Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 391 to 420 of 434

Thread: Trump SAVES 1000 Carrier Jobs!....

  1. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    Do tell.



    Maybe it is just precision of language. "Plunged" is a very strong word. But that is just a matter of language, and we can get beyond that. If you'd address my other points...
    China's economy was supposed to crash, they started dumping bonds, and we started zero rating bonds to smooth out the stock market crash. China then proceeded to parade their $#@!ing nukes on CCTV to celebrate winning world war 2. China has been dumping the treasuries ever since because there is a bubble. Instead of debating this we talked about Trumps dick, and then Trump even cancelled the last republican debate to give a speech to Israel. He didn't even win the primary till Indiana, who for some strange coincidence the Governor is now the $#@!ing VP.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #392
    The auto bail outs didn't offer huge tax breaks?
    Did the bail out save millions of jobs?
    What if all 1 million people went on unemployment instead?

    Isn't it the same principles?



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by Philmanoman View Post
    The auto bail outs didn't offer huge tax breaks?
    Did the bail out save millions of jobs?
    What if all 1 million people went on unemployment instead?

    Isn't it the same principles?
    No they are different principles because its Trump and not Obama. Did anyone watch the very first presidential debate? Do you know what the very first question they hit Rand Paul on? Who are you going to talk to first, China or Russia? Are you guys still watching the MSM for news and don't know what's going on with our trade relations? Do you guys ever watch Ron Paul?

  6. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    No they are different principles because its Trump and not Obama. Did anyone watch the very first presidential debate? Do you know what the very first question they hit Rand Paul on? Who are you going to talk to first, China or Russia? Are you guys still watching the MSM for news and don't know what's going on with our trade relations? Do you guys ever watch Ron Paul?
    Like here?

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...83#post6376483
    There is no spoon.

  7. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    China's economy was supposed to crash, they started dumping bonds, and we started zero rating bonds to smooth out the stock market crash. China then proceeded to parade their $#@!ing nukes on CCTV to celebrate winning world war 2. China has been dumping the treasuries ever since because there is a bubble. Instead of debating this we talked about Trumps dick, and then Trump even cancelled the last republican debate to give a speech to Israel. He didn't even win the primary till Indiana, who for some strange coincidence the Governor is now the $#@!ing VP.
    China and other foreign central banks have started dumping US bonds in order to cover the flight of capital that has plagued their nations. IE, a credit crunch; they want to support the renminbi. China specifically has been trying to boost its foreign-exchange reserves, and as their government props up their own market, they are using US dollars to hedge their liquidity. There were willing buyers for whatever China was selling. Heck, China has moved on to dumping equities instead of treasuries. As oil prices have come down, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, UAE have been doing the same, selling a combination of their treasury holdings and their equity (stock) holding.

  8. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    China and other foreign central banks have started dumping US bonds in order to cover the flight of capital that has plagued their nations. IE, a credit crunch; they want to support the renminbi. China specifically has been trying to boost its foreign-exchange reserves, and as their government props up their own market, they are using US dollars to hedge their liquidity. There were willing buyers for whatever China was selling. Heck, China has moved on to dumping equities instead of treasuries. As oil prices have come down, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, UAE have been doing the same, selling a combination of their treasury holdings and their equity (stock) holding.
    Okay so what's causing credit to crunch? Are we playing an international shell game with a lot of mal investment that is going to lead to world war 3 and China and Russia want us to take sides?

    The maturity dates on zero coupon bonds are usually long term, with many having initial maturities of at least 10 years.
    Amount 107,001,454,400

    Settlement date
    08/27/2015
    Maturity date 02/25/2016

  9. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    China and other foreign central banks have started dumping US bonds in order to cover the flight of capital that has plagued their nations. IE, a credit crunch; they want to support the renminbi. China specifically has been trying to boost its foreign-exchange reserves, and as their government props up their own market, they are using US dollars to hedge their liquidity. There were willing buyers for whatever China was selling. Heck, China has moved on to dumping equities instead of treasuries. As oil prices have come down, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, UAE have been doing the same, selling a combination of their treasury holdings and their equity (stock) holding.
    China has reduced foreign reserves a bit but is hardly "dumping". http://www.scmp.com/news/china/money...ptember-us188b

    The mainland’s forex reserves, the world’s largest, shrank by US$18.8 billion to about US$3.166 trillion last month, according to data from the State Administration of Foreign Exchange.

