Carrier stays in US

[Minimalist]

No.  Not when the money is going to super rich corporate whores.... like Drumpf and his cronies.

[KUSA]

No.  Not when the money is going to super rich corporate whores.... like Drumpf and his cronies.

So you would rather see all those people lose there jobs. Sad.

---

We've now seen the corporate equivalent to negotiating with terrorists.

Threaten to move jobs, get huge tax breaks. In essence the people who actually pay taxes are now subsidizing these 1000 people. And of course Carrier is still moving jobs to Mexico.

Color me unimpressed.

States give incentives to businesses all the time to entice them to move to their state.

[Brian37]

No.  Not when the money is going to super rich corporate whores.... like Drumpf and his cronies.

BINGO

They will throw crumbs to get their supporters to back off yes. It will feel ok for a few years but the problem is just like it has been, it will be on the backs of tax payers long term. 

Reagan's deregulation caused a crash in the 80s

Caused the dot.com bubble in the 90s

And the triple  whammy of Bush with the housing/bank/car in 2007/8

So the scam is by the GOP "Oh shit, better throw them a bone they will eventually pay for but make it seem like it was their idea".

[KUSA]

No.  Not when the money is going to super rich corporate whores.... like Drumpf and his cronies.

BINGO

They will throw crumbs to get their supporters to back off yes. It will feel ok for a few years but the problem is just like it has been, it will be on the backs of tax payers long term. 

Reagan's deregulation caused a crash in the 80s

Caused the dot.com bubble in the 90s

And the triple  whammy of Bush with the housing/bank/car in 2007/8

So the scam is by the GOP "Oh shit, better throw them a bone they will eventually pay for but make it seem like it was their idea".

So what is your solution dumb ass?

[Kosh]

In essence the people who actually pay taxes are now subsidizing these 1000 people.   

Yes...isn't that what liberals want?

Naw.. Its true most liberals like a safety net for those most in need such as children. You know, those small humans that conservatives forget about after they are born.

In addition to that, most of us just want the rich ro pay their fair share.

Carrier gets 7 million in tax breaks. Who knows what military purchases were promised to Carriers parent company United Technologies. Purchases made with tax dollars.

[vorlon13]

the perception being in the 'rust belt' that Obama cares little for jobs as there is the safety net of unemployment insurance and welfare and Trump is being seen as growing the bottom line via retaining those jobs in the first place, thus building up some savings for democrats to blow on more social spending when they inevitably return to power


It's yin and yang, the cosmic balance, circle of life

[mihoda]

States give incentives to businesses all the time to entice them to move to their state.

And they should not. It's a form of collective action failure where everyone's marginal incentive is to do something that nets out poorly for the system.

[Aegon]

No.  Not when the money is going to super rich corporate whores.... like Drumpf and his cronies.

So you would rather see all those people lose there jobs. Sad.

Dishonest argument. The problem with this deal is that it established a precedent, one that says, "Hey, the government is willing to bend the knee to corporations to save a few jobs." So Trump can boast about the 800 jobs he saved while thousands more still get outsourced and they get millions in tax cuts. Of course it is a good thing that those people are keeping their jobs, but this is bad long term

[vorlon13]

'proof in the pudding' will be if the DoL under Trump quits cooking the books on unemployment numbers and Trump manages to lower the numbers regardless.

BTW, that is the CORRECT criteria for evaluating his performance in that regard, 'draining the swamp' is meaningless if we can't get honest numbers on all manner of important parameters like unemployment and inflation.

Eventually the blusterstorms of criticism of Trump have to give way to actual metrics we can look at.

[KUSA]

So you would rather see all those people lose there jobs. Sad.

Dishonest argument. The problem with this deal is that it established a precedent, one that says, "Hey, the government is willing to bend the knee to corporations to save a few jobs." So Trump can boast about the 800 jobs he saved while thousands more still get outsourced and they get millions in tax cuts. Of course it is a good thing that those people are keeping their jobs, but this is bad long term

So what is your solution?