It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump Reaches Deal to Keep Carrier Factory, Jobs in Indiana: Report

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Company closes and 1,000 people lose their jobs.

1,000 people go on unemployment, food stamps, medicare, section 8 housing, etc.

Company given incentives and tax breaks to remain....

1,000 people do not go on welfare, food stamps, medicare, section 8 housing.

So which is a better deal... giving a company breaks to keep jobs.. or having the state take care of all the people that will lose their jobs?

It all comes down to the dollar in the end.
edit on R502016-11-30T07:50:01-06:00k5011Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa


So which is a better deal... giving a company breaks to keep jobs.. or having the state take care of all the people that will lose their jobs?


Doesn't that strike you as being suspiciously akin to using workers as hostages? Why not trim executive salaries and lay off a few "management consultants?" It really depends on each individual case, doesn't it? If a company cannot compete globally, it doesn't make sense to pump government money into it, which is the case with many European firms.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

It's worse in most cases to give the company money.

1. It alters natural competition. Does the whole industry get the same welfare or did you pick a favorite?

2. Did you subsidize a failing model and hurt the competition with a better efficiency model?

3. Are you delaying the inevitable and creating a greater strain on the state?

4. How big is the budget deficit verse the subsidies? Are the subsidies paid for somewhere in the budget or does this come from roads and bridges?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RickinVa


So which is a better deal... giving a company breaks to keep jobs.. or having the state take care of all the people that will lose their jobs?


Doesn't that strike you as being suspiciously akin to using workers as hostages? Why not trim executive salaries and lay off a few "management consultants?" It really depends on each individual case, doesn't it? If a company cannot compete globally, it doesn't make sense to pump government money into it, which is the case with many European firms.


Nope not at all.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RickinVa

It's worse in most cases to give the company money.

1. It alters natural competition. Does the whole industry get the same welfare or did you pick a favorite?

2. Did you subsidize a failing model and hurt the competition with a better efficiency model?

3. Are you delaying the inevitable and creating a greater strain on the state?

4. How big is the budget deficit verse the subsidies? Are the subsidies paid for somewhere in the budget or does this come from roads and bridges?


5. Is it better to toss people out on the street and put them on government welfare?
6. Are employed people more likely to commit crimes than unemployed people?
7. Are employed people more likely to use drugs than unemployed people?
8. What benefits does the states get from giving companies tax breaks?

There are tons of questions you could ask/argue.

I really do not care...I am retired and my nice little income is guaranteed unless the government goes tits up.

Just throwing thoughts out there.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



I really do not care...I am retired and my nice little income is guaranteed unless the government goes tits up.


The government may need to cut costs somewhere. It's being run by a shrewd businessman soon.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RickinVa



I really do not care...I am retired and my nice little income is guaranteed unless the government goes tits up.


The government may need to cut costs somewhere. It's being run by a shrewd businessman soon.


I expect Trump to cut costs...that's why most people voted for him I would assume.

I personally hope he trims as much fat off the government as possible.


I personally have seen millions upon millions wasted... The FBI spent millions setting up a mobile communications system from the ground up that they could have simply copied a verified and working system that the Army already had in place for years for much much less money and people.

The government needs to be overhauled in the way they spend money.
edit on R082016-11-30T08:08:30-06:00k0811Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: In4ormant

I read the article in the OP. It says it there.


No it doesn't better re read it what it does is mention a tweet where someone jumped to a conclusion. What will most likely be in the deal is reduced taxes that's common to get a business to move to an area or stay in some cases. Lets face it taking in less taxes is better than no taxes and then you don't have to provide unemployment for displaced workers and they can continue to be taxed as well.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RickinVa

It's worse in most cases to give the company money.

1. It alters natural competition. Does the whole industry get the same welfare or did you pick a favorite?

2. Did you subsidize a failing model and hurt the competition with a better efficiency model?

3. Are you delaying the inevitable and creating a greater strain on the state?

4. How big is the budget deficit verse the subsidies? Are the subsidies paid for somewhere in the budget or does this come from roads and bridges?


5. Is it better to toss people out on the street and put them on government welfare?
6. Are employed people more likely to commit crimes than unemployed people?
7. Are employed people more likely to use drugs than unemployed people?
8. What benefits does the states get from giving companies tax breaks?

There are tons of questions you could ask/argue.

I really do not care...I am retired and my nice little income is guaranteed unless the government goes tits up.

Just throwing thoughts out there.



Hes talking about subsidizing the business no where does it say anyone Is doing that and I find it unlikely they are giving them any money at all. But his point are valid we do subsidize things that make no sense like requiring alcohol in our gas to subsidize farmers Or giving companies money because they make solar panels. When they cant seem to produce them cost effectively like other companies do. But in this case Carrier has a marketable product so no subsidies are needed they are only the number one manufacturer of heating and air.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Those are considerations but, a lot less so then the actual impact of playing favorites because you are most likely delaying an inevitable collapse.

