I fear we are in for a real rough ride.
yeah I don't think many people want to go pick fruit but I definitely got out of the IT industry several years ago because of how bad it was getting outsourced. Between that and the recession I did not see people in our country paying a premium for IT support. I think that this is not because of our country being less competitive, but because our country has given businesses incentives to outsource IT.

Its the same with businesses reincorporating with countries that have trade deals with us but undercut us on corportate welfare. This corporate welfare shit has to stop, and I don't think we are going to stop throwing shit at eachother long enough to see the real problem.

[anaconda]

Their militaries can buy weapons though.

With loans from Wall Street. :)

[anaconda]

yeah I don't think many people want to go pick fruit but I definitely got out of the IT industry several years ago because of how bad it was getting outsourced. Between that and the recession I did not see people in our country paying a premium for IT support. I think that this is not because of our country being less competitive, but because our country has given businesses incentives to outsource IT.

Its the same with businesses reincorporating with countries that have trade deals with us but undercut us on corportate welfare. This corporate welfare $#@! has to stop, and I don't think we are going to stop throwing $#@! at eachother long enough to see the real problem.

Right. And I can only hope that Trump's incentives for Carrier to remain are ONLY fewer regulations and lower taxes for them. Not guaranteed loans, stimulus spending, or some form of transfer payment domestically.

[phill4paul]

The liberal butthurt is going crazy on this. They look at Indianas tax incentives to stay as a form of corporate welfare without realizing that it is a net positive for Indiana if those 1000 workers went on unemployment. These idiots just do not see the big picture.

A recent FB post boo-hooed the corporate welfare regarding the $7 million in incentives Indiana is offering, $1 million of which is to train blue collar workers.

Here is how I broke it down...


This story isn't exactly straight on the details. These tax credits are conditional. Indiana offered $5 million in conditional tax credits to retain 1,062 jobs that pay $30.91 per hour. $1 million in tax credits, period. And another $1 million for for training grants. You support college grants, right? Do you not think that American tradesmen should receive the same benefit? The company has also pledged to invest $16 million into it's Indiana plant. That's a lot of money going to tradesmen, electricians, engineers, HVAC techs, cement workerkers etc. etc.
When you add it all up it is a positive for the state of Indiana. Indiana gives $390 a week for 26 weeks in unemployment benefits. Take that times 1000 workers and you get over $10 million in unemployment that taxpayers would have had to pay for.


Companies are given tax incentives all the time. As long is it is a net positive I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. Straight off the bat this deal saved the tax payers of Indiana $3 million in unemployment. Add in the income tax generated by the factory workers. In Indiana that is 3.3% for an income tax gain of $2,310,000 a year. This doesn't even include the 7% sales tax that would generate tens of millions in additional state revenues.


Indiana's decision to offer incentives to Carrier is a net POSITIVE. I just laid it all out. I don't see were someone presented facts could make this about political butthurt. I don't particularly like Trump, didn't vote for him, but his threat of tariffs did cause Carrier and the State of Indiana to negotiate and come out with a deal that is a NET POSITIVE.

Their response...


The beginning of the spin on what he "promised"...let's all sit back and watch conflict of interest/blind trust nonsense...sad for our Country in so many ways.




I don't think the President elect should be "negotiating" individual business deals, our Country needs WAY more than 1100 jobs

Someone just shoot me. Or them. This world is to small for our different mindsets.

[nikcers]

The liberal butthurt is going crazy on this. They look at Indianas tax incentives to stay as a form of corporate welfare without realizing that it is a net positive
Long term or short term? If the solution to a government created problem is more government then it might be a net positive in the short run, but the long run it almost always goes bad.

[phill4paul]

Long term or short term? If the solution to a government created problem is more government then it might be a net positive in the short run, but the long run it almost always goes bad.

Long term, short term? I'm speaking of the here and now. 1100 workers kept their $70k a year job. They are not drawing unemployment.

[Krugminator2]

The liberal butthurt is going crazy on this. They look at Indianas tax incentives to stay as a form of corporate welfare without realizing that it is a net positive for Indiana if those 1000 workers went on unemployment. These idiots just do not see the big picture.


Dude. Bruh. It is corporate welfare.

And your explanation for why it is okay is the same explanation to justify every bailout. It is always sold that it is net economic positive and it would cost more to pay workers unemployment benefits than the cost of the bailout.

[phill4paul]

Dude. Bruh. It is corporate welfare.

And your explanation for why it is okay is the same explanation to justify every bailout. It is always sold that it is net economic positive and it would cost more to pay workers unemployment benefits than the cost of the bailout.

It wouldn't cost more. It would cost about equal. Did the bailouts guarantee 3 times the amount in reinvestment? Didn't think so. And Carrier isn't in any danger of going bankrupt. This isn't a bailout. Please try again.

[EBounding]

804485264894754817

[phill4paul]

804485264894754817

This was a state issue. Not a Federal issue. The state of Indiana negotiated with Carrier to keep the company there. The deal was a NET POSITIVE for the taxpayers at large and families employed. He's wrong on this one. Hopefully there will be many more "subsidies" to come in many states and the workers in this country can get back to working again.

[tod evans]

804485264894754817

sub·si·dy
ˈsəbsədē/
noun
1.
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. (https://www.google.com/search?q=subsidy&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS579US579&oq=subsidy&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Maybe in Amash's mind there's money traveling FROM government TO Carrier?

Government would collect zero taxes from them if their manufacturing took place in Mx., no income taxes on the labor, no property taxes, no sales taxes on the monies spent for utilities and infrastructure.

Every business should hold governments feet to the fire, what they're getting for the money paid isn't worth it.

Only a politician (or a fucking idiot) would construe money not collected in tax revenue as a subsidy.

[phill4paul]

sub·si·dy
ˈsəbsədē/
noun
1.
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. (https://www.google.com/search?q=subsidy&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS579US579&oq=subsidy&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Maybe in Amash's mind there's money traveling FROM government TO Carrier?

Government would collect zero taxes from them if their manufacturing took place in Mx., no income taxes on the labor, no property taxes, no sales taxes on the monies spent for utilities and infrastructure.

Every business should hold governments feet to the fire, what they're getting for the money paid isn't worth it.

Only a politician (or a fucking idiot) would construe money not collected in tax revenue as a subsidy.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

[tod evans]

This was a state issue. Not a Federal issue. The state of Indiana negotiated with Carrier to keep the company there. The deal was a NET POSITIVE for the taxpayers at large and families employed. He's wrong on this one. Hopefully there will be many more "subsidies" to come in many states and the workers in this country can get back to working again.

Using this analogy you're getting a 30% subsidy on your jobs Phil.....:rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

Using this analogy you're getting a 30% subsidy on your jobs Phil.....:rolleyes:

Not following?

[tod evans]

Not following?

You should gladly give your 30% tithe to the government godz like all businesses....

If you don't, or you work another deal, you're guilty of accepting a subsidy.

See how that 'logic' works?

[phill4paul]

You should gladly give your 30% tithe to the government godz like all businesses....

If you don't, or you work another deal, you're guilty of accepting a subsidy.

See how that 'logic' works?

