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.
Indiana did, and it was chump change. $7 mill over 10 years. About $10k per job. States routinely offer incentives above $100k per job. This was a great deal, saving J-O-B-S that would have left had HRC won. Hundreds of families had a wonderful Christmas gift courtesy of our 45th POTUS, Donald J. Trump.
And many more who work for Carrier had a horrible Christmas because their jobs are still being sent to Mexico. Carrier is still planning to relocate hundreds of jobs there.
And many more who work for Carrier had a horrible Christmas because their jobs are still being sent to Mexico. Carrier is still planning to relocate hundreds of jobs there.
The 800 jobs saved would also be lost had HRC won, so this was the best outcome for USA families. Saved as many as possible.
The 800 jobs saved would also be lost had HRC won, so this was the best outcome for USA families. Saved as many as possible.
800 jobs is nothing. Plus they were offered 7 million in tax breaks and other incentives. All for keeping 800 jobs. And yet Carrier is still sending jobs to Mexico. Is Trump going to negotiate with every single company who plans to leave. Of course not. I never agreed with Sarah Palin but I do have to agree with her on this....crony capitalism
800 jobs is millions of dollars spent by the company to employ them... the liberals always lose when they don't value the people who want to work or respect the money used to employ people...
800 jobs is millions of dollars spent by the company to employ them... the liberals always lose when they don't value the people who want to work or respect the money used to employ people...
They are envious as it was a Republican who saved jobs. It is going to be a miserable many years for them, as 1/20 reminds them America rejected their criminal nominee.
He has not saved much of anything 700 jobs . Yet for some of his companies he is using outsourcing to bring in labor to fill positions.
Are you talking about Trump on a different planet? Of course he saved those jobs. And as far as buying a few shirts from a foreign mill, he has already addressed that. US Trade policy, or lack of it, forces him to do so.
And many more who work for Carrier had a horrible Christmas because their jobs are still being sent to Mexico. Carrier is still planning to relocate hundreds of jobs there.
What is your point? We already know that Obama's trade policy has been horrible for the American worker.
Huh? Are you actually saying that illegals and the wall are the cause of emissions and carbon footprints?
I am far from a math major, believe me, but let's talk this out a bit:
1) Let's say that each person can be assigned an arbitrary 'carbon footprint' number of 1 (for the purposes of this little explanation).
2) I put 10 people in a room .. and measure the 'carbon footprint' and now in that room there is a 'carbon footprint' of 10. So far so good .. I don't think one auto-reduces one's individual carbon footprint just by being in the same room as others. Doesn't that take other 'activities' (like paying a carbon tax - which is a hilarious way of saying paying graft for someone to look the other way or reduce your number on paper while you do whatever the heck you want .. but note .. this is not something the poor can afford to pay so they will be shafted on this one every time) or 'lack of activities' (like not going on that vacation or not buying that old junker car)?
3) I open the doors up and let in 40 more people .. and lo and behold, the 'carbon footprint' increases to ... 50. 1 for 1 correlation or close enough.
Are you following this? The way I think it works is that if you have x number of people in a country and you open up the doors and add a huge number of new people (especially if you do it quickly), that 'carbon footprint' most likely is going to rise significantly as they begin to add their emissions to our environment (and subtract them from their legal or former place of residence).
The idea of a wall (as most countries already have - it is called enforced immigration laws!) should at least keep the current total carbon footprint of America at a fairly stable spot, barring amazing new developments or changes in societal behaviour. That being the case, I doubt anyone with a brain would say that a 'wall' was a cause of emissions and carbon footprints ... rather its presence (literally or figuratively) can help to stabilize or possibly even reduce those. Illegals streaming in, in the absence of a 'wall' (literal or figurative), do NOT help to stabilize or reduce that 'carbon footprint'. Illegals being removed from the country will probably reduce the carbon footprint caused by emissions of those individuals in like manner.
(Of course there are other considerations here when it comes to total emissions or carbon footprint - but you brought up the wall which assumes you are talking only about individuals not corporations).
Seems to me that if you were able to reason any of this out at all, you would not have questioned the comment you did (unless of course you just did that to annoy or obfuscate?).
"The people hit the hardest are a lot of the demographics that went heavily for Trump."
"Others who didn't take Trump literally may soon face the same dilemma. The Urban Institute estimated this month that under the partial repeal plan previously passed by Republicans in Congress, 30?million people would lose insurance, 82 percent of them would be in working families and 56 percent would be white. Among adults who would lose insurance, 80 percent don't have college degrees..."
"Many of the functions that would necessarily face the ax under Trump's promises — job training, education, child-care assistance and the like — benefit groups that were Trump's strongest supporters. The cuts would disproportionately hurt red states in the South, mountains and plains that receive far more in federal spending than they pay in taxes...
"Such actions, undertaken by Trump and his Cabinet of billionaires, bankers and business tycoons, could cause some of those working-class Trump supporters to regret that they didn't take Trump's campaign utterances literally."
—Dana Millbank column, Salt Lake Tribune
Policies like those promising to come out of Trump's Cabinet don't look too good for the working class.
All that poorer Trump voters could see was the wall (and promise of mfg jobs which will probably never return in real numbers). The wall will probably never get built but that will be overlooked by supporters.
The working class that will be hit the hardest...voted Trump
1 couple of simple questions for you, How many "middle class" people have worked for Trump over his years of building and maintaining his businesses?
Obviously you do NOT understand he is in the CONSTRUCTION business and employs HUNDREDS of middle class construction workers at any given time.
And what about the "middle class" people ,who work in supplying all the materials needed to build these products?
How many middle class people work for him NOW?
Me thinks, you do NOT know what you are talking about.
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.
