|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now.
The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana.
|
On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana.
Would you say its a bad deal if when trump takes office Carriers parent company is awarded a huge defense contract? This is mostly for the fun conspiracy theorist in me
|
On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana.
400 other Indiana companies decide to undertake the same maneuver, particularly in biotech that surrounds Indianapolis. They demand better deals though.
0%? Come on man, let the dust settle before this forced applause thing. Predicting economic consequences isn't easy for anyone, lack of precedent surrounding Trump notwithstanding.
|
On December 02 2016 11:54 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana. Would you say its a bad deal if when trump takes office Carriers parent company is awarded a huge defense contract? This is mostly for the fun conspiracy theorist in me
If the parent company is awarded a huge defense contract which ends up being unfair to the workers/government and is not equitible, that would be bad. But if they are awarded an appropriate contract competitive with what other companies may would offer, no problem.
|
On December 02 2016 11:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana. 400 other Indiana companies decide to undertake the same maneuver, particularly in biotech that surrounds Indianapolis. They demand better deals though.
If each of those companies can make compelling showings that they'd reap huge cost savings if they left Indiana, then Indiana should consider similar deals for them, too. And c'mon, let's not equate the risk of losing a biotech company to international outsourcing to the risk of losing basic manufacturing companies.
0%? Come on man, let the dust settle before this forced applause thing. Predicting economic consequences isn't easy for anyone, lack of precedent surrounding Trump notwithstanding.
The math doesn't lie. There is no way that Indiana loses on this.
|
On December 02 2016 12:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 11:54 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana. Would you say its a bad deal if when trump takes office Carriers parent company is awarded a huge defense contract? This is mostly for the fun conspiracy theorist in me If the parent company is awarded a huge defense contract which ends up being unfair to the workers/government and is not equitible, that would be bad. But if they are awarded an appropriate contract competitive with what other companies may would offer, no problem.
if it goes through the normal competitive bid processes and there's no shenanigans, sure.
It does remain the case though that there are missing pieces to why Carrier accepted the detail; and more info is needed to accurately assess it.
You still haven't said how many thousands a year you want to spend extra to subsidize stuff made in america, and I really am quite interested in how much of a premium you put on it.
|
On December 02 2016 12:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 11:57 farvacola wrote:On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana. 400 other Indiana companies decide to undertake the same maneuver, particularly in biotech that surrounds Indianapolis. They demand better deals though. If each of those companies can make compelling showings that they'd reap huge cost savings if they left Indiana, then Indiana should consider similar deals for them, too. And c'mon, let's not equate the risk of losing a biotech company to international outsourcing to the risk of losing basic manufacturing companies. Show nested quote +0%? Come on man, let the dust settle before this forced applause thing. Predicting economic consequences isn't easy for anyone, lack of precedent surrounding Trump notwithstanding. The math doesn't lie. There is no way that Indiana loses on this.
People who think that economics, particularly economics relative to large-scale institutional behavior and government tax policy, can be predicted with math alone have been proven wrong time and time again. You're fortune telling and then telling people to clap because of what you say you've seen in the crystal ball, and waving away the future behavioral implications of a targeted tax favor package doesn't change that.
|
On December 02 2016 12:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 12:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:57 farvacola wrote:On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana. 400 other Indiana companies decide to undertake the same maneuver, particularly in biotech that surrounds Indianapolis. They demand better deals though. If each of those companies can make compelling showings that they'd reap huge cost savings if they left Indiana, then Indiana should consider similar deals for them, too. And c'mon, let's not equate the risk of losing a biotech company to international outsourcing to the risk of losing basic manufacturing companies. 0%? Come on man, let the dust settle before this forced applause thing. Predicting economic consequences isn't easy for anyone, lack of precedent surrounding Trump notwithstanding. The math doesn't lie. There is no way that Indiana loses on this. People who think that economics, particularly economics relative to large-scale institutional behavior and government tax policy, can be predicted with math alone have been proven wrong time and time again. You're fortune telling and then telling people to clap because of what you say you've seen in the crystal ball, and waving away the future behavioral implications of a targeted tax favor package doesn't change that.