Understood. ;)

[nikcers]

Long term, short term? I'm speaking of the here and now. 1100 workers kept their $70k a year job. They are not drawing unemployment. I am sick and tired of this benevolent leader fallacy. The government can't create winners. The government can't solve a problem that the government creates. If you subsidize the cost of doing business then it fucks with the entire industry. The cost of doing businesses is what controls the price, and without these signals being sent to business, without these market pressures it ripples through the entire industry and sometimes the entire economy.

[phill4paul]

I am sick and tired of this benevolent leader fallacy. The government can't create winners. The government can't solve a problem that the government creates. If you subsidize the cost of doing business then it fucks with the entire industry. The cost of doing businesses is what controls the price, and without these signals being sent to business, without these market pressures it ripples through the entire industry and sometimes the entire economy.

Then go shack up with some libs. They are all a twitter about the government giving a tax break to a company that actually becomes a net positive for the taxpayers of Indiana and the the workers at Carrier.

[nikcers]

Then go shack up with some libs. They are all a twitter about the government giving a tax break to a company that actually becomes a net positive for the taxpayers of Indiana and the the workers at Carrier. What did you think would happen if the republican party elected a democrat.

[Danke]

What did you think would happen if the republican party elected a democrat.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqALdkTArqs

[Krugminator2]

Here is a quote in Justin Amash's Twitter profile

"Laws must be general, equal, and certain.' —F.A. Hayek"

Is a company specific tax break general, equal and certain? No, it isn't.

[nikcers]

Here is a quote in Justin Amash's Twitter profile

"Laws must be general, equal, and certain.' —F.A. Hayek"

Is a company specific tax break general, equal and certain? No, it isn't.
Thank you!! It has nothing to do with paying your fair share, it creates market conditions for the business not to cut costs, be more efficient, innovate, or even mal investment to be liquidated. It makes a business act like a government, and we all know how well those are at creating wealth.

[AuH20]

804502743448592384

[Krugminator2]

Thank you!! It has nothing to do with paying your fair share, it creates market conditions for the business not to cut costs, be more efficient, innovate, or even mal investment to be liquidated. It makes a business act like a government, and we all know how well those are at creating wealth.

You are right. It completely distorts incentives. It makes lobbying a profitable and eventually necessary endeavor. If you don't lobby for a tax break then a competitor will. So business has to work to pacify government instead of serving their customers.

Look at what this maniac is saying. Companies Will Not Leave the U.S. ‘Without Consequences’

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-addresses-carrier-deal-companies-will-not-leave-the-u-s-without-consequences/

[nikcers]

804502743448592384
I wonder what Ron Paul says about safety nets and nanny states and protectionism. Are we treating symptoms of our illness or are we taking drugs for side effects for drugs that we are already taking that are the cause of our illness?

[AuH20]

Amash is wrong.

https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies


Decades ago, economists like Mises and Rothbard were already arguing that tax breaks are not economically or ethically equivalent to receiving subsidies. Simply put, being permitted to keep your income is not the same as taking it from competitors. Exemptions and loopholes do not forcibly redistribute wealth; taxes and subsidies do, thereby benefiting some producers at the expense of others.

[nikcers]

Amash is wrong.

https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies
Do you think Socrates would call this type of policy something a sweetshop owner would purpose, or something a Doctor would purpose?

[tod evans]

If Indiana is smart they'll make Smith-n-Wesson a better offer than Taxachusettes did and lure them into the Midwest.




.


Massachusetts’ $6m deal
In 2010, Massachusetts approved $6 million in tax breaks to Smith & Wesson, which announced it would move its Thompson/Center hunting rifle division from New Hampshire to Springfield. The move meant an expansion of the firm’s Springfield headquarters and the addition of 225 jobs there.

James Debney, president of Smith & Wesson, said the company chose the Bay State over several other states because local and state officials, including Gov. Deval Patrick, “collaborated … to make our choice clear.”

Locally, the company got a $600,000 tax break from Springfield on top of the state’s $6 million.

“It’s a big win for the city - 225 jobs and $14 million (in investments) this year alone,” John D. Judge, the city’s chief development officer, told the Springfield Republican.

New York: public good?
Remington Arms received $5.5 million in New York subsidies and grants since 2007. The company was founded in Ilion, NY in the early 1800s and its purchase by Cerberus Capital Management, which owns the Freedom Group, was announced in April 2007. Almost $4.5 million of the subsidies were targeted at luring 200 jobs to Ilion from Remington and Cerberus-affiliated manufacturing plants in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The subsidies became an issue in 2012 when Remington and another subsidized New York gun manufacturer, Kimber Manufacturing, fought against proposed state legislation that mandated microstamping for bullet casings, which gun control advocates and police said would help solve gun crimes.

The gun-control advocacy group New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV), said that the gun companies’ opposition to the legislation meant they weren’t serving the public interest.

Jackie Hilly, executive director of NYAGV, said, "I do have a problem with people who are taking money from the state … and then flatly refusing to serve some sort of public good. That’s public money that’s being used, and I think there should be some kind of public good that comes out of it."

Kentucky: 100 new jobs
Kentucky granted Smith & Wesson $6.1 million in subsidies since 1998, including, $4.5 million to subsidize the expansion of the company’s Graves County facility, where it planned to add 100 jobs.

Gov. Steve Beshear’s office did not return phone calls asking for comment on the subsidies. But at the time the grant was made, Beshear said, “The creation of 100 new jobs and a $5 million investment in the Commonwealth will have a tremendous impact and is a testament to our ongoing commitment to support our existing industries.” (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/01/02/11989/gun-manufacturers-got-more-19-million-state-subsidies)

[presence]

If Indiana is smart they'll make Smith-n-Wesson a better offer than Taxachusettes did and lure them into the Midwest.

Really?

Is this what we're all about not at RPF.

Hoping our pet brand gets the most favoritism from the state?

I am disappoint.

[presence]

Here is a quote in Justin Amash's Twitter profile

"Laws must be general, equal, and certain.' —F.A. Hayek"

Is a company specific tax break general, equal and certain? No, it isn't.

cheers Amash; glad to see you're reading Hayek

[EBounding]

Amash is wrong.

https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies

The tax breaks described in that article are available to any business provided they meet the conditions under the law. The Carrier deal is only available to Carrier.

Carrier is getting money from the state government based on the condition they stay in Indiana and their financial performance. There is no difference between the tax credit or if they received a check in the same amount with the same conditions. No other business can receive these incentives under the law.

Trump made it sound like he was going to get Carrier to roll over simply with his "tuff talk" as president. He had to get Pence to bribe them with money from Indiana taxpayers. This probably wouldn't have happened at all if Pence wasn't governor. Great political move for Trump. But bad for the Indiana economy their taxpayers.

[Dr.No.]

Training programs in what? What does that even mean? What are these new fields of the future? Plastics? Is the future plastics?
And in what field do you have in mind would someone who was an hourly union worker be able to transition through a government training program that currently can't be found even internationally?

Alternative energy, marijuana, nanotechnology, etc. For example, the tech industry is in dire need of programmers. You can get certified in a few programming languages fairly easily, as long as you'd be willing to commit full time.

For example, you have programming boot camps, which have a fairly high rate of job placement, who will train you in a six-month boot camp for $5,000.

