"It's math and logic. I love it"

Dec 1 2016 Fox news: America's Newsroom

Mellisa Francis: "The Obama Administration was both too lazy and too dumb to do things like this. This is exactly what Trump is going to do going forward and it makes economic sense. That's what's important and best for our country, overall."

Martha MacCallum: "Workers here get $23 an hour. Workers in Mexico, for this job, were going to get $3 an hour. So they figured out a way to close that gap, with regulation cutting, tax cuts, and whatever other kinds of tax incentives they were given to stay there. It's fascinating, actually, and we're going to see wherever else it snow balls."

Mellisa Francis: "It's math and logic. I love it."


What?? So essentially she loves corporate welfare. She loves that the poor working class taxpayers, that they supposedly are championing and will ultimately be paying that $20 dollar to keep those jobs.

I thought his plan was to penalize these big companies from taking jobs out of the country? Will they be penalized for the more than 1k jobs that will still go to Mexico?

originally posted by: NoAngel2u
Dec 1 2016 Fox news: America's Newsroom

Mellisa Francis: "The Obama Administration was both too lazy and too dumb to do things like this. This is exactly what Trump is going to do going forward and it makes economic sense. That's what's important and best for our country, overall."

Martha MacCallum: "Workers here get $23 an hour. Workers in Mexico, for this job, were going to get $3 an hour. So they figured out a way to close that gap, with regulation cutting, tax cuts, and whatever other kinds of tax incentives they were given to stay there. It's fascinating, actually, and we're going to see wherever else it snow balls."

Mellisa Francis: "It's math and logic. I love it."


What?? So essentially she loves corporate welfare. She loves that the poor working class taxpayers, that they supposedly are championing and will ultimately be paying that $20 dollar to keep those jobs.

I thought his plan was to penalize these big companies from taking jobs out of the country? Will they be penalized for the more than 1k jobs that will still go to Mexico?

There is corporate welfare and there is creating an environment that is conducive to business. You seem to be confusing the two.

Capital is fluid and will go to where a business can operate most profitably. This is why states often times offer tax incentives to attract and retain businesses. What really needs to happen is that the US needs to reduce the regulatory and tax burden to the point that a company could in fact pay $23/hr and it is still more financially attractive to keep these jobs stateside rather than sending to some third world armpit where they can pay $3/hr.

As stated is it closing the gap between wages by reducing cost elsewhere whether it is tax burden, regulations or whatever.

I have a big problem with corporate welfare a la subsidizing businesses, etc. However, until congress and the senate get the balls to just completely reform the tax code so it is simpler, there will always be businesses and politicians attempting to use the tax code for favors.

a reply to: Edumakated

Query...

The regulations you would like to see relaxed or removed... would you care to comment on some specific regulations that you would like to see removed from the field of play, to ease the situation for business leaders?

a reply to: NoAngel2u

Her math sucks.

$23 hourly pay plus...

Social Security.
Workman's comp.
401k contributions.
Health insurance premiums.
Vacation pay.

Now you're closers to $45 hourly pay versus $3.

Wonder if she ever had an employee? I don't know her.

Lowering taxes on businesses and increasing tariffs on imports is not corporate welfare. It's creating an environment where businesses are more inclined to keep jobs in the United States.

Subsidizing businesses by providing them with taxpayer money to keep them afloat is corporate welfare. This is what happens to corn farmers, biofuel plants, solar plants, and green energy businesses, such as how obama gave Solyndra a $535 million dollar federal loan that will never be repaid. I could go on, because there's a big huge list of green energy businesses that have sucked huge amounts of taxpayer money that never reached fruition. The democrats love corporate welfare.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: NoAngel2u

Her math sucks.

$23 hourly pay plus...

Social Security.
Workman's comp.
401k contributions.
Health insurance premiums.
Vacation pay.

Now you're closers to $45 hourly pay versus $3.

Wonder if she ever had an employee? I don't know her.

She's a talking head on Fox.

Thanks for the replies all. I suppose technically, perhaps, it's not welfare, but considering what he said he'd do, its also not that either.

a reply to: NoAngel2u

People can complain all they want about corporations but so called free trade is the problem.

Trade will be free when the standard of living is the same in the countries involved.

You don't here many stories about companies closing down and moving to Germany. And ones that do are not doing it to save on payroll.

It's kind of hard to form an opinion when there are no details of the "deal"

The first thing that comes to my mind is... how can a President elect make a deal to cut taxes on behalf of a state?

There are so many it is hard to even digest it all... everything from OSHA regs, EPA, Healthcare, tax code, etc. It is like death from a thousand cuts. Every time some bureaucrat dreams up some new regulation, it costs time and money for a business.

Let me give you an example. I work in mortgage finance. We are extremely regulated. There were some new regulations that came out of the CFPB last year regarding disclosures that have been very burdensome. I work at a mid-sized company. We literally had to create an entire department of probably 5 or so new people just to deal with compliance of this regulation. These employees generate absolutely no value to the company. They don't generate revenue and are just a cost of operations adding several hundred thousand dollars to company payroll.