    Total reserves fell to below the US$3.18 trillion expected by economists polled by Reuters and Bloomberg.

    September’s drop was small compared with overall reserves, but it was larger than a decline of US$15.89 billion in August and was the biggest in three months.
    That is about one half of one percent.

    But, the decline in reserves slowed this year as Beijing tightened capital controls and cracked down on suspicious forex trading, and China’s economic growth turned better than expected.

  10. #398
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    China has reduced foreign reserves a bit but is hardly "dumping". http://www.scmp.com/news/china/money...ptember-us188b



    That is about one half of one percent.
    Yeah because our current adminstration has signaled that we were a one China nation, and we even acted like we were going to elect a one China president

  11. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    China has reduced foreign reserves a bit but is hardly "dumping". http://www.scmp.com/news/china/money...ptember-us188b



    That is about one half of one percent.
    Try going back more than one month. Sheesh, do you just parrot the recent articles? China's forex reserves have dropped by nearly a trillion in two years.

  12. #400
    You didn't say two years ago. You said they "are" dumping them- that means now. But you also said in the same statement:

    China specifically has been trying to boost its foreign-exchange reserves
    So they are dumping AND boosting them. And you said I was the one who was confused.

    But you are right that they are trying to protect the value of their money vs the dollar.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 12-03-2016 at 03:33 PM.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #401
    As oil prices have come down, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, UAE have been doing the same, selling a combination of their treasury holdings and their equity (stock) holding.
    Those countries have very small $US holdings. Saudi Arabia has about $90 billion in US Treasuries. Russia- $76 billion, Qatar not even listed, and UAE $64 billion. Combined, they have all reduced their Treasury holdings by about $42 billion over the past year. China still has $1.157 trillion worth. Their holdings have declined $101 billion. Not a "dump" or "liquidation". http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

    Russia has somewhat increased their foreign exchange reserves (includes other currency valued assets besides just dollars) recently. They took a major hit when sanctions were imposed in the wake of the Ukraine conflict- currently about $400 billion.

    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 12-03-2016 at 04:00 PM.

  15. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post


    He also says @ 11:27.

    I don't have a problem with tax breaks. If a subsidy is involved, that's a different story but that's not what I've seen so far. If it comes out a subsidy was involved, my opinion will change.
    Ron's exact words at that timestamp (emphasis added): "My policy over the years has always been to support anything that looks like a tax abatement or a tax credit even though I didn't like the condition where you're giving it to one [but] not the other ..."

    I don't like the condition where you're giving it to one but not the other, either. But it's better than the case where you're not giving it to anyone at all. It is always better, ceteris paribus, when less of peoples' stuff is being expropriated. It is always worse, ceteris paribus, when more of peoples' stuff is being expropriated.

    One cannot achieve "fairness" in any meaningful sense by refusing to steal less of particular peoples' stuff so that people will be robbed more "equally" in general - "fairness" got chucked right out the window the moment any of their stuff was expropriated in the first place.

    Subsidies are another matter altogether (and I mean REAL subsidies, NOT tax credits/breaks/rebates/abatements/etc.). If Carrier or its parent company is receiving any actual subsidies that were involuntarily mulcted from others, then I will happily criticize them for it. But that is a separate issue.

    And for the record, I could not care less about this having been promulgated by Trump - or about what Trump's motivations are (Carrier is in no way accountable for Trump's motivations, whatever they might be). I'd be of exactly the same opinion if this occurred under the auspices of Obama, or Bush the Second, or Clinton, or Bush the First, or etc. Nor do I give a fetid dingo's kidney for what this might mean (one way or the other) in regard to "jobs" or whatnot.

    It is simply wrong to take other peoples' stuff by force or threat of force. The less such taking there is, the better. Period. Full stop. Any further qualification would be superfluous.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  16. #403
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    One cannot achieve "fairness" in any meaningful sense by refusing to steal less of particular peoples' stuff so that people will be robbed more "equally" in general - "fairness" got chucked right out the window the moment any of their stuff was expropriated in the first place.
    Well I guess If your parent company does billions of dollars in business with the federal government then you have the right to get some of your own money back. I would just be happy if we were not rewarding people who already get fat government contracts the power to lobby the government for tax breaks. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you that a deal would be happening like this if this was a Ron Paul administration.