Let's say that instead of business incentives, tax cuts, etc, the government paid the tuition rate (let us even say they paid 10,000), and paid the worker who went through the program (for the 6 months) his previously salary + healthcare. Even at say 30 dollars/hour (likely it is going to be much less than that), that is going to cost the government ~40K/person. For 40 million, you'd save those 1,000 jobs on a more permanent basis. If you want, you can even get that money back in the end by instituting a higher tax on those who successfully took advantage of the program.


And to the extent there is a demand for a high skill job and it can be trained through a government program, why wouldn't the business train those people?

Primarily, because there are easier avenues for the individual businesses: acquire an engineer or a highly-skilled worker from a competitor, or from abroad. Anything you'd have to pay to lure someone over and/or get that person paperwork would still be less than training someone from scratch. Sure, now that other company is short a highly-skilled worker, the industry is still at a deficit, and the domestic worker is out of luck, but why does that business care? Not only would training someone be expensive, and small businesses/industries would struggle with the float, but indentured servitude isn't a thing, and businesses know that they risk training someone and then losing him to a competitor. There are also numerous small businesses that cannot afford the startup costs.

A government's calculus is different, especially for a federal government. Think about the GI bill; its provisions allowed individuals to go to school and get trained on the taxpayer's dime. Those increased skills translated into increased productivity, and we had the greatest economic expansion in our history.

[kpitcher]

this deal saved the tax payers of Indiana $3 million in unemployment.

Ummm no, probably not. Carrier would have been paying into an unemployment fund. What a company pays is based entirely off of what they have had drawn before in the past. It's one of the hidden costs of a business. The laid off workers would draw from what Carrier paid.

[kahless]

As many have pointed out, this is not a long-term solution. If it isn't automated engineering, its going to be the fact that labor is so cheap in other parts of the world. That is just the fact of different standings of living.

If I were Trump, I'd notice that there are many job openings for highly-skilled workers. The market can't find those workers domestically, and often, not even abroad. Let the government set up some kind of training programs so that we can transition workers to these new fields.

The MSM and the political establishment have been saying since the 80s that it is okay that these jobs are going overseas since the US will become and be trained to be a high tech work force which is laughable. The average folks lack the mental capacity to perform these kind of jobs but do well with instruction of repetitive tasks. With the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs these people have no where else to go other than to work multiple menial low paying jobs these days and lose sight of the American dream-lifestyle or living standard of prior generations.

For the high tech jobs, there is no shortage, just another propaganda scam. There are plenty of out of work STEM graduates that could do or be trained to do these jobs but instead they are importing H-1B's or outsourcing overseas.

[nikcers]

If I were Trump, I'd notice that there are many job openings for highly-skilled workers. The market can't find those workers domestically, and often, not even abroad.



For the high tech jobs, there is no shortage, just another propaganda scam. There are plenty of out of work STEM graduates that could do or be trained to do these jobs but instead they are importing H-1B's or outsourcing overseas.

Why do you think they import people in for tech jobs? Who are you guys purposing Train these people? is this like the government training moderates in Syria to fight terrorism? Is this more government Job training, or are you purposing we stop subsidizing the tech industry. The high tech jobs that get subsidized by government programs, like h-1b's are a subsidy for the tech industry. The unemployment isn't as bad as you say it is, its more like underemployment, and stagnated wages.

[Dr.No.]

The MSM and the political establishment have been saying since the 80s that it is okay that these jobs are going overseas since the US will become and be trained to be a high tech work force which is laughable.

1) I'd argue that they've been saying that it should happen, but that they've never put the infrastructure in place to make it happen...even though there is a clear generational gap in terms of high-tech-work-force skills

2) Wouldn't the fact that we've had periods of very low unemployment suggest that people were finding jobs here?


The average folks lack the mental capacity to perform these kind of jobs but do well with instruction of repetitive tasks. With the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs these people have no where else to go other than to work multiple menial low paying jobs these days and lose sight of the American dream-lifestyle or living standard of prior generations.

This I am not too sure of. You make it seem as if the average American is Forrest Gump!

While I am sure there are millions of truly low-intelligent Americans, there should be enough construction/service industry jobs for those folks. Maybe the government could fund some infrastructure projects? It wouldn't be charity either; we badly need it.


For the high tech jobs, there is no shortage, just another propaganda scam. There are plenty of out of work STEM graduates that could do or be trained to do these jobs but instead they are importing H-1B's or outsourcing overseas.

Facts on this? I've seen the numbers on the opposite, about the gap in supply. Where are the facts that make what I've seen propaganda?

[nikcers]

1) Maybe the government could fund some infrastructure projects? It wouldn't be charity either; we badly need it.



Facts on this? I've seen the numbers on the opposite, about the gap in supply. Where are the facts that make what I've seen propaganda?
The government doesn't fund anything. We pass continuing resolutions and build up debt. Where are your government representatives that want to fund government? It wouldn't be a charity either, we badly need it. I thought that we all at least agreed that if the government spent less money it would help the economy?

[LibertyEagle]

While I am sure there are millions of truly low-intelligent Americans, there should be enough construction/service industry jobs for those folks. Maybe the government could fund some infrastructure projects? It wouldn't be charity either; we badly need it.

Oops, sorry, those are filled to the brim with illegal aliens.

[Dr.No.]

The government doesn't fund anything. We pass continuing resolutions and build up debt.

Not sure what you mean by this. Obviously, the government funds things...the military, social security, etc.


I thought that we all at least agreed that if the government spent less money it would help the economy?

If the government spends more and taxes less, it helps the economy...ie, if the government spends less and taxes more, it hurts the economy, at least in present circumstance.

Remember that government deficits are private-sector savings. It isn't a coincidence that recessions follow constrained budgets.


Oops, sorry, those are filled to the brim with illegal aliens.

Facts behind this? I know that there are a lot of illegals doing agricultural work, but construction? And are these "filled to the brim"?

[nikcers]

Not sure what you mean by this. Obviously, the government funds things...the military, social security, etc. If the government spends more and taxes less, it helps the economy...

https://i.redd.it/4ckl01tc221y.gif

[P3ter_Griffin]

If the government spends more and taxes less, it helps the economy...ie, if the government spends less and taxes more, it hurts the economy, at least in present circumstance.

Remember that government deficits are private-sector savings. It isn't a coincidence that recessions follow constrained budgets.

I disagree. It might boost GDP *that year* or whatever. But long term what happens is the government removes private sector savings, as you mention, that would typically be invested in productive assets when the opportunities arose. Instead, because the government's 'customers' (taxpayers) are forced to pay the demanded price for the goods or services provided by the state whether they wanted them or not-- a tool not available to the private sector -- they spend the money Willy nilly without as much regard (if any) to what the returns for spending that money will be. And so there is no solid growth from government spending, only bubbles. And then, after having removed the private monies that would have been invested in productive assets leading already to less than optimal economic conditions, they tax the peasants from there gains in other productive endeavors because the state blew the money and has nothing to show for it.

[tod evans]

Really?

Is this what we're all about not at RPF.

Hoping our pet brand gets the most favoritism from the state?

I am disappoint.

What a goofy way to view paying less taxes.

Brands be damned, I can't see any company wanting to manufacture in Taxachusettes or Ca. for that matter.

Between taxes and regulations both are inhospitable, or is it you who are advocating loyalty to "the state"?

