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.

 

Bernie Sanders: Carrier took Trump hostage and won-- Carrier Will Leave-Trump pays them to stay

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The people upset by this I don't understand.

More Americans have their jobs, they aren't relying on food stamps, unemployment, government housing.

They are working and paying taxes and producing and spending money into the local economy.

That really used to be considered a good thing.




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The people upset by this I don't understand.

More Americans have their jobs, they aren't relying on food stamps, unemployment, government housing.

They are working and paying taxes and producing and spending money into the local economy.

That really used to be considered a good thing.


Until we started seeing that it's a farce and they just decide who gets grants, tax breaks, incentives, contracts.

I would be pissed if I was carrier's competition. I would be looking for my handout too.

It's the same with people who think tax breaks are awesome, then they find out how much revanue was lost and how many loans are required to pay for the deficit budgetary problems.
edit on 2-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




I refer you to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 6.1—Full and Open Competition:


1. What does the law have to do with being ethical:
Just because its a law it doesn't make it ethical . Kind of like how Black people had to go towards the back of the bus or segregation. Sometimes the law needs to be updated to do what is right.

2. Gov't regulations:
Like I said I don't see an issue with the US gov't playing a little more hardball or giving preference to Business that keep Jobs in the US? The only issue or ethical concerns I see are laws that our politicians have created that screw over the American tax payers.

3. Subpart 6.1—Full and Open Competition:
Where does Subpart 6.1 which you quoted says anything that prevents the Gov't from adding legalease to ensure American jobs are not shipped overseas?



edit on 511231America/ChicagoFri, 02 Dec 2016 15:51:27 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: interupt42

In other words regulate the free market.



What free market are you talking about?

The one that our gov't picks the winners and looser, when they decide to bail private industries on the tax payers dime?

Or the ones that force Americans to BUY health insurance?

I guess I'm not seeing your point?



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

It's a bad move is my point. A con tinuation of the same swampy ideas that have led to the failures and jobs being lost in the long run.

Like tax cuts that add a trillion dollars of debt a year and then blow up on the next president.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: DJW001




I refer you to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 6.1—Full and Open Competition:


1. What does the law have to do with being ethical:
Just because its a law it doesn't make it ethical . Kind of like how Black people had to go towards the back of the bus or segregation. Sometimes the law needs to be updated to do what is right.

2. Gov't regulations:
Like I said I don't see an issue with the US gov't playing a little more hardball or giving preference to Business that keep Jobs in the US? The only issue or ethical concerns I see are laws that our politicians have created that screw over the American tax payers.

3. Subpart 6.1—Full and Open Competition:
Where does Subpart 6.1 which you quoted says anything that prevents the Gov't from adding legalease to ensure American jobs are not shipped overseas?




So let's point out a very real situation.

You believe the gov should strongly persuade a business to stay in the US?

What if they have a worse model than their competition and they are failing because they are not good enough to compete.

You think preserving those American jobs is the way to go?



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: interupt42

It's a bad move is my point. A con tinuation of the same swampy ideas that have led to the failures and jobs being lost in the long run.

Like tax cuts that add a trillion dollars of debt a year and then blow up on the next president.


Honestly, I can't say if its a bad idea or not because I don't think the details have been released yet.

However, looking at the gov't track record from the past , its a pretty good chance what was negotiated will likely become a bad idea.


However my point in the previous posts was not about what trump negotiated ,because that is an unknown right now. It was more about the hypothetical situation where if he had played hardball with them.

I stated that I see nothing wrong with the US gov't playing a little more hardball or giving preference to Business that keep Jobs in the US under certain situations?

BTW I doubt this was the road Trump took, IMO I think he took the typical continuation of DC swampy ideas and gave them tax breaks.


edit on 041231America/ChicagoFri, 02 Dec 2016 16:04:10 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: interupt42

It's a bad move is my point. A con tinuation of the same swampy ideas that have led to the failures and jobs being lost in the long run.

Like tax cuts that add a trillion dollars of debt a year and then blow up on the next president.


Honestly, I can't say if its a bad idea or not because I don't think the details have been released yet.

However, looking at the gov't track record from the past , its a pretty good chance what was negotiated will likely become a bad idea.


However my point in the previous posts was not about what trump negotiated ,because that is an unknown right now. It was more about the hypothetical situation where if he had played hardball with them.

I stated that I see nothing wrong with the US gov't playing a little more hardball or giving preference to Business that keep Jobs in the US under certain situations?



It is being released.

Part of the deal was 7 million in tax breaks the taxpayers of Indiana are going to eat in lost budget revanue.

The deal is literally better then the one then they just were forced to pay back because the company took a grant and then decided decided it was going to Mexico. Basically the same behaviour a wellfare scammed would use on benifits. Like taking a Pell grant and never going to class.

The company totally played trump. It's hilarious really. And 1000 of the 2000 jobs are still going to Mexico. Nice work indeed.
edit on 2-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




You believe the gov should strongly persuade a business to stay in the US?

No , but under certain situation it might not be a bad idea to put preferences in the RFQ for keeping the work in the US.

Do you believe the gov should send top secret manufacturing jobs to the lowest bidder?



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier
And in 4 or 8 years they can move the whole thing to Mexico and still charge the same price....



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

If those companies are cleared to handle top secret information then yes I do.

The way these contracts work the employees don't always know the aim of the parts, and they have massive security provisions required once they get a contract.

So you do think failing business models should be propped up if the only way they can compete with their superior is to leave the country.

That sounds like socialism to me.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The reports are there are no provisions to penalize them moving they just loose the tax break. No payback, nada.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

See my post before you made yours



BTW I doubt this was the road Trump took, IMO I think he took the typical continuation of DC swampy ideas and gave them tax breaks.





The company totally played trump. It's hilarious really. And 1000 of the 2000 jobs are still going to Mexico. Nice work indeed.


I haven't looked at the details nor I believe all them have been released , so claiming failure or success at this point is premature. Well at least from me since I haven’t read them.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if trump turns into a swamp creature. Hence I didn't vote for him or Hillary, despite feeling with trump their was a .001% chance of positive change while with her there was 0%.


edit on 181231America/ChicagoFri, 02 Dec 2016 16:18:00 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Fair enough. I didn't vote swamp person either. They both stank.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So you don't want to see regular Americans employed.




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
They still are moving quite a few jobs out of America....just not as many.

And from what I read, they're going to be keeping low wage jobs at that. So this is what it comes to...more jobs, but more lower paying jobs.

America needs better paying jobs, not necessarily more jobs.

So start a business, and create a few of those jobs, that's what I did.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
All this so we can buy cheap crap.
We don't need all the cheap crap we have anyway. I look around my house and am sickened. how many fuzzy blankets do I need? how many sets of dishes, vases, chairs, shoes, handbags?

It's disgusting the way we consume. It's so much we barely really value anything anymore. ( Except jewelry.)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The people upset by this I don't understand.

More Americans have their jobs, they aren't relying on food stamps, unemployment, government housing.

They are working and paying taxes and producing and spending money into the local economy.

That really used to be considered a good thing.


Tell me about it. It's a win-win situation. Indiana just saved a bunch of tax payer dollars and a 1000 jobs. I'm glad Trump has plans to change our educational system, because it is obviously in dire need.
edit on 2-12-2016 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
It is better to pay a couple million to a company to keep hundred of people employed than send $1.5B in cash to Iran (by the democrats) to fund their nuclear program. Keep the money spending in your own country and not overseas! Just sayin.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Pouring fresh money overseas ensures that the US dollar is still being circulated and in demand.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join