Trump acting as President

[Doug]

I do believe Donald Trump is the first President Elect who is trying to make good on a campaign promise before he takes office.
He is also the first one who is EXPECTED to do so.

I predict that if Carrier leaves as planned, the Media will declare his presidency a failure before it even begins.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd be surprised if Carrier stayed....actually shocked. But one business leaving, does not make or break a presidency. In the grand scheme of things, he's not going to be able to do much, himself. If he tries to tackle such issues, personally, he's going to be overwhelmed. This is something that has to be handled by a cabinet member, with a clear understanding of what Trump wants to push, in Congress. The executive branch doesn't have the power that Trump thinks it does, if he expects that he alone can persuade businesses to stay.

 

[HubertGummer]

At least he is trying to do something. More than can be said for the current leader.

 

[Twangbanger]

Unfortunately, Greed Trumps Everything - even Trump. Ross Perot was right about the sucking sound. A quarter-century later, and still suckin'.

Next time you hear somebody say, "Surely, you don't think he can bring those jobs back?" Remind them that this isn't about bringing jobs back. It's about trying to save the ones that aren't gone yet. Like these Carrier jobs were, this time last year.

But good on him and Pence for trying.

 

[Kutnupe14]

At least he is trying to do something. More than can be said for the current leader.

Is he? Or is this simply for show? Do you expect him to do this for every business that wants to outsource? No one really expects him to pull this off. But a "show" of trying to do something, looks very good to those who really aren't looking at the big picture. Trump is businessman/showman, he understands that putting on a good show can be almost as powerful as actually doing something. If he fails to keep Carrier in Indiana, he loses no clout. People will say "at least he tried," even if there was no realistic possibility of Carrier staying, in the first place.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I don't want the president to decide what companies do. I don't want them to have that much power. I want massively decreased taxes for citizens and ZERO corporate tax. THAT will lead to economic expansion.

Presidents don't create jobs, and shouldn't be expected to. Just create a pro-business government and let the private sector do what it does. Pro-business is by definition pro-employee/citizen.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't want the president to decide what companies do. I don't want them to have that much power. I want massively decreased taxes for citizens and ZERO corporate tax. THAT will lead to economic expansion.

Presidents don't create jobs, and shouldn't be expected to. Just create a pro-business government and let the private sector do what it does. Pro-business is by definition pro-employee/citizen.

THIS!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Is he? Or is this simply for show? Do you expect him to do this for every business that wants to outsource? No one really expects him to pull this off. But a "show" of trying to do something, looks very good to those who really aren't looking at the big picture. Trump is businessman/showman, he understands that putting on a good show can be almost as powerful as actually doing something. If he fails to keep Carrier in Indiana, he loses no clout. People will say "at least he tried," even if there was no realistic possibility of Carrier staying, in the first place.

Typically, when a company makes these sorts of announcements, the "I's" have been dotted and the "T's" have been crossed and all that's left to be done is make the announcement and move the equipment. I do have to wonder what sorts of promises and side-deals Trump and Pence are willing to do to get Carrier to change their plans at such a late date and would they be the sort of deals they'd want to strike with everyone else.

 

[Stickfight]

The workers at Carrier can't compete with the workers in Mexico, what can Trump do about that? Sure he can put the squeeze on UTC, and threaten their defense contracts, but how does that benefit the country? Paying more for furnaces and jet engines isn't going to help us win.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Just create a pro-business government and let the private sector do what it does. Pro-business is by definition pro-employee/citizen.

Not necessarily.

Do remember: the Iran Nuclear Deal, Affordable Care Act (especially in its original form, with Public Option), and NAFTA would be considered "pro-business," if you're Boeing, an Insurance Company, or any employer looking to offload employees/citizens onto the public healthcare system, and/or send their jobs to Mexico.

Stimulus Package, TPP, etc., etc....ditto.

"Pro-Business," as we're learning, is a rabbit-hole. I would prefer we make government "Business Neutral." But as it turns out, that doesn't pay nearly so well. Truly "Business-Neutral" public policy doesn't attract businesses with suitcases of cash offering to help write the legislation. "Pro-Business," however, brings them in like flies. (As does its evil twin, "Anti-Business").

Any politician worth his salt quickly finds out being Neutral doesn't get you anything.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not necessarily.

Do remember: the Iran Nuclear Deal, Affordable Care Act (especially in its original form, with Public Option), and NAFTA would be considered "pro-business," if you're Boeing, an Insurance Company, or any employer looking to offload employees/citizens onto the public healthcare system, and/or send their jobs to Mexico.

Stimulus Package, TPP, etc., etc....ditto.

"Pro-Business," as we're learning, is a rabbit-hole. I would prefer we make government "Business Neutral." But as it turns out, that doesn't pay nearly so well. Truly "Business-Neutral" public policy doesn't attract businesses with suitcases of cash offering to help write the legislation. "Pro-Business," however, brings them in like flies. (As does its evil twin, "Anti-Business").

Any politician worth his salt quickly finds out being Neutral doesn't get you anything.

This sounds like an argument against free market capitalism.

 

[Twangbanger]

This sounds like an argument against free market capitalism.

How so?

 

[DRob]

Thankfully, the Executive Branch can't do most of what candidates claim they are going to do. Sadly, many voters have no clue about that. Trump has been dealt a strong hand due to the Congress he'll be working with. It's a unique opportunity. Hope they play it well.

 

[Indynic]

It's not against anything, if it's NEUTRAL. Wait a minute, pick a side! Everybody MUST pick a side!

 

[Kutnupe14]

How so?

The pinnacle of "pro-business" is free market capitalism. Unless, when you say "pro-business," it only applies to certain businesses.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's not against anything, if it's NEUTRAL. Wait a minute, pick a side! Everybody MUST pick a side!

It's impossible, and therefore undesirable, to have govt that neutral with regards to business.

 

[Twangbanger]

The pinnacle of "pro-business" is free market capitalism. Unless, when you say "pro-business," it only applies to certain businesses.

It's impossible, and therefore undesirable, to have govt that neutral with regards to business.

But you've contradicted yourself. Free market capitalism, which you define as "pro-business" in the first quote, is neutral with regard to business and interferes in the market neither for nor against, which neutrality you regard as impossible / undesirable in the second. And if you truly believe Free Market Capitalism is impossible, then it seems to be you, not me, who is making anti-free market capitalism arguments in this thread.

If government policy is anything other than "neutral" towards business, it may be capitalist in some sense (ie, "crony"), but not the "free market" sense.

 

[Jludo]

At least he is trying to do something. More than can be said for the current leader.

In 2012 Obama did something similar to protect American Tire manufacturing jobs, a tariff on imported Chinese tires. I've come to the conclusion that protectionist trade policy hurts America more than it helps.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-obamas-tire-tariffs-have-hurt-consumers/

 

[bwframe]

A huge amount of insane government regulation (read $$$ to bottomline) will be eliminated very quickly in the Trump administration regardless of Carrier. I'm sure these things are being reminded to them. Also sure Carrier will be reminded of the additional taxes that will be imposed on foreign business vs USA made.

One could only guess that influence on Carrier's level of gov't contracts would be discussed. The first time a business oriented negotiator (also familiar with union involvement,) might well prove interesting, regardless of the apparent outcome.

 

[LPMan59]

At least he is trying to do something. More than can be said for the current leader.

Funny, that's exactly what gun control advocates say