Trump to intervene to keep U.S. jobs at home on 'day-by-day' basis, Pence says - Polidicks

-snip-

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51477009] The US is just going to have to let these sorts of jobs go and take care of the people and provide education to open them up to new jobs. We most certainly aren't going to survive as a manufacturing powerhouse anymore, it's just not economically feasible in a global economy to pretend that we can.[/QUOTE] How long do you think we can survive as an incredibly import dependent country exactly? If China stopped sending us cheap products, what happens? Our economy is inherently flawed, when the dollar crashes (and we've been on track to be forced into a default for years), how many people will be happy then? Right now Americans live lavishly enjoying the strength of the dollar and cheap imports, I think that's inevitably going to change and I think assuming that we can live comfortably without a strong domestic manufacturing base to fall back on when international trade turns on us is naive. Even it most of the manufacturing line itself becomes automated, physically manufacturing here will still create jobs and their profits will put money back into our local economies, and if they do primarily become automated, then that means our products will become even cheaper. The amount of jobs involved in creating and running an automated factory would be boon enough even without the bonus of the cheap high quality goods it would produce. And once owners make a nice profit off of it, most likely they'll commission more factories, more jobs, more cheaper goods. There's nothing wrong with earning large amounts of money like that, it's the fuckers profiteering off of selling idiots debt they can't possibly afford that are a problem and deserve jail time if anything, those are the people impoverishing the most vulnerable people in our country.

[QUOTE=srobins;51477156]Okay? So I want a 20% tax break, I "hire" a workforce in India for pennies and then say I'm "bringing back" the jobs and collect my tax break. What's to stop me?[/QUOTE] A federal judge that realizes you're committing fraud to get a tax break.

[QUOTE=srobins;51477084]Yeah but can you explain how this is actually a bad deal without just saying "he's giving them our money!"? I've already laid out my own little napkin math explaining why I think this seems like a decent deal, where am I wrong?[/QUOTE] Isn't it more like $700 + 1 job lost per job kept? The ~1000 jobs kept are great for those families, but I think your napkin math leaves out a large portion of the real cost. The people that were put out of work are probably asking why we're paying Carrier to outsource.

[QUOTE=srobins;51477180] Based on what? You don't just get to say things and have them become true, you need to have at least some kind of reasoning or explanation behind them.[/QUOTE] dude, massive cuts to taxes need to be offset by something. The federal budget has been slimmed down for all of obama's presidency, the money to make up for those tax cuts isn't in the federal budget and so your other options are raise taxes on other stuff which probably won't makeup for the massive tax break, or hope the GDP grows massively which is farfetched. The only interim solution then is to just write it off as debt and hope we make the money up later the bush era tax cuts for which most of the republicans are basing these tax policies on were largely the product of a clinton era budget surplus at least initially, only they ended up becoming deficit spending as well.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51477205]A federal judge that realizes you're committing fraud to get a tax break.[/QUOTE] So a federal judge in his ultimate wisdom can determine when someone is defrauding a Democrat-endorsed tax break, but not a Republican-endorsed tax break? Okay. [QUOTE=1legmidget;51477208]Isn't it more like $700 + 1 job lost per job kept? The ~1000 jobs kept are great for those families, but I think your napkin math leaves out a large portion of the real cost. The people that were put out of work are probably asking why we're paying Carrier to outsource.[/QUOTE] There are two scenarios: A. No tax break. All 2000 jobs lost. B. Tax break. 1000 jobs lost. Which is worse? [QUOTE=Sableye;51477209]dude, massive cuts to taxes need to be offset by something. The federal budget has been slimmed down for all of obama's presidency, the money to make up for those tax cuts isn't in the federal budget and so your other options are raise taxes on other stuff which probably won't makeup for the massive tax break, or hope the GDP grows massively which is farfetched. The only interim solution then is to just write it off as debt and hope we make the money up later the bush era tax cuts for which most of the republicans are basing these tax policies on were largely the product of a clinton era budget surplus at least initially, only they ended up becoming deficit spending as well.[/QUOTE] Do you not think that each of those 1000 employees will pay some $700+ in income tax as a result of their being gainfully employed because of this deal? Because so long as they do, the deal breaks even, right?

[QUOTE=srobins;51477219] There are two scenarios: A. No tax break. All 2000 jobs lost. B. Tax break. 1000 jobs lost. Which is worse? [/QUOTE] neither, what about trump's original plan that gave the third option of carrier having the choice between a 35% import tariff, or all 2000 jobs staying in america? the one he promised on the campaign trail?

