Trump acting as President

[DoggyDaddy]

From what I gather many here believe it's a good idea for state governments to have a wing that selectively doles out tax breaks and incentives to particular companies if it saves/creates jobs?

I've not seen anyone saying that it should be "selective". I've seen people say that it should be done across the board. There has to be a starting point. Just because Carrier was the starting point doesn't imply that it's the end point as well.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

About the double standard, I removed that part of the post because of length. But I remember the left saying that about the Bush economy. But they can't seem to apply the same standards now.

We all have our level of hypocrisy. How many of us decried GM getting bailed out when they saved 10's of thousands of jobs, plus the untold 2nd and 3rd tier jobs that would have been jeopardized if GM would have been allowed to go bankrupt? Yet, I'd wager many of those same people are cheering the government involvement of only a 1000 +/- jobs. We all find ways to rationalize one thing over another when in actuality, there's really not that much difference between the tow.

 

[churchmouse]

From what I gather many here believe it's a good idea for state governments to have a wing that selectively doles out tax breaks and incentives to particular companies if it saves/creates jobs?

What...........

 

[indiucky]

We all have our level of hypocrisy. How many of us decried GM getting bailed out when they saved 10's of thousands of jobs, plus the untold 2nd and 3rd tier jobs that would have been jeopardized if GM would have been allowed to go bankrupt? Yet, I'd wager many of those same people are cheering the government involvement of only a 1000 +/- jobs. We all find ways to rationalize one thing over another when in actuality, there's really not that much difference between the tow.

I did...Because a bail out is different from a tax incentive...I will always be on the side of lower taxes...I don't care how it's doled out and to whom...Any time we are not feeding the beast is a good thing for me....

I have accepted that no matter what Trump does folks are going to question it....I am satisfied that the next four years Trump is going to do what he does best...Proving people wrong in under estimating him.....

[video=youtube;sW85ZcswiqM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW85ZcswiqM&t=191s[/video]

 

[jamil]

I did...Because a bail out is different from a tax incentive...I will always be on the side of lower taxes...I don't care how it's doled out and to whom...Any time we are not feeding the beast is a good thing for me....

I have accepted that no matter what Trump does folks are going to question it....I am satisfied that the next four years Trump is going to do what he does best...Proving people wrong in under estimating him.....

I'm having a hard time accepting that no matter what Trump does, folks are going to support it. Elected leaders should be more like raising kids. Only praise them for doing truly praiseworthy things, scold them for doing scold worthy things. And be consistent about it. Two kids doing the same thing shouldn't get opposite responses because you favor one over the other.

 

[foszoe]

From what I gather many here believe it's a good idea for state governments to have a wing that selectively doles out tax breaks and incentives to particular companies if it saves/creates jobs?

Who?

 

[Woobie]

It's a lost cause. Because is what it is and stuff. Right?

Ou please, stop trying to console yourself. This system is broken, and this has gone on forever. It is what it is. But hopefully it won't be that way too much longer. So maybe it will no longer be what it currently is. Maybe Carrier will be one of the last times this is done.

 

[Jludo]

I've not seen anyone saying that it should be "selective". I've seen people say that it should be done across the board. There has to be a starting point. Just because Carrier was the starting point doesn't imply that it's the end point as well.

Can't have it both ways. Even if you have full faith in the promise that those taxes will be lowered for everyone (No guarantee) Carrier was given a special deal, they are promised the tax relief no matter what, other companies still have to wait and see.

Populist Republicans appear to be for free markets until they aren't.

“The free market has been sorting it out and America’s been losing,” Mr. Pence added, as Mr. Trump interjected, “Every time, every time.”

 

[hoosierdoc]

Explain to me how trump can lower carrier's taxes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I did...Because a bail out is different from a tax incentive...I will always be on the side of lower taxes...I don't care how it's doled out and to whom...Any time we are not feeding the beast is a good thing for me....

I have accepted that no matter what Trump does folks are going to question it....I am satisfied that the next four years Trump is going to do what he does best...Proving people wrong in under estimating him.....

I laughed at that video.

But whether you give money directly or indirectly to a party, you're using government to "pick winners" and by not giving it to others, you're using government to "pick the losers". The recipients are gaining advantage or dispensation for their mistakes while those that aren't are having to stand on their own and still compete. I'm all for generalized tax cuts, reduction in government's size, scope, and reach, but I'm not wild about special treatment, doing it for political reasons -- whether it's done when a democrat does it or when a republican does it.

 

[Jludo]

I think the bigger question is what we want our government to do. Trump was elected on his promise, not to ensure a free and fair market, but to make deals to keep jobs in America.

