Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it's a shame that you want all those people to lose their jobs.
I'm very happy that all those folks get to keep their jobs, but it's corporate welfare and I thought we didn't like to do that. What about the fines/taxes/repercussions for companies that move production outside the US to make money? Why do we have to use our taxes to bribe them to stay here?
I'm very happy that all those folks get to keep their jobs, but it's corporate welfare and I thought we didn't like to do that. What about the fines/taxes/repercussions for companies that move production outside the US to make money? Why do we have to use our taxes to bribe them to stay here?
While not a 100% analogy, why did we have to use our money to bail out failing companies, and wall street too?
Regardless of those jobs staying, Carrier still wants to make US operations competitive in the long run. And guess what that means, yup, automating these jobs so ultimately workers will still lose their jobs.
While not a 100% analogy, why did we have to use our money to bail out failing companies, and wall street too?
Several things.
The GM bail was much larger in scope and with much more in the way of serious systemic economic implications in 2009. GM being about 1% of our GDP, and its failure at the wrong economic time.
With the bank bails, most of the money was Fed money, not taxpayer. And any actual tax money in TARP was repaid.
Regardless of those jobs staying, Carrier still wants to make US operations competitive in the long run. And guess what that means, yup, automating these jobs so ultimately workers will still lose their jobs.
I figure they're in it over the short term to secure those tax credits. Then, they automate all they can automate and when they lay off those factory workers, they convert those jobs to white-collar staff in the HQ to keep the appropriate number of employees to be eligible for whatever he's promised them.
And, nobody in the warehouse, except maybe some of the management, will ever be headed to HQ.
So, they'll be out of work soon.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The GM bail was much larger in scope and with much more in the way of serious systemic economic implications in 2009. GM being about 1% of our GDP, and its failure at the wrong economic time.
With the bank bails, most of the money was Fed money, not taxpayer. And any actual tax money in TARP was repaid.
The Fed has no money, it all comes from the people.
If fiat currency works, stop taxing the citizens and companies and let the Feds fund the government with "their money".
The Fed has no money, it all comes from the people.
If fiat currency works, stop taxing the citizens and companies and let the Feds fund the government with "their money".
The Fed can indeed create its own money, as done with QE. This is all Fed/bank money, not for general circulation.
Taxing at the Federal level is not necessary to fund its operations. If all done that way it would undoubtedly be seriously inflationary. But you knew that.
The 'Fed' is not the 'Feds'. To some extent the Fed does fund the Feds. Since the Fed created $2.5T to swap for a like amount of US Treasuries in banks, the Fed sends the Feds about $80B/yr in interest payments.
So now you realize that the deal Trump made is bad and you want to blame Obama ,Pence is still the governor let him do it ,it's not Obama's job to stop companies from moving,or should I say it is not the Presidents job to do it.
Normally agreed, but Obama should be doing more for our domestic economy than he is. Trump as president-elect has already made a larger impact in these matters than Obama has been willing to do.
If anything it shows a deficit in how much Obama should care and how much he actually cares about certain matters important to domestic policy.
I for one, although I think Trump is proving to be an idiot via Twitter, really welcome a strong approach to our domestic problems first, then the world. Obama has taken the opposite approach.
Normally agreed, but Obama should be doing more for our domestic economy than he is. Trump as president-elect has already made a larger impact in these matters than Obama has been willing to do.
If anything it shows a deficit in how much Obama should care and how much he actually cares about certain matters important to domestic policy.
I for one, although I think Trump is proving to be an idiot via Twitter, really welcome a strong approach to our domestic problems first, then the world. Obama has taken the opposite approach.
That's not accurate at all. Most people forget Obama imposed a tariff on imported tires during his first term (likely because he did not hold a "victory rally" with all of the cameras and pomp in front of a Goodyear factory). But the end result was that it ended up costing the U.S. more jobs than it saved due to depressed levels of consumer spending.
Quote:
We had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires — or — or cheap Chinese tires. And we put a stop to it and as a consequence saved jobs throughout America. I have to say that Governor Romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case; said this wouldn’t be good for American workers and that it would be protectionist.
But I tell you, those workers don’t feel that way. They feel as if they had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously.
If the price of gas were to go up $1 tomorrow, Americans would be screaming bloody murder. So imagine prices on a general basket of consumer goods increasing by 33%. People would obviously spend less on everything and that in turn would slow economic growth.
That's not accurate at all. Most people forget Obama imposed a tariff on imported tires during his first term. But the end result was that it ended up costing the U.S. more jobs than it saved due to depressed levels of consumer spending.
If the price of gas were to go up $1 tomorrow, Americans would be screaming bloody murder. So imagine prices on a general basket of consumer goods increasing by 33%. People would obviously spend less on everything and that in turn would slow economic growth.
That shows that he imposed poor trade policy, but how does that show a difference in the deficit in caring about this group of people? What has he DONE to signal even trying?
What has he done since then that even alludes to that? I've heard closing coal, and solar this, can't save your job that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about the fines/taxes/repercussions for companies that move production outside the US to make money? Why do we have to use our taxes to bribe them to stay here?