  17. #404
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    ...
    Government doesn't need taxes to fund itself with a printing press. What happens in reality, decreased taxes paradoxically increase government spending. Decreased taxes means the pain of government spending isn't felt as acutely from taxpayers. Spending actually goes up because there are no direct consequences to the increased spending . A libertarian economist name Bill Niskanen who used to run the Cato Institute did a study on this. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
    That study involves federal spending and taxes. The Carrier tax credits come from the state of Indiana.

  18. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    That study involves federal spending and taxes. The Carrier tax credits come from the state of Indiana.
    I said that in the post. It was a response to the video of Ron Paul talking about his general support for tax loopholes.

  19. #406
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    You didn't say two years ago. You said they "are" dumping them- that means now. But you also said in the same statement:



    So they are dumping AND boosting them. And you said I was the one who was confused.

    But you are right that they are trying to protect the value of their money vs the dollar.
    Aren't they still dumping them? As capital outflows went up, China was unwinding its holding of US treasuries in order to stem those capital outflows, hence, boost their foreign-exchange reserves. Perhaps it is just a difference in language.
    Last edited by Dr.No.; 12-03-2016 at 06:00 PM.

  20. #407
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Those countries have very small $US holdings. Saudi Arabia has about $90 billion in US Treasuries. Russia- $76 billion, Qatar not even listed, and UAE $64 billion. Combined, they have all reduced their Treasury holdings by about $42 billion over the past year. China still has $1.157 trillion worth. Their holdings have declined $101 billion. Not a "dump" or "liquidation". http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

    Russia has somewhat increased their foreign exchange reserves (includes other currency valued assets besides just dollars) recently. They took a major hit when sanctions were imposed in the wake of the Ukraine conflict- currently about $400 billion.

    What's your point? I was just pointing out how when a country's economy is struggling, they will have to unwind their US bond holdings.

    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Okay so what's causing credit to crunch? Are we playing an international shell game with a lot of mal investment that is going to lead to world war 3 and China and Russia want us to take sides?
    To some degree it is malinvestment. The other issue is capital just leaving the country.

  21. #408
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Well I guess If your parent company does billions of dollars in business with the federal government then you have the right to get some of your own money back.
    Regardless of how much business you do with whom, you have the "right" not to have your money involuntarily taken from you in the first place - and it having been taken, you have the "right" to get all of it back (not merely "some" of it). Whether you will actually be able to do so is another matter (and there is not anything wrong with lobbying in such an effort - any more than there is anything wrong with lobbying on behalf of the right to keep and bear arms, for example).

    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I would just be happy if we were not rewarding people who already get fat government contracts the power to lobby the government for tax breaks.
    When something is returned to them that rightfully belonged to them in the first place, they are not being "rewarded."

    Also, getting "fat government contracts" (on the one hand) and getting "tax breaks" (on the other hand) are two different things.

    The first can be considered a form of subsidy (depending on how "fat" the contracts in question are). The second cannot.

    As I previously stated (and which you elided in your reply):
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Subsidies are another matter altogether (and I mean REAL subsidies, NOT tax credits/breaks/rebates/abatements/etc.). If Carrier or its parent company is receiving any actual subsidies that were involuntarily mulcted from others, then I will happily criticize them for it. But that is a separate issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I'll just have to agree to disagree with you that a deal would be happening like this if this was a Ron Paul administration.
    Where did I say "that a deal would be happening like this if this was a Ron Paul administration?"

    I quoted Ron Paul's exact words on the subject. He said he has "always ... support[ed]" such tax breaks, even though he would prefer that they apply generally (or, better yet, that the taxes for which such "breaks" are offered were abolished altogether).



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #409
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Except Ron is wrong. [...] Ron is of the belief that if you decrease taxes government will have less money to spend therefore government will shrink. That sounds goods. Milton Friedman believed that. Walter Block thinks like that. But it is clearly wrong.