[gaazn]

Another shell game by establishment to fool the people.
Keep Carrier in the USA but give billions to their parent company.
Cut some taxes for the people but dilute their dollars.

[presence]

What a goofy way to view paying less taxes.

Brands be damned, I can't see any company wanting to manufacture in Taxachusettes or Ca. for that matter.

Between taxes and regulations both are inhospitable, or is it you who are advocating loyalty to "the state"?

Either the rules are the same for everyone or they cannot be legitimate.
Government should not be picking the winner.
Taxing Coke while giving Pepsi no tax is inherently wrong.
This is not equal justice.
I absolutely cannot support individual line item favoritism in tax code.

60,000 pages of tax code is absurd

60,000 pages of tax code plus Carrier gets a special deal is beyond absurd



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtglptO4v34

[tod evans]

Either the rules are the same for everyone or they cannot be legitimate.
Government should not be picking the winner.
Taxing Coke while giving Pepsi no tax is inherently wrong.
This is not equal justice.
I absolutely cannot support individual line item favoritism in tax code.

60,000 pages of tax code is absurd



You'll not get an argument from me on any of this.




60,000 pages of tax code plus Carrier gets a special deal is beyond absurd

This however you'll need to show me where the Carrier 'deal' is any different than the S&W 'deal' or any of the other 'deals' various states have used to lure business...

I think it was Toyota that just opened a plant and was bragging about how one state offered better incentives than another so they went with them...

The idea of 50 different sets of state regulations and taxes is what the country was founded on (well 13 anyway) would you have states subject to legislation from DC on what incentives they can offer businesses?

Or would you have DC strong-arm Indiana into giving all businesses the same consideration as Carrier?

Was Carrier offered federal incentives? I haven't read that anywhere yet, only incentives from Indiana.



I would like to see more businesses demand tax breaks using any threats necessary.

This is why I posted the blurb about S&W, if Indiana is willing to forego some tax-lucre for Carrier maybe they'll do the same for S&W, or Ford, or Maytag or or....

[Dr.No.]

I disagree. It might boost GDP *that year* or whatever. But long term what happens is the government removes private sector savings, as you mention, that would typically be invested in productive assets when the opportunities arose. Instead, because the government's 'customers' (taxpayers) are forced to pay the demanded price for the goods or services provided by the state whether they wanted them or not-- a tool not available to the private sector -- they spend the money Willy nilly without as much regard (if any) to what the returns for spending that money will be. And so there is no solid growth from government spending, only bubbles. And then, after having removed the private monies that would have been invested in productive assets leading already to less than optimal economic conditions, they tax the peasants from there gains in other productive endeavors because the state blew the money and has nothing to show for it.

Not sure what you mean by this.

When the government taxes, it is taking assets away from the private sector. It removes private sector savings. When it spends, it add to private sector savings. If the feds run a net deficit, they are adding to private sector savings. This isn't rocket science, it is math:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Sectoral_Financial_Balances_in_U.S._Economy.png
Moreover, we can observe a tendency in the business world that if an idea is good, they will invest in it, no matter their stack of personal savings, and if the idea is bad, they won't invest in it, even if they have a ton of savings. While sometimes bad decisions are made, over time, productive endeavours will get invested in while non-productive endeavours will not be. This is triply true with low interest rates. Even in a high-interest rate environment, a healthy balance sheet is much conducive to risk-taking than a low interest rate.

[fcreature]

Was Carrier offered federal incentives? I haven't read that anywhere yet, only incentives from Indiana.

Yes, there were if you count the promise of adding or the threat of removing federal government contracts with Carrier.

I enjoy reading all these "libertarians" and supposed capitalists here supporting the idea of the federal government choosing winners and losers in the marketplace.

Hey guys, remember Solyndra? Oh wait... shhh Trump wasn't POTUS then.

:rolleyes:

inb4 nonsensical claims of purism

[presence]

This however you'll need to show me where the Carrier 'deal' is any different than the S&W 'deal' or any of the other 'deals' various states have used to lure business...


NONE of these "deals" with specific industry participants should be supported by liberty advocates; this is INFLUENCE PEDDLING; political corruption.


I think it was Toyota that just opened a plant and was bragging about how one state offered better incentives than another so they went with them...


Of course they did. The question is what more efficient company doesn't exist because of the regulatory capture of Toyota lobbyists; and their economic windfalls gained not through market participation but instead coziness with regulators?



The idea of 50 different sets of state regulations and taxes is what the country was founded on (well 13 anyway) would you have states subject to legislation from DC on what incentives they can offer businesses?

Or would you have DC strong-arm Indiana into giving all businesses the same consideration as Carrier?

YES. I would have a constitutional provision for flat tax if there is to be any tax. No state should have the power to pick economic winners and losers. To do so is the heart of state socialism/communism/fascism. At the very least there should be flat tax across individual industries so that no individual participant is favored by the state; but subdividing the economy by tax bracket will invariably lead to the spiral of regulation we see.

We should all play by the same rules or there should be no respect for the "rule of law" at all.



Was Carrier offered federal incentives? I haven't read that anywhere yet, only incentives from Indiana.


UTX; Carrier's parent company has $10B of pending DOD contracts; account that as you will.


I would like to see more businesses demand tax breaks using any threats necessary.


Favoritism is not equal to "tax breaks".

Tax breaks should be painted with a broad brush across the economy as a whole or economic sectors inclusively, else you're only creating economic stagnation; benefiting inefficient entrenched big business that can afford lobbyists over small otherwise more efficient businesses that cannot.


This is why I posted the blurb about S&W, if Indiana is willing to forego some tax-lucre for Carrier maybe they'll do the same for S&W, or Ford, or Maytag or or....

When uncle gives Ford a tax break but doesn't give one to Chevy it has essentially turned the taxes Chevy pays into sin tax.
This is to say government is a better decider of what car you and I should be driving than we are ourselves.
This is economic interventionism and cannot be rectified with Austrian Economic ethics.

[presence]

Hey guys, remember Solyndra?

BINGO

[phill4paul]

Yes, there were if you count the promise of adding or the threat of removing federal government contracts with Carrier.

I enjoy reading all these "libertarians" and supposed capitalists here supporting the idea of the federal government choosing winners and losers in the marketplace.

Hey guys, remember Solyndra? Oh wait... shhh Trump wasn't POTUS then.

:rolleyes:

inb4 nonsensical claims of purism

Please show proof that these threats were made. The only thing I recall was Trump saying that he was going to apply a tariff to ALL business' operating outside the U.S. seeking the U.S. market.

This was a deal made by the state of Indiana.

Solyndra? How can you compare the two? One was Federal financial aid (loans), the other is for tax relief given by a state in exchange for the increase in state revenue by maintaining those jobs. Appeal to emotion much?

:rolleyes:

[Dr.No.]

Yes, there were if you count the promise of adding or the threat of removing federal government contracts with Carrier.

I enjoy reading all these "libertarians" and supposed capitalists here supporting the idea of the federal government choosing winners and losers in the marketplace.

Hey guys, remember Solyndra? Oh wait... shhh Trump wasn't POTUS then.

:rolleyes:

inb4 nonsensical claims of purism

To play devil's advocate, Hayek says that laws have to be equal and fair. But not all industries are equal or the same. Not all states are equal. Not all local communities, countries, etc. are equal or the same.

