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.

 

Sarah Palin: But… Wait… The Good Guys Won’t Win With More Crony Capitalism

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Source

In an op-ed Sarah Palin blasted the Trump Carrier deal to keep the company from shutting down its factory in Indiana;


When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.


I feel like I'm on crazy pills. Mama bear isn't falling in-line behind The Donald, how long will congress give him?


But know that fundamentally, political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist, versus establishing policy incentivizing our ENTIRE ethical economic engine to roar back to life, isn’t the answer. Cajole only chosen ones on Main St or Wall St and watch lines stretch from Washington to Alaska full of businesses threatening to bail unless taxpayers pony up. The lines strangle competition and really, really, dispiritingly screw with workers’ lives. It’s beyond unacceptable, so let’s anticipate equal incentivizes and positive reform all across the field – to make the economy great again.


'But he saved jobs! Don't you care about jobs?'

So what is? Crony capitalism or good negotiating?




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   


we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail


Ironic, since that's what Republicans do every chance they get.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
She should pin Trump to end Festivus.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Giving tax breaks to companies for several years is what Texas has done for many years and Tx economy is good. Plus no state income tax.

She forgets Trump is not yet president and can't do across the board tax breaks.

While she was well spoken, she was premature in making the statement and failed to recognize the 1000 people who will continue to be able to support their family.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

In MI for instance the dollar amount of tax exemptions is well into the billions. Medical and movie making namely.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I don't have any proof as to what exactly the deal was but I am pretty sure it was not a huge tax break so much as a reminder that Trump wants a 15% corporate tax rate that will be offset by tariffs as NAFTA gets gutted with a chainsaw. And for a clincher: Play ball and look at the sales numbers versus Traine when you get all the free good press for going America first on workers. Or kiss government contracts goodbye because as prez, Trump won't sign a spending bill that includes Carrier.

It is called hardball and Trump is very good at that.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Palin ends the piece by acknowledging that at this time any concerns are unfounded because no terms have made public.
She reiterates her trust in the Trump Admin
How is this blasting Trump?
It seems more like a cautionary tale in my opinion



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

LOL

You quoted the wrong parts out of context.

Keep up the good work !!




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Clearly Sarah Palin didn't write this op-ed. While it was more of a light admonishment (tact that once more suggests it wasn't written by Sarah Palin) than calling out Trump/Pence, the op-ed presented the standard conservative line on subsidization.

The fact of the matter is Trump isn't an ideological conservative. Trump is an ethically — and occasionally fiscally — bankrupt businessman who has spent his entire life lying, cheating and stealing. He pays some lip service to conservative ideology but in reality, he cares little for it with the exception that "traditionalist" political bodies like American conservatives are ripe for usurping by populists leading jingoist movements.

He is the poster child for crony capitalism.

As far as the Carrier "deal" goes, it's nothing that Pence couldn't have done himself as Governor and if it's such a great deal, it's something he should have done as Governor. Now that Trump has set a precedent by slapping his brand on it, expect an uptick in businesses crying for corporate welfare and threatening to offshore if they don't get it.

Bernie Sander's op-ed was much better.


Let’s be clear. United Technologies is not going broke. Last year, it made a profit of $7.6 billion and received more than $6 billion in defense contracts. It has also received more than $50 million from the Export-Import Bank and very generous tax breaks. In 2014, United Technologies gave its former chief executive Louis Chenevert a golden parachute worth more than $172 million. Last year, the company’s five highest-paid executives made more than $50 million. The firm also spent $12 billion to inflate its stock price instead of using that money to invest in new plants and workers.


Donald Trump used the carrot (or took credit for it at least) when he should have used the stick. If $7 million in incentives and a little public shaming is all it to save 1000 jobs, how many jobs could have been saved by threatening $6 billion in dfense contracts or tens of millions in existing tax breaks.

The whole thing was a PR stunt to kick off the victory tour. The fact that Sarah Palin was moved to get somebody to write an op-ed for her admonishing the deal should be a wake up call to Trump supporters.
edit on 2016-12-2 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So if companies pay less taxes and stay, we still get some taxes. Isn't that better than no taxes?

Also, if jobs leave, there is a strain on welfare and unemployment. So should we keep the high taxes? I agree they deserve to pay them, but if they leave what good does that do us?



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think you're missing his point. Carrier had no discernible reason to close the plant, their parent company pulls in billions in profit every year and they award their executives millions and millions of dollars in severance pay. Now companies know the deal, threaten to offshore and layoff a few hundred employees and get a few million in tax breaks.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Haven't you heard? The end goal of Progressivism is Feudalism. Maybe if you are good little children, daddy government will take all your income and give you an allowance so everyone ( on the same social rung) is equal and poverty is erased (by everyone being impoverished)...



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   


Haven't you heard? The end goal of Progressivism is Feudalism


Ha, that's the goal of the Republicans- all the money in power in the hands of 1% of the people, just like conservatism has always done and always will do.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

I think the Carrier deal was weak sauce. The company saved money by moving jobs out of the country, and saved more money by not sending all of the jobs out.

That said, they're doing what they're required to do as a corporation: build and protect shareholder value. The rules and "trade agreements" need to be changed. Make the US business-friendly from a tax standpoint, and enact tariffs on imports at varying rates designed to make it more expensive to produce and ship from elsewhere than it is to do so in the US.

If the cost of producing a widget in the US is $10, and the cost of producing it in China and shipping it to the US is $3, then slap an $8 tariff on it.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think you're missing his point. Carrier had no discernible reason to close the plant, their parent company pulls in billions in profit every year and they award their executives millions and millions of dollars in severance pay. Now companies know the deal, threaten to offshore and layoff a few hundred employees and get a few million in tax breaks.


Aka same thing that's been going on since nafta? Got it.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: links234

Giving tax breaks to companies for several years is what Texas has done for many years and Tx economy is good. Plus no state income tax.

She forgets Trump is not yet president and can't do across the board tax breaks.

While she was well spoken, she was premature in making the statement and failed to recognize the 1000 people who will continue to be able to support their family.

Palin is definitely not a representative of any Repub/Conservative group.....we found out how .,erm ,ignorant she was .



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Haven't you heard? The end goal of Progressivism is Feudalism. Maybe if you are good little children, daddy government will take all your income and give you an allowance so everyone ( on the same social rung) is equal and poverty is erased (by everyone being impoverished)...

Wonderful post....



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


Not all the jobs were saved. Talk to the 300-400 people still getting pink slips. It's important to remember that Carrier is still building that plant in Mexico and that will be filled with (presumably) Mexicans. In my view, to call the 'Trump' deal a victory Carrier would have to cancel the Mexican plant and move those jobs to the US. They're just going to move ahead as they planned, at a slightly slower pace, so both they and the PR Master General can reap the benefits of the PR coup.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Progressivism isn't limited to one party. The first progressive was Teddy Roosevelt who was a Republican before the party abandoned him and he ran under the Bull Moose Party.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join