    Government doesn't need taxes to fund itself with a printing press. What happens in reality, decreased taxes paradoxically increase government spending.
    The author of "End the Fed" certainly cannot be accused of being unaware of the government's ability to fund itself by way of the printing press.

    Ron Paul has elsewhere repeatedly and explicitly identified three basic ways government funds itself:
    (1) through "direct" taxation (in various forms)
    (2) through "indirect" taxation (such as the so-called "inflation tax" inherent in fiat monetary inflation - i.e., the "printing press" option)
    (3) through borrowing and debt issuance (which must ultimately be paid for via (1) or (2))

    In his commentary in the video under consideration, he is concerned solely with (1), as that is the only of the three options which is relevant to the Carrier "tax break" issue.

    And none of this accounts for his numerous assertions elsewhere of the importance of real and significant spending cuts as a critical element in any effort to shrink the size of government ...

    IOW: Ron Paul cannot credibly be charged with believing that decreasing taxes is sufficient to reduce the size of government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Setting aside the Carrier deal, finding loopholes in general to decrease taxes for any reason isn't a good idea for numerous reasons. [...] Decreased taxes means the pain of government spending isn't felt as acutely from taxpayers. Spending actually goes up because there are no direct consequences to the increased spending. [...]
    By this logic, any and all tax reductions should be opposed, regardless of whether they are "general" or "targeted" - indeed, "general" or "across the board" tax cuts should be opposed even more vigorously and vehemently than "targeted" ones, since the former will more broadly alleviate the "acuteness" felt by taxpayers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The other problem with loopholes is they don't change incentives in the same way an across the board cut does. They encourage rent seeking and lobbying.
    What "rent" is being sought when some try to get back (at least some of) what they had (or will have had), but which was (or will have been) expropriated from them?

    And there is nothing wrong with encouraging lobbying per se. The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to lobby the government - that is, "the right of the people [...] to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Some lobbying ought to be encouraged. For just one of many possible examples, lobbying on behalf of the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing. Problems with lobbying arise only when the "wrong" things are lobbied for ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    They don't change incentives across the board to produce more.
    That's right. And if Negan and the Saviors start taking less of my group's stuff than they did before, but they continue taking just as much of other groups' stuff, this will not "change incentives across the board" for groups to produce or scavenge more.

    So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    As far as the tax credits that Ron endorsed in the video, Keynesians like them.
    *shrug* Neither Ron Paul nor those of us who agree with him on this issue are accountable for what Keynesians like or why they like it ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Free market people should not.
    Free market people should like expropriating less of other peoples' stuff.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 12-03-2016 at 08:42 PM.

  24. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Setting aside the Carrier deal, finding loopholes in general to decrease taxes for any reason isn't a good idea for numerous reasons. [...] Decreased taxes means the pain of government spending isn't felt as acutely from taxpayers. Spending actually goes up because there are no direct consequences to the increased spending. [...]
    By this logic, any and all tax reductions should be opposed, regardless of whether they are "general" or "targeted" - indeed, "general" or "across the board" tax cuts should be opposed even more vigorously and vehemently than "targeted" ones, since the former will more broadly alleviate the "acuteness" felt by taxpayers ...
    Further to which, reductio ad absurdum may be applied here ...

    The argument as given implies not only that such tax reductions should be opposed, but also that tax increases of the same kind should not be opposed.

    Consider a proposed tax increase of either "general" or "targeted" variety. Suppose the increase passes and is enacted. At this point, there is no functional difference whatsoever between opposition to the increase and any subsequent support for a decrease of the same variety and of equal magnitude. Thus, if support for the decrease is not to be approved by "free market people," then neither was opposition to the increase - and for exactly the same reasons.

  25. #411
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Further to which, reductio ad absurdum may be applied here ...

    The argument as given implies not only that such tax reductions should be opposed, but also that tax increases of the same kind should not be opposed.

    Consider a proposed tax increase of either "general" or "targeted" variety. Suppose the increase passes and is enacted. At this point, there is no functional difference whatsoever between opposition to the increase and any subsequent support for a decrease of the same variety and of equal magnitude. Thus, if support for the decrease is not to be approved by "free market people," then neither was opposition to the increase - and for exactly the same reasons.
    Or you could look at it as spending should be reduced.