As I understand it, the bulk of the benefit to Carrier is coming from the state level. Maybe that is what Indiana has to do to remain competitive vs. the other states. California and New York, just for examples, are high-tax, high-regulatory burden. Yet businesses thrive there and love to go there, for other reasons. Indiana can't mimic those reasons (in any easy way), so they get ahead by having low taxes, low regulations, subsidies, etc.

[EBounding]

Scott Adams: The New CEO’s First Moves (and Trump) (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump)



...
Here’s the real story. You need a business filter to see it clearly. In my corporate life I watched lots of new leaders replace old leaders. And there is one trick the good leaders do that bad leaders don’t: They make some IMMEDIATE improvement that everyone can see. It has to be visible, relatively simple, and fast.

Why?

Because humans are not rational. Our first impressions rule our emotions forever. Trump has a second chance to make a first impression because his performance as President is fresh ground. Trump is attacking the job like a seasoned CEO, not like a politician. He knows that his entire four-year term will be judged by what happens before it even starts. What he does today will determine how much support and political capital he has for his entire term.

So what does a Master Persuader do when he needs to create a good first impression to last for years? He looks around for any opportunity that is visible, memorable, newsworthy, true to his brand, and easy to change.
...

[AuH20]

BINGO

Solyndra got literal loans from the DoE that they never paid back. You can't equate the two.

[AuH20]

804419033218985984

[nikcers]

Solyndra got literal loans from the DoE that they never paid back. You can't equate the two.
Carrier is paying back the taxpayer with debt. The government can't create money out of thin air. Injecting public money into the private sector from money you got from taxing the private sector is still a tax by proxy on the private sector.

[presence]

Solyndra? How can you compare the two? One was Federal financial aid (loans), the other is for tax relief given by a state in exchange for the increase in state revenue by maintaining those jobs. Appeal to emotion much?

:rolleyes:




"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3

What then is a tax on other industry participants when a given participant is favored with paying none?

It is a bill of attainder.


Bill of attainder - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder








A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.

the making of laws should be guided by open and relatively stable general rules,
these rules themselves should operate impersonally and impartially

[Dr.No.]

What then is a tax on other industry participants when a given participant is favored with paying none?

It is a bill of attainder.

the making of laws should be guided by open and relatively stable general rules,
these rules themselves should operate impersonally and impartially

Oh, come on, that isn't what a bill of attainder is and you know it.

[tod evans]

The idea of 50 different sets of state regulations and taxes is what the country was founded on (well 13 anyway) would you have states subject to legislation from DC on what incentives they can offer businesses?

Or would you have DC strong-arm Indiana into giving all businesses the same consideration as Carrier?




YES. I would have a constitutional provision for flat tax if there is to be any tax. No state should have the power to pick economic winners and losers. To do so is the heart of state socialism/communism/fascism. At the very least there should be flat tax across individual industries so that no individual participant is favored by the state; but subdividing the economy by tax bracket will invariably lead to the spiral of regulation we see.

We should all play by the same rules or there should be no respect for the "rule of law" at all.


Let me see if I'm understanding your position on this........

I'm reading that you rather have fed-gov set state tax rates and possibly regulations too...

Is that correct?

Would you apply this scenario to just businesses or to all laws and legislation?

[fcreature]

Please show proof that these threats were made. The only thing I recall was Trump saying that he was going to apply a tariff to ALL business' operating outside the U.S. seeking the U.S. market.

LOL that's cute.


na·ive
adjective
(of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
"the rather naive young man had been totally misled"
(of a person) natural and unaffected; innocent.


This was a deal made by the state of Indiana.
Then why is Trump there for the photo op?

[nikcers]

What then is a tax on other industry participants when a given participant is favored with paying none?

It is a bill of attainder. Everyone else in the private sector will benefit with having to compete with their wages. If they can't compete I guess they will have to cut cost. The company gets to keep their existing employees and they get a tax break and don't have to make any difficult cuts. Don't worry though, economic stimulus works really good for our government when we can't make any cuts.

[presence]

[T]he degree to which the society is bound by law,
is committed to processes that allow property rights to be secure
under legal rules that will be applied predictably and not subject to the whims of particular individuals, matters.
The commitment to such processes is the essence of the rule of law.

- Ronald Cass 2004

[fcreature]

Solyndra got literal loans from the DoE that they never paid back. You can't equate the two.

Yes. you absolutely can. They are fundamentally the SAME THING. The government is picking winners and losers in the market.

You either support this or you don't. It's really not that hard to grasp.

[phill4paul]

LOL that's cute.




Then why is Trump there for the photo op?

So you can't prove it. Which means your point is invalid.

[fcreature]

So you can't prove it. Which means your point is invalid.

Well, it depends.

Does my proof needs to be in the form of an article written by some nobody on one of the only two real (not fake) news sites on the internet, Infowars and Breitbart?

[EBounding]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gj37cq8vO0

[presence]

The most important demand of the Rule of Law is that people in positions of authority should exercise their power within a constraining framework of well-established public norms rather than in an arbitrary, ad hoc, or purely discretionary manner on the basis of their own preferences or ideology.

Jeremy Waldron

[phill4paul]

Well, it depends.

Does my proof needs to be in the form of an article written by some nobody on one of the only two real (not fake) news sites on the internet, Infowars and Breitbart?

:rolleyes:

[AuH20]

Carrier is paying back the taxpayer with debt. The government can't create money out of thin air. Injecting public money into the private sector from money you got from taxing the private sector is still a tax by proxy on the private sector.

Debt? You are assuming that they are replacing Carrier's share with other tax dollars.

[fcreature]

Carrier is paying back the taxpayer with debt. The government can't create money out of thin air. Injecting public money into the private sector from money you got from taxing the private sector is still a tax by proxy on the private sector.

Stop with that nonsense. It makes too much sense.

[nikcers]

So you can't prove it. Which means your point is invalid.
picture or it didn't happen!

[nikcers]

Debt? You are assuming that they are replacing Carrier's share with other tax dollars.
The government is not going to cut spending just because they made a deal with Carrier. In fact that is an increase in government spending. If the government doesn't tax enough money for what they spend, which they never do it , it becomes debt. Debt is an indirect tax on the monetary supply, which causes devaluation of the dollar. The debt in this scenario is the mal investment, the government is buying it with tax dollars.

[tod evans]

Yes, there were if you count the promise of adding or the threat of removing federal government contracts with Carrier.

I enjoy reading all these "libertarians" and supposed capitalists here supporting the idea of the federal government choosing winners and losers in the marketplace.

Hey guys, remember Solyndra? Oh wait... shhh Trump wasn't POTUS then.

:rolleyes:

inb4 nonsensical claims of purism

I'm not seeing anything different happening from what has happened the last several decades..

Except for a politician cashing in on cronyism in public view.

I'm no 'purist' or Trump fan, just some idiot out in the sticks who finds it ironic that people get all aflutter when the game is played out in public instead of in backrooms...

I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that the game is rigged, all the bickering seems to be about who gets paid and who takes credit...

More laws or different legislation aren't going to 'fix' the game or change the outcome.