This one is really fucking easy to predict. The math is simple. And here's what you are missing: this deal isn't going to affect the behavior of other companies in a meaningfully adverse way. Companies already move around from state to state to improve their financial situation. They even move out of the country. More to the point, they all try to get tax breaks to operate in the locales where they are and would rather be. And guess what? Governments hand them out all of the time. There is nothing novel about this deal that Indiana cut. So no, no one needs a crystal ball to see that this is a clear, easy win for the State of Indiana. All that's needed is the removal of the anti-Trump-rabies-tinted sunglasses to see how good of a deal this is for the state. Like I said before, all of the fire that liberals are directing at this deal is rooted in little more than petty jealously and the fact that Trump just showed them up big time.
|
On December 02 2016 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 12:25 farvacola wrote:On December 02 2016 12:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:57 farvacola wrote:On December 02 2016 11:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2016 11:44 IyMoon wrote:On December 02 2016 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty clear that the Carrier deal is a huge success for Trump. He's not even in office yet, and he now has an image of being able to get shit done and fulfill his campaign promises. The political capital that this gives him cannot be understated. His popularity will continue to increase, which will allow him to bludgeon his political opponents into compliance with the bully pulpit. There is next to zero chance that this deal will come back to bite him in the ass, even if there's an economic downturn. The state of Indiana is now spending 7 mil to keep Carrier. If it goes bunk in a year or two its going to come back to hurt him a lot. You can not go "I get shit done" when the things you get done fail. That being said, its a huge win right now. The amount that Indiana is paying is basically a rounding error. Indiana is giving $700,000 in tax breaks per year under the deal to keep 1,100 jobs in the state, which equates to a subsidy of roughly $636 per job. The State of Indiana will get back several times that expenditure in income taxes off of the workers alone. There is zero chance that this hurts Indiana. 400 other Indiana companies decide to undertake the same maneuver, particularly in biotech that surrounds Indianapolis. They demand better deals though. If each of those companies can make compelling showings that they'd reap huge cost savings if they left Indiana, then Indiana should consider similar deals for them, too. And c'mon, let's not equate the risk of losing a biotech company to international outsourcing to the risk of losing basic manufacturing companies. 0%? Come on man, let the dust settle before this forced applause thing. Predicting economic consequences isn't easy for anyone, lack of precedent surrounding Trump notwithstanding. The math doesn't lie. There is no way that Indiana loses on this. People who think that economics, particularly economics relative to large-scale institutional behavior and government tax policy, can be predicted with math alone have been proven wrong time and time again. You're fortune telling and then telling people to clap because of what you say you've seen in the crystal ball, and waving away the future behavioral implications of a targeted tax favor package doesn't change that. This one is really fucking easy to predict. The math is simple. And here's what you are missing: this deal isn't going to affect the behavior of other companies in a meaningfully adverse way. Companies already move around from state to state to improve their financial situation. They even move out of the country. More to the point, they all try to get tax breaks to operate in the locales where they are and would rather be. And guess what? Governments hand them out all of the time. There is nothing novel about this deal that Indiana cut. So no, no one needs a crystal ball to see that this is a clear, easy win for the State of Indiana. All that's needed is the removal of the anti-Trump-rabies-tinted sunglasses to see how good of a deal this is for the state. Like I said before, all of the fire that liberals are directing at this deal is rooted in little more than petty jealously and the fact that Trump just showed them up big time.
Platitudes about basic business actor concepts coupled with "there is nothing novel about this move"/"omg no one has done what Trump just did" schizophrenia still doesn't change the lack of substance behind your fortune telling here. There's a reason why cheerleaders don't open football games with chants about the end-game score, after all.
Edit: For what it's worth, I think Trump's selection of Mattis has been his best move thus far personally.
|
|
|
|
|
Carrier's parent company is one of the largest holders of federal government contracts, many of which will come under renegotiation shortly, so it's not exactly accurate to characterize this maneuver as one that interacts with only one small potatoes company. Furthermore, anytime a favor is granted in an unorthodox manner, particularly by and through someone as influential as the President, the behavioral reactions of other interested and comparative parties are going to be difficult to predict.
|
On December 02 2016 13:04 farvacola wrote:
Carrier's parent company is one of the largest holders of federal government contracts, many of which will come under renegotiation shortly, so it's not exactly accurate to characterize this maneuver as one that interacts with only one small potatoes company. Furthermore, anytime a favor is granted in an unorthodox manner, particularly by and through someone as influential as the President, the behavioral reactions of other interested and comparative parties are going to be difficult to predict.