    But I am somewhat ambivalent about tax hikes. I don't think it would be the end of the world. I have never really been a big fan of the supply side arguments. I think gov't spending is the better barometer of how free a country is, not how much tax revenue is collected.

  26. #412
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Or you could look at it as spending should be reduced.
    Or you could look at it as not being an "either-or" dilemma.

    Both spending and taxes should be reduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    But I am somewhat ambivalent about tax hikes. I don't think it would be the end of the world.
    I'm categorical about tax hikes.
    It's just wrong to take other peoples' stuff.
    It's more wrong to take more of their stuff.
    (And it's being "the end of the world" or not hasn't got anything to do with it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I have never really been a big fan of the supply side arguments. I think gov't spending is the better barometer of how free a country is, not how much tax revenue is collected.
    I agree that spending is the more important factor.

    Low spending more easily militates against taxes, fiat creation, etc.

    But that spending is the "better" measure does not mean that taxation is a "poor" one (especially under circumstances in which spending has run as eye-poppingly amok as it has).

  27. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Where did I say "that a deal would be happening like this if this was a Ron Paul administration?"

    I quoted Ron Paul's exact words on the subject. He said he has "always ... support[ed]" such tax breaks, even though he would prefer that they apply generally (or, better yet, that the taxes for which such "breaks" are offered were abolished altogether).
    ah the aforementioned steroids, I am glad we can agree on this much at least.

  28. #414
    I believe we need to do these types of deals until all the baby bloomers are retired, once they are all out of the work force, things will normalize, Trumps plans buys us that time, which we need.

  29. #415
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    I believe we need to do these types of deals until all the baby bloomers are retired, once they are all out of the work force, things will normalize, Trumps plans buys us that time, which we need.
    I'm a boomer and I'll be working until they kick me off into a hole...

  30. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I'm a boomer and I'll be working until they kick me off into a hole...
    I know your type I worked with them in retail, they retire with three awesome pensions at 68, and then their wife and them fight all the time so he goes gets a job at Lowe's or Home Depot not because he needs the money but because it will save his marriage. A part time retail service job, is not the same as the white collar job they retired from at a manufacturing facility.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    I know your type I worked with them in retail, they retire with three awesome pensions at 68, and then their wife and them fight all the time so he goes gets a job at Lowe's or Home Depot not because he needs the money but because it will save his marriage. A part time retail service job, is not the same as the white collar job they retired from at a manufacturing facility.
    Apparently you have no clue as to "my type".......

    I've worked my whole life building a business and acquiring the tooling to run it as a one man shop.

    There are no pensions or 401k's, if I'm to leave anything for my kid I'll keep on cutting wood until I die.

    And............I've never, not even once, just for a few hours, worked in either food service or retail and I never will.

  33. #418
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    I know your type I worked with them in retail, they retire with three awesome pensions at 68, and then their wife and them fight all the time so he goes gets a job at Lowe's or Home Depot not because he needs the money but because it will save his marriage. A part time retail service job, is not the same as the white collar job they retired from at a manufacturing facility.
    I laughed at this ^ and equally predicted the response:

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Apparently you have no clue as to "my type".......

    I've worked my whole life building a business and acquiring the tooling to run it as a one man shop.

    There are no pensions or 401k's, if I'm to leave anything for my kid I'll keep on cutting wood until I die.

    And............I've never, not even once, just for a few hours, worked in either food service or retail and I never will.
    Last edited by specsaregood; 12-04-2016 at 11:30 AM.

  34. #419
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I laughed at this ^ and equally predicted the response:
    LOL, me too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  35. #420
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I laughed at this ^ and equally predicted the response:
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    LOL, me too.

    Yup.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 100
    Last Post: 02-17-2016, 03:52 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-27-2015, 12:19 PM
  3. Trump 42%, Paul trailing at 31% in new 1000 person independent poll
    By mrsat_98 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-26-2015, 09:32 PM
  4. Trump 42%, Paul trailing at 31% in new 1000 person independent poll
    By Chester Copperpot in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-26-2015, 12:33 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 08:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •