The same crony capitalism that was criticised under Obama.
And exactly what Don himself criticized on the campaign trail.
So who will be the next company to hold some state for ransom with the threat of leaving?
no one or entity is getting the $700,00 for several years. State is keeping them here--done all the time with monetary incentives.
Also, cost less than 1.5% of the 1000 jobs that were saved.
(no message)
You read it incorrectly.
And I'm sure the 10% of the parent company's revenue that comes from government contracts was never mentioned.
Your gymnastics is great.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Too bad the $500M infusion didn't save them. They still went bankrupt. But, they probably were able to channel alot of that $500M back to the Dems in the form of political donations.
Let me know when you want actually to stop shit like this, regardless of party.
They are a huge govt contractor.
He had to do this to save face, but I bet they get more than $500 million in the new Trump spending plans.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
were crucifying Obama for the green jobs breaks and gubment help are cheering this deal.
(no message)
(no message)
ended up overseas.
You guys are just humorously funny trying to justify big govt and big business Don.
not?
undisclosed "economic incentives". Meebe they will tell us what they are, but it sure smells like crony capitalism to me. In fact, Trump specifically campaigned in PA against doing that type of thing.
I know, I know, you can't take him literally when he lies.
(no message)
That government not give tax payer money to companies.
That government not pick winners and losers in the market.
And that people on this board are even mildly consistent.
you will ever be.
The problem with you guys is that you have been spouting a line of BS for years most of which I happen to agree with. Now comes a guy who wants to do some of what you have been railing against forever to pander to his base.
For example there is NO FUCKING WAY there can be a stimulus package of a trillion dollars without deficit spending especially with a promise not touch entitlements. You can't be in favor of that with a core principal of no deficit spending.
You can't rail against past deals benefiting private companies and then say that what Trump did with Carrier is kosher. You know how much bidness they do with the govt? If you think this was a 700 K deal, then there is a bridge in Brooklyn you need to buy.
It really is humorous to watch the unraveling of principal here.
forward. I prefer to see the whole picture before being judgmental. A correctly executed stimulus plan should pay back the investment through taxes collected and create jobs. The Soetoro plan gave away the money to special interests home and abroad. Regarding the Carrier deal, I stated that I do know the ins and outs of the deal. Someone claimed to know, but I did not. My only statement was I like that those 1000 jobs will stay here.
deficit spend to do it.
Of course, all Keynsian economics is based on the assumption that in the end the end the govt spending will pay for itself. The problem is that it never does.
I love how you have now embraced Keynsian economics. Mr. Free Market Conservative. Bwahahahaha.
even attempt to project the future effect. If you invest in infrastructure, at least to positive things happen. People get jobs. Tax revenue from them and the companies return finds to the coffers. Again, I do not know all of the details of the projected economic plan and neither do you. But, I am willing to give a plan that puts people to work, brings in taxes, and repairs infrastructure a shot. Where it get balanced in the budget, I suggest saving almost a half trillion a year providing free benefits to illegal invaders and use that money to put Americans back to work and rebuild the infrastructure.
You have to see his whole plan in order to judge. That is not available yet to comment on. Sens the invaders home home and the stimulus is paid for and American go back to work and more tax revenue is raised. In addition, the money earned stays here, as opposed to be sent to foreign countries.
You don't need to see the whole plan to know you can't spend that kind of money without increasing the deficit.
I doubt you were so willing to wait and see the whole plan when Obama proposed much the same thing.
long for Soetoro's plan to be exposed as a scam and time proved it to be a fucking joke.
(no message)
(no message)
get off your high horse
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You really have sunk to the bottom.
regime. Please tell me that subtle reminders are not in play in these types of negotiations. There were companies in the past that threatened to cut off their services to the US gov. if they did not get their way during time of war. Surely you know, that even if through the back doors, folks are not reminded that they can take their business elsewhere. I would say that in this case, it would not even have to be mentioned.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Those companies have laid off nearly 4000 employees while shifting jobs overseas.