The thing to do is retrain for new industry rather than promote failing ones. A basic income is probably a better model as it can provide some entrepreneurial head room for even small businesses like say house cleaning.

Usually tampering with the market opens up two leaks for one you fixed.

But yes you are correct there is a lot to think about.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Well it can not be worse than having the Federal government as the biggest employer in the nation, generating money for pension funds control by Wall Street.

That is the way things are run in America.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RickinVa

It's worse in most cases to give the company money.

1. It alters natural competition. Does the whole industry get the same welfare or did you pick a favorite?

2. Did you subsidize a failing model and hurt the competition with a better efficiency model?

3. Are you delaying the inevitable and creating a greater strain on the state?

4. How big is the budget deficit verse the subsidies? Are the subsidies paid for somewhere in the budget or does this come from roads and bridges?


5. Is it better to toss people out on the street and put them on government welfare?
6. Are employed people more likely to commit crimes than unemployed people?
7. Are employed people more likely to use drugs than unemployed people?
8. What benefits does the states get from giving companies tax breaks?

There are tons of questions you could ask/argue.

I really do not care...I am retired and my nice little income is guaranteed unless the government goes tits up.

Just throwing thoughts out there.



Hes talking about subsidizing the business no where does it say anyone Is doing that and I find it unlikely they are giving them any money at all. But his point are valid we do subsidize things that make no sense like requiring alcohol in our gas to subsidize farmers Or giving companies money because they make solar panels. When they cant seem to produce them cost effectively like other companies do. But in this case Carrier has a marketable product so no subsidies are needed they are only the number one manufacturer of heating and air.


I think if we didn't subsidize oil and gas to the tune of 43 billion then green energy and solar panel producers would have a much more fair market to compete. Giving people money to make solar panels is a drop in the bucket compared to oil subsidies.

Even if old and gas is more important for the energy structure it is so heavily subsidized it's impossible to know how competitive green energy would be.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: IAMTAT

Corporate welfare at its finest.



“Congratulations Indiana taxpayers! You involuntarily bought an inefficient AC factory,”




I love this story! I love that Liberals (like this guy) now have to be against jobs in the USA and against a President that works hard to keep jobs here. Liberals are consistently on the wrong side of every issue. It's going to be a great next 8 years!



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Well as a conservative,..I would say first off who knows what Trump did. His ford plant stuff was a total lie.

Second, did it require subsidies? If so are they accounted for in the budget.

Again no idea what trump did or if he did anything at all.

I can tell you as a staunch fiscal conservative his economic plan is very liberal in terms of deficit spending. Same garbage we saw under Reagan.
edit on 30-11-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I am sure this system will be very good to the big cities and foreign countries. If Goldman Sachs (Trump's economic team, just like Bush, Clintons, and Obama)cared about rural jobs, where are they? In Idaho all local and federal representation are republicans for 25 years. The small towns, schools, jobs died years ago. Our small city is trying to find funds to build homeless shelter so many have come here from surrounding areas. No one wants to hold their local representatives responsible because they are not democrats.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: jjkenobi

Well as a conservative,..I would say first off who knows what Trump did. His ford plant stuff was a total lie.

Second, did it require subsidies? If so are they accounted for in the budget.

Again no idea what trump did or if he did anything at all.

I can tell you as a staunch fiscal conservative his economic plan is very liberal in terms of deficit spending. Same garbage we saw under Reagan.


Fair enough. As a conservative myself I realize a true conservative will not get elected in the USA as POTUS. If there was anything I could wriggle on it would be budget/spending. Just having someone who loves their own country and wants to improve it is 1000x better than anything the Democrats can offer.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

How quickly everyone forgets that Carrier is in Indiana and Mike Pence is still the Governor of Indiana...

but forget all that....

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

That isn't absolutley true.

Sometimes when people, particularly under expirienced, try to do too much it's a disaster.

Now we could get lucky, but sometimes kicking the can is a safer option then a gunslinger.

For instance even though I agree with immigration being a serious problem and import tariffs not protecting American labor, I fully understand it's not something you can fix as a president without seriously crippling the market. Congress can over longer periods of time than 4 or 8.

The people have ro understand congress not the president is key to fixing issues. It is imparitive the right and left learn to compromise or we will continue to swing between half the population that is conservative and half liberal.

However there is and ton of common ground to be had.

If trump pushes through mass deportations and tries to impose trade tariffs the risks are supply lines getting choked even for American factories, and groceries becoming whole foods prices.

Now we are in a subsidy debt loop.

edit on 30-11-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
What possible deal could the president elect make? He doesn't have control of the purse nor can he change the tax code.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Pence is the governor of Indiana. Pay to play.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join