“I think it’s very presidential. And if it’s not presidential, that’s okay ... because I actually like doing it," Trump said. “But we’re going to have a lot of phone calls made to companies when they say they’re leaving this country, because they’re not going to leave this country.”

 

[Jludo]

Who?

Those who argue Indiana did the right thing dishing out tax breaks if it saves jobs.

 

[indiucky]

I'm having a hard time accepting that no matter what Trump does, folks are going to support it. Elected leaders should be more like raising kids. Only praise them for doing truly praiseworthy things, scold them for doing scold worthy things. And be consistent about it. Two kids doing the same thing shouldn't get opposite responses because you favor one over the other.

I agree....

 

[Woobie]

Can't have it both ways. Even if you have full faith in the promise that those taxes will be lowered for everyone (No guarantee) Carrier was given a special deal, they are promised the tax relief no matter what, other companies still have to wait and see.

Populist Republicans appear to be for free markets until they aren't.

“The free market has been sorting it out and America’s been losing,” Mr. Pence added, as Mr. Trump interjected, “Every time, every time.”

I'm not sure how many republicans are free market. That's why we have a tax situation in Indiana that leaves us giving out tax incentives to companies who are leaving.

But as I've been saying, this is almost a red herring. The $7 million was additional to the more motivating terms of the agreement. And that should have been obvious.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think the bigger question is what we want our government to do. Trump was elected on his promise, not to ensure a free and fair market, but to make deals to keep jobs in America.

“I think it’s very presidential. And if it’s not presidential, that’s okay ... because I actually like doing it," Trump said. “But we’re going to have a lot of phone calls made to companies when they say they’re leaving this country, because they’re not going to leave this country.”

Maybe he'll finally figure out what exactly needs to be done so that those phone calls no longer need to be made (or at least not nearly so often)...not in the micro sense but in the macro sense. That would benefit us all.

 

[indiucky]

Those who argue Indiana did the right thing dishing out tax breaks if it saves jobs.

As a Libertarian I am all for tax breaks, lower taxes, etc.....I just can't get on the side of taxing companies or people so bad that they have to move to a foreign country or move heir money off shore....It's just not something I believe in...As a small business owner I can't tell you how happy the prospects of lower taxes makes my wife and I....


So I am one of "those people" who will always be on the side of lowering taxes and giving tax breaks to companies who stay....It's just a core principle of my Libertarian philosophy......As long as the beast gets less money to waste I am happy....

 

[Jludo]

I'm not sure how many republicans are free market. That's why we have a tax situation in Indiana that leaves us giving out tax incentives to companies who are leaving.

But as I've been saying, this is almost a red herring. The $7 million was additional to the more motivating terms of the agreement. And that should have been obvious.

Either the 7 million was trivial compared to the loss of govt contracts and shouldn't have been offered or it did play a substantial enough role to be needed. The fact that tax incentives and threatened govt. contracts were used in concert does not, in my estimation, make criticism of the tax breaks a red herring.

 

[Twangbanger]

Here in a couple months, the news reports of single moms falling behind because all they can find is McJobs will once again be head lining the news. All those working aged men that are largely ignored will be paraded back into the public eye when the "journalists" once again decide there is news in their stories of greedy businessmen leaving them behind in quest of $0.04 in stock prices.

I hope those "journalists" stretch first though...After 8 years of not having to bend over backwards and twisting and distorting to get their stories out, they're likely to be rather stiff and out of condition--they might pull something.

It's a double-standard, but I'll take it. One of the reasons I wanted Trump to win is because I wanted the narrative to change. (On a variety of topics). And just to see politicians being held accountable for the job situation again, even if they have limited control over it, and even if it's quote-unquote "My Guy" taking the heat, seems like a positive return to normalcy to me. I thought it was a travesty for Obama to be reelected by the public with the sxxtty, and albeit rigged, unemployment rate that was in place. No sitting President had ever been reelected with an unemployment rate like that. That in my opinion was the media not doing its job, with all the fawning "bringing us back from the brink" bullsxxt story they swallowed without critical examination (an unimpressive improvement that would have happened regardless of who was President, with the Fed schlepping 80 Billion a month of QE based on policies already set before Zero was in office). That's where you get young people like Jludo having a, "I've never had a stable job - so you shouldn't either" type of attitude. That's the young people of America having their expectations lowered, and being dutifully trained to expect less for their lives, in line with the teachings of Globalism. So if it takes the orange-haired huckster to remind the Press what their fraacking job IS once again, keeping politicians focused like a laser beam on economic issues that affect little people, I'll take it.