[QUOTE=srobins;51477219]So a federal judge in his ultimate wisdom can determine when someone is defrauding a Democrat-endorsed tax break, but not a Republican-endorsed tax break? Okay.[/QUOTE] Well, for one thing, I wasn't talking about political parties, I was just pointing out a major flaw in your plan to defraud a government organization. For another, there's a big difference between creating a tax break policy and giving special treatment to a company in order to keep a plant running by misusing your political powers.

[QUOTE=Judas;51477230]neither, what about trump's original plan that gave the third option of carrier having the choice between a 35% import tariff, or all 2000 jobs staying in america? the one he promised on the campaign trail?[/QUOTE] I would imagine it has something to do with him not being the president yet? [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;51477232]Well, for one thing, I wasn't talking about political parties, I was just pointing out a major flaw in your plan to defraud a government organization. For another, there's a big difference between creating a tax break policy and giving special treatment to a company in order to keep a plant running by misusing your political powers.[/QUOTE] If the judge can detect fraud in one bill what is stopping him from detecting fraud in Trump's bill? And what powers did Trump misuse?

I forsee this getting exploited hard by corporations. They'll take the big tax breaks, then slash wages/benefits and fuck the workers as hard as possible before outsourcing anyway in the future. What's to stop them from asking for bigger and bigger tax breaks to keep those jobs in the country?

He's so clearly in it for his own gain tbh

[QUOTE=srobins;51477233]If the judge can detect fraud in one bill what is stopping him from detecting fraud in Trump's bill?[/QUOTE] Well the fact that Trump's not planning to use a bill. According to Pence he's just gonna fucking wing it throughout the presidency and hope for the best.

[QUOTE=srobins;51476979]Trump's entire presidency is an affront to the Republican party, I don't really know what you expected, nor why you would upset that he's violating the tenets of a party you clearly don't care for.[/QUOTE] Violating the tenets of a party I don't like does not make the violation a smart move, and it's not wrong to point out the hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51477283]Well the fact that Trump's not planning to use a bill. According to Pence he's just gonna fucking wing it throughout the presidency and hope for the best.[/QUOTE] My understanding is that Pence is simply going to use his position as governor to authorize the deal, which as far as I'm aware is entirely legal and perfectly reasonable. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51477293]Violating the tenets of a party I don't like does not make the violation a smart move, and it's not wrong to point out the hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] That's fine, if you take issue with Trump violating the Republican party despite it being his entire platform, I have no issue with that. But it being anti-Republican doesn't make it a bad deal on its own, that's all I'm saying.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51477293]Violating the tenets of a party I don't like does not make the violation a smart move, and it's not wrong to point out the hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] with ryan planning a carbon copy ACA for medicare and Trump basically proposing a corporate offshoring scheme in the same vein as one the democrats proposed years ago and got voted down by republicans, hypocrisy doesnt even begin to describe it

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51476983][img]https://i.imgur.com/8TbP1a5.png[/img][/QUOTE] "United States is Open for Business" Business you say? [t]http://i.imgur.com/KwMm6l4.png[/t]

[QUOTE=srobins;51477156]Okay? So I want a 20% tax break, I "hire" a workforce in India for pennies and then say I'm "bringing back" the jobs and collect my tax break. What's to stop me?[/QUOTE] That's not quite how it works. You don't get a 20% tax break for checking the box of having moved a few jobs across the border at some point. It gives a 20% tax break based on insourcing expenses. If you move a company back into the US it's going to be more expensive to run it here but they're saying they'll give you a tax break for 20% of the difference. This means a tax break for [i]creating[/i] jobs. Trump's deal doesn't create any jobs, and actually gives a tax break to a company that is outsourcing, while there are 100% national companies who aren't getting anything. Does that sound like a good plan?

The whole carrier thing creates an awful precedent where any company could threaten to take their jobs out of the country only for trump to beg them to stay with a little ol' tax break as a incentive.

