Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Palin Slams Trump Carrier Deal

What Trump did was not crony capitalism. UT/Carrier was going to move to allow it to be competitive in the market. Trump intervened and insured that it could remain competitive in Indiana rather than Mexico. There was no intent to upset the A/C market.

What the hell do you call it when O went and "bailed" out GM in 2009 for $50 Billion?
That was an outright buyout in which the bond holders were told to suck it up and the taxpayers were forced to pony-up. The US Treasury lost over $11Billion on its re-sale to stockholders.

This is about keeping jobs in the US. So to Palin and others here, it would have been better for them to move to Mexico? Really? Palin and others better got off their high horse and started thinking what the "forgotten American" has endured for the last 8 years.

Trump has an initiative way about him in some cases where he will pickup the phone and deal with an issue. Carrier was a campaign issue and just waiting for Trump to follow-thru on. He did, much to the employees delight.
Trump has stated his goal is to drop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%.
If anything like that happens, lookout Ronald Reagan and the Dems have been crushed for a generation.

Palins' 15 minutes of fame has but a few grains of sand left in the hourglass.

Well, she's no movie star, but when she first came on the scene she was passable. Of course, there's been a lot of wear and tear since then.

Personally, that voice of hers gives me the shrivels.

Challenging the Trump revolution is no way for a Republican to get ahead.

Palin has been yesterday's news for quite a while. Her attempt to gain relevance again by jumping into the path of the Nationalist movement is ill advised.

Maybe CNN will give her an interview or two. But she's done.

Sounds like he offered up $65mm of tax money to give to Carrier to pay those 1100 workers. What a genius of a deal maker! This could get expensive, watch the companies line up now for their Trump welfare.

Here's a plan that doesn't cost anything. If Carrier or any other company moves jobs out of the US to Mexico or anywhere else, the products made there aren't allowed back into the US. Period. Might change their calculations a little bit eh?

The power we have is our market, we should be exerting it.

Palin wrote in her op-ed for the Young Conservatives: "I am ecstatic for Carrier employees!"
But worried that the deal will encourage more deals and more "burdensome federal government imposition."
"Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember?" Palin wrote. "Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail."

"Gotta' have faith the Trump team knows all this. And I'll be the first to acknowledge concerns over a deal cut by leveraging taxpayer interests to make a manufacturer stay put are unfounded — once terms are made public.”

It has been a number of years since I saw/read the 20K number stated earlier. It could very well be a larger number by now. Regardless. It was well worth the initial investment...

Sums it up nicely.

Yep. Just another example is the State of Calif. gave gigantic tax breaks to the Hollywood studios to keep them from sending almost all film and teevee production to "tax friendlier climes."

Some stuff is still shot out of Calif., but nothing like what would have happened without the favorable tax breaks.

L.W.

Who cares? I hear Mexico is nice this time of year. Moving to Mexico could be a nice change. No one ever said Mexicans were smart, leaving such a nice country to come to America, a place already ruined by both Mexicans and Liberals.

Mexican Lives Matter!

We don't need a dictator telling companies how to run their business, and we don't need to micromanage deals with individual companies. We need to create a business environment that's advantageous for companies to stay here. If we do, not only will they stay, but other companies will do business in our country and employ Americans. MORE government intervention is never the right answer imo. We already have too much of that now.

8/5/11 Pennsylvanians4Palin shares:
Of the five governorships examined, Alaska under Palin saw the smallest increase in total debt outstanding (12.7% cumulatively, 4.2% per year). Texas under Perry performed worst, with total debt increasing 20.5% annually, almost tripling during his term (a cumulative increase of 184.2%).
On a per capita basis, only Utah under Huntsman performed slightly better than Alaska under Palin. Utah experienced a cumulative increase of 6.8%, versus 7.4% for Alaska (1.4% per year for Utah, versus 2.5% per year for Alaska). Again, Texas under Perry ranks last, with an astonishing cumulative increase in debt per capita of 140.4% (15.6% on an annual basis).

Total Liabilities
Alaska under Palin was the only state to see a reduction in total liabilities (34.6% overall, 11.5% per year), due in large part to the Governor’s insistence that the State’s surplus be used to pay down unfunded pension obligations and forward-fund education. All other states experienced cumulative increases in total liabilities, ranging from 19.5% for Massachusetts under Romney to 60.6% for Texas under Perry. On an annualized basis, other states showed increases ranging from 4.9% for Massachusetts under Romney to 8.2% for Utah under Huntsman.

Under Palin, Alaska’s total liabilities per capita fell 37.7% (12.6% per year). All other states experienced cumulative increases, ranging between 18.7% (Massachusetts) and 34.3% (Minnesota), and annual increases, averaging between 4.0% (Texas) and 4.9% (Minnesota and Utah).

Here in Indiana we have a $2 billion surplus in the bank. We can afford to give $7 million in incentives to retain 1,000 jobs that pay an average of $60,000/year. With our state income tax rate at 3.1%, that's almost $2 million/year in state income tax, with about a 4 year payback.

Federal government benefits from this - that's about $60 million/year in income that was going to go off the tax roles but now will be taxed. Plus social security, Medicare, etc...

Wonder how many other states would pony up more than that to attract those 1,000 jobs???

In its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class. In the U.S. today, though, it's often used as shorthand for "the services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes.

No, it's called corporate welfare. Plain and simple.

you dont sound like you have much of a clue about big business either.

Lets see how many new Jobs Donald creates, all he did was big mouth a result when all that happened was state money is being used to prop up Carrier. Every other manufacturer is now gunna expect the same treatment

Obama created 16 million jobs since being elected so get back to me when Donald has 1/10 of his success. He has achieved squat to date

No.

Again, you did not.

U.S. population is a lot bigger today than during the 1980s, so Reagan created more jobs on a proportional basis than Obama has. And adjusted for inflation, take home pay was a lot higher under Reagan.

comparing Reagan to Obama makes absolutely no sense, you really can only compare the previous player Bowsinger.

1400 laid off.
26 weeks of unemployment about 18 million on Indiana.
2.5 years of TAA and TRA with retraining,about 150 million.
Watching Trump succeed saving American jobs making American products.
priceless..

dave