I'm sure this is a great deal though.
Carrier is also still shifting other jobs overseas.
I eagerly await the Tea Party response.
Pull yer head out of yer political ass and breathe, if only for a moment.
Sheesh. You are feeble.
Goldman certainly isn't the first to hail the potential benefits of a Trump presidency. Dubravko Lakos-Bujas and Marko Kolanovic, quantitative analysts at JPMorgan Chase and Co., also wrote that many of Trump's policies would be "pro-growth," even while uncertainty about specifics remains high
Mnuchin is a former Goldman guy and you are shitting yer pants over Carrier?
Just wait, tuba boy.
I'm shocked that a bank-holding company likes a guy that has vowed to cut taxes and deregulate banks and Wall Street.
And you have an odd definition of shitting one's pants.
..about an event(s) that has(v)en't happened.
What's wrong with cutting taxes, Comrade? You work for Wall Street, whether you like it or not.
You don't think it will be a bigger deal when the governor isn't on the ticket?
And sure, tax cuts are good in a vacuum. I would be perfectly happy to never pay them again.
(no message)
How great would we be if everyone was like Lance?
Did you complain back then?
I just don't like a crazy person running the country.
P.S. In reading my crappy, I was pretty feckin spot on about Barry. You should listen to me more.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=223735
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The 1000 Indy workers need to raise their game and think bigger and bolder. Make something that matches US high standards of excellence.
Too many half ass lolly gaggers in this country.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Saved a lot of jobs.
You also know that Soetoro's stimulus and crony capitalism saved and created jobs?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
This isn't facebook dude, make a point that stands on it's own...
People on this board are fucked.
Typical you...
(no message)
But someone has to take out the trash.
Funny that this started with a simple post calling LT out on some BS, something that happens 5 times an hour here.
Look at the few posts you choose to engage with, it's a bully pattern.
And then we get the Seargent Shultz routine... Take a stand, pussy.
Or call out Baron.
The protection of the shut in is cute, though.
I know your type, and in my experience, the only intervention that works is phsical in nature.
Put down the hard liquor and go to bed.
You show up
Snipe at people
Get defensive when called on it.
Disappear
See ya in 3 months, chump.
(no message)
But I'm sure you will link to others as the crazy man's protector.
Have a good one.
Setting that aside for now, what was your point when you posted about 10M jobs? Surely, it wasn't that 10/17 is a great ratio going forward...
Ray Donovan is almost over.
Until the next time I am bored and want to call people out on their hypocrisy.
You can claim this as a victory.
That's what I thought, see ya.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I was talking about our previous DEFCON discussion, LT, in which you said we were at 3 or whatever.
stalking too.
(no message)
Link: You forgot this because you are fucking crazy.
And you admitted to being a shut in.
was. I may have described myself as a temporary shut in at one time due to recovery from one of the 18 surgical procedures that I have had. However, that is radically different from what you suggest.
As it says on the weirdo website you linked in the original discussion.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Illegal. Ya subscribe to that?
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=218254
not a member of the Tea Party. I listed their views from their website to show comparison. Read the line that says that I do not belong to either. That does not mean that agree with all of the Tea party positions, which I do not.
I can identify with the majority of the Tea party tenets. However, an exchange of emails with the local TP bigwig convinced me that I was not in line with all of their beliefs. I am in accordance with most of their viewpoints which as I said are not radical, but common sense American. I can say also that when they do protest, they do it in a civil manner, as opposed to the left.
was a typo.
Link: Values
The Tea Party does.
Yes or no.
(no message)
Do you subscribe to the tea party tenet that bailouts and stimulus plans are illegal?
A yes or no would work.
(no message)
So are bailouts and stimulus plans illegal?
IF so, how do you support Trump who wants to spend a trillion dollars on stimulus after lambasting Soetoro in multiple posts for doing it?
How can you also say you support the auto bail out if it was illegal?
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=292554
listed my own values. You will see that they are not the same, although similar, to the Tea Party.