Which is why I said that the deal was undeniably good for Indiana. We don't know what Trump did to get Carrier to accept the deal from Indiana that they wouldn't accept previously. My best guess is that Trump threatened United's federal contracts to get them to cave, but we don't know, and probably won't for some time.
|
Fair enough, I'm still not sure the ink on the deal has dried enough to say that so unequivocally, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
|
Off course it was to be expected that democrats would critisize this deal. It would have been much better off course to let this plant and its jobs go to mexico. I honestly don't understand why people are still discussing in this thread when people are unable to look objectively and form their own opinion. If Clinton was elect and would have made this deal,then it would have been an awesome deal for many of you lol. Even though Clinton, being a worse negotiator then trump, would probably have ended up paying double the amount.
Anyway:trump has been bussy with this and 1100 jobs is not that many in the grand sceme of things. But this is something the people will love.
|
That's nonsense, I've been critical of Clinton since the beginning, try and keep up before you decide to paint dissenters in the same manner you criticize those very people for.
|
It was not directed at you specifically but you have a fair point,i will keep it in mind.
|
Mattis is definitely the right direction. Now I can feel better about all these bad names being floated around for SoS.
Better late than never, CNN picks up on Ellison's radical past ... "Rep. Keith Ellison faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic figures"
In one scathing column from 1990 unearthed by CNN's KFile, Ellison accused the university's president of chilling the free expression of black students by openly criticizing a controversial speaker invited to speak on campus by the Africana Student Cultural Center. That speaker, Kwame Ture (also known as Stokely Carmichael), had publicly claimed that Zionists had collaborated with the Nazis in World War II and has been quoted as saying "Zionism must be destroyed."
University of Minnesota President Nils Hasselmo said he "personally found the statements in Ture's speech concerning alleged Zionist collaboration with the Nazis deeply offensive." Ellison, writing under the name "Keith E. Hakim" for the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Minnesota where Ellison attended law school, argued that Hasselmo "denounced Ture's comment without offering any factual refutation of it," and defended Ture's right to speak on campus and to question Zionism.
CNN
Surely dems can do better. I mean, in the house you don't have the face of the future, you have a septuagenarian from San Francisco. Senate not much better.
New York and California are the faces of liberalism today that has left middle America behind.
Surely GH's boys can find another to rally behind?
|
On December 02 2016 13:25 Danglars wrote:Mattis is definitely the right direction. Now I can feel better about all these bad names being floated around for SoS. Better late than never, CNN picks up on Ellison's radical past ... "Rep. Keith Ellison faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic figures" Show nested quote +In one scathing column from 1990 unearthed by CNN's KFile, Ellison accused the university's president of chilling the free expression of black students by openly criticizing a controversial speaker invited to speak on campus by the Africana Student Cultural Center. That speaker, Kwame Ture (also known as Stokely Carmichael), had publicly claimed that Zionists had collaborated with the Nazis in World War II and has been quoted as saying "Zionism must be destroyed."
University of Minnesota President Nils Hasselmo said he "personally found the statements in Ture's speech concerning alleged Zionist collaboration with the Nazis deeply offensive." Ellison, writing under the name "Keith E. Hakim" for the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Minnesota where Ellison attended law school, argued that Hasselmo "denounced Ture's comment without offering any factual refutation of it," and defended Ture's right to speak on campus and to question Zionism. CNN Surely dems can do better. I mean, in the house you don't have the face of the future, you have a septuagenarian from San Francisco. Senate not much better. New York and California are the faces of liberalism today that has left middle America behind. Surely GH's boys can find another to rally behind?
Dude, you may have missed it, but your party just elected a man who associates with people who supposedly have ties to groups who say things just as controversial. Naturally, these associations will be characterized as extremely attenuated in the land of the enemies of Edmond Dantes, but there's no reason to think that Democrats can't utilize exactly the same tactic in their favor similarly.
|
danglars, did you bother reading the article for the bit where he thoroughly cut ties with the nation of islam explicitly citing their anti semitic ideas a decade ago?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