We all have our level of hypocrisy. How many of us decried GM getting bailed out when they saved 10's of thousands of jobs, plus the untold 2nd and 3rd tier jobs that would have been jeopardized if GM would have been allowed to go bankrupt? Yet, I'd wager many of those same people are cheering the government involvement of only a 1000 +/- jobs. We all find ways to rationalize one thing over another when in actuality, there's really not that much difference between the tow.

I'm guilty as-charged. But I do see a significant difference between what Trump did here, which is focused on a specific number of jobs that are required to be saved, and a massive, unfocused blank-check at the Treasury level which is primarily designed to save one of Wall Street's major borrowing customers, on-paper, in a way that is not specifically focused on any number of jobs saved, and in fact allows the flight to Mexico to continue apace while the Bailout agreement is in place. As it came off, it sounded like Wall Street was just saving a section of its clientele, because auto companies with large cash flow (and their considerable Tier-1 supply base) are substantial customers of Wall Street borrowing, even when they're not profitable. That was not a job-saving agreement. That was a public-private "credit-extension" agreement.

For the level of Federal involvement that occurred in that Bailout deal, I would have been looking for the companies involved to give up something in the way of their outsourcing privileges as lobbied-for under NAFTA. I understand that's not how it works, under the old regime. But that would seem like a "Trumpian" move to me: "OK, you're coming to the Fed for a bailout, let's talk about modifying some of your NAFTA activity." That's one way of "rejiggering" NAFTA that could have been creatively employed...without changing the underlying legislation...if you had a President interested in wielding the power and doing it. Which Obama obviously wasn't. Yes, other companies wouldn't have gotten the deal, so it's "crony." But when you're talking about a Bailout, the concept of the Free Market is officially out the window and off the table at that point. To me, that's the time when you say, "All right, NAFTA isn't working out the way some people envisioned, and since you two are some of the biggest offenders, and you're now sitting in front of the Bailout desk...let's have that conversation."

It didn't happen. It didn't even try to happen. OBAMA CAMPAIGNED ON THAT, for chrissakes. But see: the people who wrote NAFTA, were organizationally the same people who were sitting at the bailout table. I hate cronyism; but the worst sort of cronyism is the type with a ratchet mechanism that is only allowed to work against middle-class workers, never for them. It's more of that "Tough-Love Libertarianism for Thee - but Not for Me" attitude that makes people so mad at politicians, and makes a Trump Presidency into a thinkable possibility for many people.

The solution here is not to achieve Free Market Purity. I don't think that's possible, although it would be nice. What I think the long-term project for the GOP is, is how do you get as many non-Liberty voters as possible to be "tricked" into voting for the Presidential candidate who is slightly better on Liberty issues, in a "lesser of evils" environment, than the other candidate? And I think the most achievable way to do that, short of wiping out cronyism, is to have a President who is willing to at least show those non-Liberty voters that he's willing to intervene, and make that "Cronyism" work for _them_ sometimes, instead of always being a ratchet that works against them 100% of the time.

Or, you can eschew that kind of bilateral cronyism, pass your little purity test, and keep nominating unliateral cronyists like Mitt Romney. But understand by doing that, you earn the disgust and/or indifference of the vast number of Americans who comprise the non-Liberty middle class. You end up with President Hillary Clinton promising free sxxt, and you get Merrick Garland on the Court. Your choice. But I, for one, do not see those choices as anywhere near equivalent.

 

[Jludo]

As a Libertarian I am all for tax breaks, lower taxes, etc.....I just can't get on the side of taxing companies or people so bad that they have to move to a foreign country or move heir money off shore....It's just not something I believe in...As a small business owner I can't tell you how happy the prospects of lower taxes makes my wife and I....


So I am one of "those people" who will always be on the side of lowering taxes and giving tax breaks to companies who stay....It's just a core principle of my Libertarian philosophy......As long as the beast gets less money to waste I am happy....

I know libertarians don't agree on anything but I think you'd be hard pressed to find another who agreed with you on this point. Govt' officials lowering tax rates only for specific companies is the government picking winners and losers. X company you have to pay us more than Y company does to do business our this state.

 

[Woobie]

Either the 7 million was trivial compared to the loss of govt contracts and shouldn't have been offered or it did play a substantial enough role to be needed. The fact that tax incentives and threatened govt. contracts were used in concert does not, in my estimation, make criticism of the tax breaks a red herring.

Well now we're talking about negation skills, which is a separate subject. But you also have to remember, the CEO doesn't just have to sell this to the board, but to shareholders. Tax incentives sell well. So they give him a small sum to offer his constituency, if you will, as a peace offering for leaving a brand new factory empty.