Direct answer please.
little stimulus. It was more like a gift to green companies, many that failed. Thus, the obvious stimulation of the the economy was not achieved as a result.
as being a conservative value. You have also described it as one of a number of common sense American values. You have posted approvingly of the list including this tenent on at least four occasions.
Also, how can you have a core belief against deficit spending and support the Trump trillion dollar stimulus?
How can you be against Soetoro giving preferential treatment to certain companies, yet be in favor of this deal?
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=297812
considered conservative. I have already answered your question several times and that is sufficient. You cannot badger me into stating something that is not correct. I have answered your question numerous times. Believe what you want. I posted my beliefs here. End of story.
Link: My values.
If Soetoro proposed a trillion dollar stimulus or giving some company a sweetheart deal to stay in the country you would have been hollering. In fact you did holler bloody murder over the Soetoro stimulus. So did I.
How can you say you are against deficit spending, yet embrace Trump?
You can try to weave and dodge but you can't justify it.
Just like you can't square how you posted approval on multiple occasions of a set of principals that you describe as common sense American values which include that stimulus plans and bail outs are illegal and now claim they are okay sometimes.......like when Don advocates them.
try again, unsuccessfully, I might add to tell me what I feel regarding the stimulus failure.
First paragraph: you are making assumptions regarding how I would have reacted to something that never happened. Not worthy of response.
2nd paragraph: I will wait to see is budget and tax plans before commenting. I do not promote deficit spending and I have not heard DT doing that either.
3rd paragraph: I have no need to weave and dodge. I have been accused of the opposite by those that know me, of being to straight forward.
4th paragraph: your comment makes no sense. I have said that the bailouts were legit. The Soetoro stimulus was a joke, as it provided no stimulus to the economy. That does not mean that I say that all stimulus spending is inappropriate.
It's not a matter of winning or losing, but simply pointing out your extremely partisan hypocrisy.
I'm not the one who posted a common American value is that stimulus and bailouts are illegal, yet now try to defend them when Trump proposes them.
I also don't support a trillion dollar Trump stimulus while claiming that one of my core values is no deficit spending.
That's all you LT.
confuse what I clearly stated MY values with what I said many Conservatives believe. I will add that they are all common sense when compared to the radical left which was the point I was making at the time.
I have been quite clear that the bailouts and stimulus plans were legal. In addition, I added that the Soetoro so-called stimulus plan was a failure from the get go. That is a fact.
It remains to be seen what the Trump plans do. Unlike the failed Soetoro plan which fed money to failed green companies here and overseas, the Trump plan is to rebuild our infrastructure here at home. That is what Clinton and Soetoro promised and never even attempted. Time will tell what happens the Trump plan.
There is no hypocrisy on my part.
Explain to me how one of your own stated CORE principals is no deficit spending, yet you are going to wait and see if a plan to spend one trillion dollars in a stimulus violates that CORE principal. Give me one rational, conceivable way that spending a trillion dollars on a stimulus wouldn't involve deficit spending and violate your own stated CORE Principal. I really want to harrow that would posdibly work without massive borrowing and deficit spending.
Go ahead Mr. Keynes, I really want to hear this.
(no message)
This no deficit spending is your CORE principal. Yet you are going to wait and see how you can spend a trillion dollars, cut taxes, and not deficit spend?
With that good night. It's too ridiculous to even engage with you anymore.
(no message)
You can't spend a trillion dollars without increasing the debt.
You just look stupid denying the obvious.
can be financed by sending the illegal invaders home at savings of almost a half trillion a year. Together with the tax revenues from the new workers and the companies, it may or may not work. I will say it again, you need to see the whole picture of the budget, the tax plan, etc. There is a difference between deficit spending which you know will never be recovered, and a plan that through proper budget cuts (illegal invaders for one), and additional tax revenues could pay for itself if done right. In addition, provide the much needed repairs.
You just think and live in a fantasy world.
It's just not worth the effort.
(no message)
(no message)