[Swordsmyth]

Now that we know something I must say that this deal is yet another politics as usual deal. I had hoped it wasn't but the odds were not good.
Still now that Dump is Prez.-elect I will hope that he will at least be less bad than what we have had for a long time. But I may be just as disappointed.

[fcreature]

I'm not seeing anything different happening from what has happened the last several decades..

Except for a politician cashing in on cronyism in public view.

I'm no 'purist' or Trump fan, just some idiot out in the sticks who finds it ironic that people get all aflutter when the game is played out in public instead of in backrooms...

I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that the game is rigged, all the bickering seems to be about who gets paid and who takes credit...

More laws or different legislation aren't going to 'fix' the game or change the outcome.

But does that make it okay? I'm going to point out the problems as I see them, no matter who is "in charge".

I'll happily point out a few differences though.

1) When Obama did it, everyone knew he was a communist. Trump is using the tactics while simultaneously convincing a large portion of American's that it's okay because freedom and MAGA.
2) Trump was elected on a mandate of ending "politics as usual"
3) And lastly, Obamabots didn't constantly tell me Obama was an outsider, non-politician, who would never pander.

[specsaregood]

So what is going on in this thread? Is it just the expected Libertarian handwringing that happens whenever Americans don't have their jobs shipped out of the country or replaced by imported indentured servants?

[tod evans]

But does that make it okay? I'm going to point out the problems as I see them, no matter who is "in charge".

I'll happily point out a few differences though.

1) When Obama did it, everyone knew he was a communist. Trump is using the tactics while simultaneously convincing a large portion of American's that it's okay because freedom and MAGA.
2) Trump was elected on a mandate of ending "politics as usual"
3) And lastly, Obamabots didn't constantly tell me Obama was an outsider, non-politician, who would never pander.

I never said anything done in DC was 'okay' with me have I?...........

Reading your list of grievances sounds like you're mad that 'this' politician lied to you, is that it?

[fcreature]

I never said anything done in DC was 'okay' with me have I?...........

Reading your list of grievances sounds like you're mad that 'this' politician lied to you, is that it?

He didn't lie to me. He never spoke to me.

And sorry - I mistakenly thought you were defending this earlier in the thread because you have the same avatar as phill4paul. Hence the "does that make it okay" statement.

[phill4paul]

But does that make it okay? I'm going to point out the problems as I see them, no matter who is "in charge".

I'll happily point out a few differences though.

1) When Obama did it, everyone knew he was a communist. Trump is using the tactics while simultaneously convincing a large portion of American's that it's okay because freedom and MAGA.
2) Trump was elected on a mandate of ending "politics as usual"
3) And lastly, Obamabots didn't constantly tell me Obama was an outsider, non-politician, who would never pander.

And you'll happily avoid acknowledging previous posts that show you are full of shit.

YOUR problem is that you are making this about Trump. YOU are making it personal. So I'll explain this deal again since you are so thick headed...because Trump! I've even highlighted some specific words for you.

Here's the breakdown. Carrier leaves Indiana. 1000 individuals lose their jobs and go on assistance at $390 a week for 26 weeks (Indiana Unemplyment). That comes to roughly $10 million in unemployment wages. $10 million NET LOSS. Add in no income tax coming in from these individuals. So your looking at a $12 million loss.

Indiana offered $1 million in tax credits, another $5 million in conditional tax credits to retain 1,062 jobs that pay $30.91 per hour. And another $1 million for training grants.
A total of $7 million. Instead of a $12 million drain, and also realize that the economy ripples and that these workers wages are not going to be supporting other businesses in their area.
In Indiana there is a 3.3% income tax. 3.3% of 1000 workers @ $70k per year comes to a tax gain of $2.3 million per year. This doesn't even include the 7% sales tax that would generate at least another $5 million per year. That is a $7 million dollar NET GAIN, offset by tax breaks, equals a wash.

Except that there is not a wash. There remains 1000 workers that spend $70k in their community supporting other small businesses. On top of that Carrier will invest $16 million into improvements that will, in some way, include local small business companies. And $1 million goes to training workers in todays competitive business environment.

I hope that helps. Key word: Indiana.

[fcreature]

And you'll happily avoid acknowledging previous posts that show you are full of $#@!.

YOUR problem is that you are making this about Trump. YOU are making it personal. So I'll explain this deal again since you are so thick headed...because Trump! I've even highlighted some specific words for you.

Here's the breakdown. Carrier leaves Indiana. 1000 individuals lose their jobs and go on assistance at $390 a week for 26 weeks (Indiana Unemplyment). That comes to roughly $10 million in unemployment wages. $10 million NET LOSS. Add in no income tax coming in from these individuals. So your looking at a $12 million loss.

Indiana offered $1 million in tax credits, another $5 million in conditional tax credits to retain 1,062 jobs that pay $30.91 per hour. And another $1 million for training grants.
A total of $7 million. Instead of a $12 million drain, and also realize that the economy ripples and that these workers wages are not going to be supporting other businesses in their area.
In Indiana there is a 3.3% income tax. 3.3% of 1000 workers @ $70k per year comes to a tax gain of $2.3 million per year. This doesn't even include the 7% sales tax that would generate at least another $5 million per year. That is a $7 million dollar NET GAIN, offset by tax breaks, equals a wash.

Except that there is not a wash. There remains 1000 workers that spend $70k in their community supporting other small businesses. On top of that Carrier will invest $16 million into improvements that will, in some way, include local small business companies. And $1 million goes to training workers in todays competitive business environment.

I hope that helps. Key word: Indiana.

You are the one full of shit.

Are you for the government choosing winners and losers in the market place or not? Answer the question. It's a yes or no.

I don't need 4 paragraphs of nonsense trying to convince me that it's mathematically a positive thing to protect one individual company over others.

From the above, it sounds like a resounding yes. And that's all we need to know.

[phill4paul]

So what is going on in this thread? Is it just the expected Libertarian handwringing that happens whenever Americans don't have their jobs shipped out of the country or replaced by imported indentured servants?

Pretty much. Because we know having more individuals on public welfare is a Libertarian position, amirite?

[presence]

Supremacy of the law is a fundamental concept in the western democratic order. The rule of law requires both citizens and governments to be subject to known and standing laws. The supremacy of law also requires generality in the law. This principle is a further development of the principle of equality before the law.

Laws should not be made in respect of particular persons.

As Dicey postulated, the rule of law presupposes the absence of wide discretionary authority in the rulers, so that they cannot make their own laws but must govern according to the established laws. Those laws ought not to be too easily changeable. Stable laws are a prerequisite of the certainty and confidence which form an essential part of individual freedom and security. Therefore, laws ought to be rooted in moral principles, which cannot be achieved if they are framed in too detailed a manner.

The idea of the supremacy of law requires a definition of law (to which the above principles may go some way). This must include a distinction between law and executive administration and prerogative decree. A failure to maintain the formal differences between these things must lead to a conception of law as nothing more than authorization for power, rather than the guarantee of liberty, equally to all.

The rule of law ensures that individuals have a secure area of autonomy and have settled expectations by having their rights and duties pre-established and enforced by law.


From Bondage To Freedom' by Doctor Mark Cooray (https://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/cooray.htm) (1988)

[tod evans]

Indiana.

I'm still waiting on presence to chime in on his assertion that the fed ought to be right in the middle of this kind of shit...