These costs get passed on to our customers in the form of higher rates. So everyone is paying for this useless regulation that made some politician and bureaucrat feel good.

In the case of manufacturing, it is lot easier sometimes to just move operations overseas for lower labor costs than to reduce costs in other areas.

EVERY business has to deal with the following formula... Revenue - Expenses = Profit. No entity other than the government can consistently operate at a loss so maintaining profit margins is essential.

Are you actually mad trump saved 1000 American jobs?
Seriously???

I know liberals despised capitalism but to actually root against American jobs is pathetic, even for a progressive..

-Chris

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
The first thing that comes to my mind is... how can a President elect make a deal to cut taxes on behalf of a state?

What state is Pence the Governor of? What state are the Carrier jobs being saved in?

a reply to: pteridine

What office does Trump hold in Indiana government?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
The first thing that comes to my mind is... how can a President elect make a deal to cut taxes on behalf of a state?

What state is Pence the Governor of? What state are the Carrier jobs being saved in?

Pence cat taxes either without the Indiana legislature.

originally posted by: Edumakated
There are so many it is hard to even digest it all... everything from OSHA regs, EPA, Healthcare, tax code, etc. It is like death from a thousand cuts. Every time some bureaucrat dreams up some new regulation, it costs time and money for a business.

So, previous to the creation of OSHA, which came about in something like 1970 if I recall, there were insufficient regulations preventing working people being asked to work in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, leading to greater tendency toward serious industrial accidents. OSHA came about because companies could not be trusted to do for themselves, what they should have been to protect both their assets and their workforces. What is it that you have a gripe about with that agency?

And as for the EPA, are you serious? I know it has some flaws, but doing away with the regulation entirely would leave companies free as a bird to dispose of waste any how they please, pump all manner of smog into the air willy nilly, and not blink an eye about it. I know you are smarter than to think that is a good idea! So what is your beef with these regulations specifically?

Let me give you an example. I work in mortgage finance. We are extremely regulated.

You damned well ought to be. No disrespect is intended, but the financial services sector has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted worth a damn to do its own due diligence, respect or protect the investments of customers or shareholders, and sure as hell cannot be trusted to protect the economy as a whole from itself.

There were some new regulations that came out of the CFPB last year regarding disclosures that have been very burdensome. I work at a mid-sized company. We literally had to create an entire department of probably 5 or so new people just to deal with compliance of this regulation. These employees generate absolutely no value to the company. They don't generate revenue and are just a cost of operations adding several hundred thousand dollars to company payroll.

These costs get passed on to our customers in the form of higher rates. So everyone is paying for this useless regulation that made some politician and bureaucrat feel good.

The trouble is, that first of all, the fact that the costs are being passed on to the consumer, is the fault of the greedy individuals who decided that they would rather charge the customer than take a pay cut at the executive level, like a person motivated by something other than greed would. Its not the fault of the regulation itself, and to be absolutely fair, its the industries fault that it failed, had to be bailed out, and is now under the microscope.

In the case of manufacturing, it is lot easier sometimes to just move operations overseas for lower labor costs than to reduce costs in other areas.

EVERY business has to deal with the following formula... Revenue - Expenses = Profit. No entity other than the government can consistently operate at a loss so maintaining profit margins is essential.

Businesses cannot operate at a loss, but even the directors of mid size financial institutions absolutely can and moreover SHOULD be prepared to take a hit to the pocket, if it means not having to charge more for services rendered. You do not start a mortgage company because you are hard up yourself. Thats the sort of business that one only starts from a position of being so loaded, that they could loose a fortune and still have ten more to back them up!

a reply to: Christosterone

This is my first "real" thread in the 6 years I've been a member, so that makes you my first troll, so for that you get a star. Depends on where you stand as to how liberal, or conservative I appear. lol

a reply to: TrueBrit

Nobody is saying all the regulations are bad or need to be eliminated. Though many are excessive and ridiculous.
The problem is that many other countries don't have these regulations.
You can't compete if you play by different rules.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The thing of it is this. If it is necessary for the well being of workers, their lives and limbs to be put at severe risk just because a corner needed cutting to save money, then there is a problem. If the entire world economy has to be put at risk for a small few to profit, then there is a problem. If oil companies cannot make a profit without endangering the ecological stability of the planet, then there is a problem, and the problem with all of these things is this. The things being put at risk by the removal of that legislation and regulation, is not worth risking for economic gain.

There ARE ways to save the planet and the jobs of American citizens, there ARE ways that businesses can make products without threatening the life and limb of workers and there ARE ways to protect economies and provide financial services. Those ways are not as simple and cheap as they could be, but they ARE a damned sight better than screwing up the planet, the economy, and the physical health of working people.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Corporations are not people, nor are they by nature civilized. They are financial barbarians. They are civilized by regulations. They slither off to countries with less regulations because they want to be wealthier barbarians regardless of the consequences to those they exploit.

Bhopal

a reply to: TrueBrit

I'm not saying we need to cut our standards, I'm saying we need to raise theirs.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Whose? Those of other nations?

I cannot see that working very well. There is not the taste for it. People are far more prepared to die for a pittance in other nations, than they are in the US.