What's the point of having individual states if fed-gov equalizes everything across the board?

[phill4paul]

You are the one full of shit.

Are you for the government choosing winners and losers in the market place or not? Answer the question. It's a yes or no.

From the above, it sounds like a resounding yes. And that's all we need to know.

I'm for state governments creating a competitive environment to attract businesses that employ their citizens. If you consider this choosing winners than YES.

[nikcers]

Pretty much. Because we know having more individuals on public welfare is a Libertarian position, amirite?
Who are you even commenting on? Is this commentary on your self?

[nikcers]

I'm for state governments creating a competitive environment to attract businesses that employ their citizens. If you consider this choosing winners than YES. Libertarians aren't for nanny states.

[fcreature]

I'm for state governments creating a competitive environment to attract businesses that employ their citizens. If you consider this choosing winners than YES.

Great! Now that we have that out in the open...


to attract businesses that employ their citizens

What businesses (note the plural) has the government attracted by favoring Carrier over other businesses?

Might they have, instead, destroyed the ability of other companies that wanted to open, expand, or compete in Indiana to operate?

HMMM. Something about unintended consequences?

[TheCount]

Debt? You are assuming that they are replacing Carrier's share with other tax dollars.Are you suggesting that Indiana is going to reduce state spending in the exact amount of their reduction of Carrier's taxes?

[specsaregood]

Pretty much. Because we know having more individuals on public welfare is a Libertarian position, amirite?

And they are handwringing about effing tax credits? Not handouts or "loans" even? geez. YAY to tax credits, we shouldn't be complaining when somebody else gets a tax credit, we should be applauding it and encouraging more tax credits, tax credits for everyone and everything.

[fcreature]

Some of you in this thread (you know who you are) could really benefit from a bit of light reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

Here is a free version of the PDF. You can thank me later.

https://mises.org/files/henry-hazlitt-economics-one-lessonpdf

[nikcers]

Great! Now that we have that out in the open...



What businesses (note the plural) has the government attracted by favoring Carrier over other businesses?

Might they have, instead, destroyed the ability of other companies that wanted to open, expand, or compete in Indiana to operate?

HMMM. Something about unintended consequences?
What if Washington mutual is gone though, who is going to employ all of those people? Oh you mean Chase was happy to fill the void? What about when New York was attacked by 9/11, how are people going to make phone calls with downed phone lines, how is the phone company going to operate? Oh we have to subsidize the installation of new copper lines!

We'll give it to the business so they invest it, oh they invested into their wireless voice network that makes it easier to record telephone calls? This is now a government asset, and an investment. We gotta keep paying these people otherwise they will never be able to eat. What about my sons trip to harry potter world, the government has to make sure people can work at harry potter world.

[nikcers]

And they are handwringing about effing tax credits? Not handouts or "loans" even? geez. YAY to tax credits, we shouldn't be complaining when somebody else gets a tax credit, we should be applauding it and encouraging more tax credits, tax credits for everyone and everything.
We are all people here who enjoy the benefits of capitalism right? This is an attack on capitalism! Tax credits applied to specific companies is not capitalism its crony capitalism. We should be applauding spending cuts, and less crony capitalism, I haven't seen anything to applaud for.

[tod evans]

Maybe one of you fine economic scholars could explain in simple terms how you would keep individual states from offering tax incentives to whomever they choose?

What about zoning variations, utility waivers and so on?

Surely not a one of you would advise permitting the federal government to control the states lands and coffers so help me understand how you would prevent any state from acting in it's own best interest?

[CaptUSA]

The GOP Drops The Pretense of Being a Free-Market Party (http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/02/vice-president-elect-mike-pence-on-the-c)


At the conference, Pence defended the arrangement by declaring that "the free market has been sorting it out and America's been losing." After which, according to The New York Times, President-elect Donald Trump cut in to agree, saying, "Every time, every time."

Trump's enthusiastic dismissal of free market mechanisms should come as little surprise. As a businessman, he built his real estate empire on crony capitalist dealmaking, repeatedly urging government officials to give him special treatment so that his own projects would succeed. On the presidential campaign trail, he was frequently disdainful of the free movement of goods and workers across borders.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gj37cq8vO0

[TheCount]

I'm for state governments creating a competitive environment to attract businesses that employ their citizens.Across-the-board tax cuts would create a competitive environment. Favoring a single company with a tax reduction is actually harming the competitive environment by harming other companies who do not receive the same favoritism.

[Swordsmyth]

And you'll happily avoid acknowledging previous posts that show you are full of $#@!.

YOUR problem is that you are making this about Trump. YOU are making it personal. So I'll explain this deal again since you are so thick headed...because Trump! I've even highlighted some specific words for you.

Here's the breakdown. Carrier leaves Indiana. 1000 individuals lose their jobs and go on assistance at $390 a week for 26 weeks (Indiana Unemplyment). That comes to roughly $10 million in unemployment wages. $10 million NET LOSS. Add in no income tax coming in from these individuals. So your looking at a $12 million loss.

Indiana offered $1 million in tax credits, another $5 million in conditional tax credits to retain 1,062 jobs that pay $30.91 per hour. And another $1 million for training grants.
A total of $7 million. Instead of a $12 million drain, and also realize that the economy ripples and that these workers wages are not going to be supporting other businesses in their area.
In Indiana there is a 3.3% income tax. 3.3% of 1000 workers @ $70k per year comes to a tax gain of $2.3 million per year. This doesn't even include the 7% sales tax that would generate at least another $5 million per year. That is a $7 million dollar NET GAIN, offset by tax breaks, equals a wash.

Except that there is not a wash. There remains 1000 workers that spend $70k in their community supporting other small businesses. On top of that Carrier will invest $16 million into improvements that will, in some way, include local small business companies. And $1 million goes to training workers in todays competitive business environment.

I hope that helps. Key word: Indiana.

Your argument in a nutshell: The python says he will suffocate me slower if I don't try to get away.

Government unemployment insurance should not exist, 2,000 wrongs don't make a right. As long as we let THEM herd us toward the least painful option we will lose.

[presence]

Rule of law - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law







The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation,
as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of
individual government officials.

[specsaregood]

We are all people here who enjoy the benefits of capitalism right? This is an attack on capitalism! Tax credits applied to specific companies is not capitalism its crony capitalism. We should be applauding spending cuts, and less crony capitalism, I haven't seen anything to applaud for.

I applaud anytime somebody has to pay less taxes. I think it helps towards all of us paying less. I would applaud spending cuts as well, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Hell, I'll generally applaud people keeping their jobs too and not going to foreign lands. I like to applaud.

[nikcers]

Maybe one of you fine economic scholars could explain in simple terms how you would keep individual states from offering tax incentives to whomever they choose?

What about zoning variations, utility waivers and so on?

Surely not a one of you would advise permitting the federal government to control the states lands and coffers so help me understand how you would prevent any state from acting in it's own best interest?
I'd let states do whatever the hell they want, but as a president I wouldn't advocate for and use the bully pulpit to encourage states to wreck their local economies for my political gain, but hey as you say this is what politicians have been doing for ages.

[tod evans]

Across-the-board tax cuts would create a competitive environment. Favoring a single company with a tax reduction is actually harming the competitive environment by harming other companies who do not receive the same favoritism.

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?

[nikcers]

Across-the-board tax cuts would create a competitive environment. Favoring a single company with a tax reduction is actually harming the competitive environment by harming other companies who do not receive the same favoritism.
Hey lets rob peter and pay paul that will get more people like peter to come to our state right guys? Peters will just have to innovate harder.

[nikcers]

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?

Oh you mean Carrier has a monopoly on employing people that specialize in HVAC systems in Indiana?

[tod evans]

Oh you mean Indiana has a monopoly on employing people that specialize in HVAC systems in Indiana?

No.

I typed what I meant, can you answer my question?

[nikcers]

No.

I typed what I meant, can you answer my question?

Please I edited my typo, my message was clear? How do you think wages are determined?

[TheCount]

Oh you mean Carrier has a monopoly on employing people that specialize in HVAC systems in Indiana?They do now!

[fcreature]

I'd let states do whatever the hell they want, but as a president I wouldn't advocate for and use the bully pulpit to encourage states to wreck their local economies for my political gain, but hey as you say this is what politicians have been doing for ages.

This.

And I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me that as long as it's a State government (not Federal) infringing on our rights, it's okay.


I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?

Moot point but I'll answer nonetheless.

__________ <--- insert name of any entrepreneur here

__________ <--- insert name of any other company in the state of Indiana who now has to suffer from additional miss-allocated resources in their marketplace.

[tod evans]

Please I edited my typo, my message was clear?

My query remains unanswered, are you able to answer it?


How do you think wages are determined?

By what the market will bear. (And this is the only deviation from discussing the state of Indiana and her actions regarding Carrier manufacturing that I'll answer in this thread)

[Swordsmyth]

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?

How about any that might want to move there, or other industries that compete for the labor pool in that state?
How about all the other taxpayers who are not TOO BIG TO FAIL?

[nikcers]

My query remains unanswered, are you able to answer it?



By what the market will bear. (And this is the only deviation from discussing the state of Indiana and her actions regarding Carrier manufacturing that I'll answer in this thread)

Wages are determined by the individuals choice. Everything else is government intervention that creates bubbles and mal investment. This is why our country wastes so much money on bull shit.

[TheCount]

I did a quick google search and couldn't find any other firms manufacturing HVAC systems in Indiana.

Help me out here, which companies got shortchanged?Every other company which employs people in Indiana, as well as all of the companies which might have employed those workers, purchased the factories, etc. if Carrier did leave the state.

[tod evans]

This.

And I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me that as long as it's a State government (not Federal) infringing on our rights, it's okay.

"Our rights"?

Really........I'll assume you live and pay taxes in Indiana and can point to how this somehow negatively affects you physically, spiritually or financially.....

Go ahead and spell it out I'm pretty dense so specific claims will help me understand..




Moot point but I'll answer nonetheless.

__________ <--- insert name of any entrepreneur here

__________ <--- insert name of any other company in the state of Indiana who now has to suffer from additional miss-allocated resources in their marketplace.

First off I didn't raise the 'point' you try to disregard so cavalierly I merely asked the other poster to clarify his position.

Anyway if I am to take this as your answer then I must assume you're unable at this time to actually point to any person or business who has been shortchanged. (Even though I asked specifically about businesses)

[tod evans]

How about any that might want to move there, or other industries that compete for the labor pool in that state?
How about all the other taxpayers who are not TOO BIG TO FAIL?


Wages are determined by the individuals choice. Everything else is government intervention that creates bubbles and mal investment. This is why our country wastes so much money on bull shit.


Every other company which employs people in Indiana, as well as all of the companies which might have employed those workers, purchased the factories, etc. if Carrier did leave the state.

These all read like variations of the same theme;

Where ya'll want to tell the people of Indiana that they can't offer incentives to businesses because it's not fair to the other states who won't or can't offer the same incentives...

Leading back to my earlier query;




Let me see if I'm understanding your position on this........
I'm reading that you rather have fed-gov set state tax rates and possibly regulations too...

Is that correct?

Would you apply this scenario to just businesses or to all laws and legislation?
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504777-Trump-SAVES-1000-Carrier-Jobs!&p=6375459&viewfull=1#post6375459)


Or are ya'll just stomping your feet because you find that the state of Indiana has acted contrary to how you would rather they acted?

[phill4paul]

Great! Now that we have that out in the open...



What businesses (note the plural) has the government attracted by favoring Carrier over other businesses?

Might they have, instead, destroyed the ability of other companies that wanted to open, expand, or compete in Indiana to operate?

HMMM. Something about unintended consequences?

Or MIGHT they have just created a new environment where the STATE government realizes that giving incentives is a pretty damn good deal? Might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might, might.

In the meantime, in the here and now real world, 1100 jobs were saved and the welfare system didn't become a bigger burden.

[presence]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gj37cq8vO0


1) The more you trade the less likely you are to fight.


2) Free trade enhances the outcome for all who participate.


3) People ought to have the right to spend their money any way they want.


4) Nobody should prohibit you from buying anything from overseas.


5) It has been engrained that government is there to protect special interests and people have become indoctrinated to this.


6) The consumer ought to be king.


7) No special benefits to anybody.


8) The governemt's role is to protect individual liberty


9) Tarriffs tax the consumer.


10) Protecting one industry and not another is economic mischief.


11) If there is a benefit to Tariffs it will be short lived in light of trade war.


12) The net result of intervention is to make everything worse for everyone.


CARRIER; beginning 10:00


1) The idea of reducing taxes for one company and not for another is problematic.


2) UTX is a part of the deep state; MIC.


3) Trump's leverage was DOD billion dollar contracts.


4) This is not free markets.


5) We do hope for less regulation and lower taxes.


6) Big companies get incredible subsidies


7) Gov't contracts are distributed for political reasons.


8) In real terms wages are falling.


9) No matter how well intentioned and how much you tinker you cannot solve these issues from the state level.


10) All we have to do is complain a little and threaten to send business overseas, and then we get entitlements.


11) I have a hard time believing that the carrier deal has to do with free markets.


12) What I really care about is being competitive by minimizing regulations.


13) I believe what we're doing with Carrier is tokenism.


14) I believe in lower taxes and less regulations.


15) Is the role of the president to strike deals with companies? The government should not be central economic planners or regulators in the economy.


16) If we want reform why not look at article 1 section 8. The president does not have the authority to do this. These agreements should be banned and cancelled.


17) Our president is way too powerful


18) We are living beyond our means as a nation.


19) Be cautious and know what you're endorsing.


20) The proper role of governemnt is to defend liberty.


21) We need to go back to constitutional government that limits the power of the President.

[TheCount]

Where ya'll want to tell the people of Indiana that they can't offer incentives to businesses

Is that what happened? The people decided to offer incentives to businesses?



because it's not fair to the other states who won't or can't offer the same incentives...

Leading back to my earlier query;

Or are ya'll just stomping your feet because you find that the state of Indiana has acted contrary to how you would rather they acted?I think that you are simply pretending to be incredibly obtuse in order to avoid the actual points we're trying to make. You're set on a particular viewpoint, and you've pre-decided what our objections are, despite the fact that absolutely no one in this thread has mentioned or proposed the strawman arguments that you listed.