[QUOTE=Splarg!;51477342]That's not quite how it works. You don't get a 20% tax break for checking the box of having moved a few jobs across the border at some point. It gives a 20% tax break based on insourcing expenses. If you move a company back into the US it's going to be more expensive to run it here but they're saying they'll give you a tax break for 20% of the difference. This means a tax break for [i]creating[/i] jobs. Trump's deal doesn't create any jobs, and actually gives a tax break to a company that is outsourcing, [B]while there are 100% national companies who aren't getting anything[/B]. Does that sound like a good plan?[/QUOTE] This is the kind of thing I needed to make this all click, thanks for the reply. [I]That[/I] makes sense to me.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51477351]The whole carrier thing creates an awful precedent where any company could threaten to take their jobs out of the country only for trump to beg them to stay with a little ol' tax break as a incentive.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling that this is the kind of A+ dealmaker businessman stuff Trump was talking about and that we'll be seeing more policies akin to a sixth grader going "why don't we just print more money, duh!"

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51477199]How long do you think we can survive as an incredibly import dependent country exactly? If China stopped sending us cheap products, what happens? Our economy is inherently flawed, when the dollar crashes (and we've been on track to be forced into a default for years), how many people will be happy then? Right now Americans live lavishly enjoying the strength of the dollar and cheap imports, I think that's inevitably going to change and I think assuming that we can live comfortably without a strong domestic manufacturing base to fall back on when international trade turns on us is naive. Even it most of the manufacturing line itself becomes automated, physically manufacturing here will still create jobs and their profits will put money back into our local economies, and if they do primarily become automated, then that means our products will become even cheaper. The amount of jobs involved in creating and running an automated factory would be boon enough even without the bonus of the cheap high quality goods it would produce. And once owners make a nice profit off of it, most likely they'll commission more factories, more jobs, more cheaper goods. There's nothing wrong with earning large amounts of money like that, it's the fuckers profiteering off of selling idiots debt they can't possibly afford that are a problem and deserve jail time if anything, those are the people impoverishing the most vulnerable people in our country.[/QUOTE] Well, perhaps I used my language wrong. Of course we will need, and have manufacturing (most new manufacturing jobs and factories that remain are automation heavy,) but somewhat like how most people aren't in agriculture anymore (to a lesser extent,) we won't be able to give people jobs doing manufacturing and resource harvesting like we used to. Though I do disagree on them putting their profits back in the economy in regards to the wealthy. Jobs are created by demand and not by owners being gracious to have a large profit. So it is actually a problem that wealth is being concentrated in such a manner. If you want more jobs you want the lower classes to have more purchasing power to drive demand to open up more factories. Also unless you have something interesting to show for these points, there really isn't any reason to believe products will stop coming anytime soon, or hell, even that there's a horrible imbalance. When we talk just about goods yeah, there's the imbalance, but when we talk about how capital is going around it gets... complicated, but essentially a whole lot of capital is flowing into us as well. Also there's really no reason to believe that the US is going to default any time soon, the debt is worth being concerned about but defaulting really isn't on the table yet. If the US defaults it'll be a global nightmare most likely. Interests rates would climb everywhere which would make other nations default as well (one reason the US can happily have so much debt is that it's really cheap debt,) and then the chain goes on and we might actually beat the great depression and have the worst economic crisis in history. Local manufacturing won't really save us.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51477351]The whole carrier thing creates an awful precedent where any company could threaten to take their jobs out of the country only for trump to beg them to stay with a little ol' tax break as a incentive.[/QUOTE] fortunetly this probably won't work like this in a few months, the only reason why this deal went through was because pence is still governor of indiana and it was suddenly politically adventagious to actually do something about a problem which he has largely ignored for years and blamed obama for. the president honestly does not have much leverage over tax policy and there most likely arent many programs he could pull the funds from as president to directly subsidize these sort of things and further executive action on his part will be certainly challenged in court.

There's 2 main problems with the Carrier deal. 1) It's selective instead of general policy. Right now Carrier is getting something that competitors aren't. This gives Carrier an unfair advantage to other competitors. 2) We're propping up an industry that otherwise would naturally move out. We get a short term gain of sorts, but in the long term it stifles innovation in the market.

there is one thing to say about military industrial complexes in that ITAR basically prohibits companies from even considering opening up plants on foreign soil so jobs involved in military components or controlled technology have to stay here. where I work the stuff is automated to a point but its still pretty labor intensive to manufacture and the automation hasnt really been aimed at reducing jobs but increasing productivity and reducing worker fatigue.

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;51477470]There's 2 main problems with the Carrier deal. 1) It's selective instead of general policy. Right now Carrier is getting something that competitors aren't. This gives Carrier an unfair advantage to other competitors. [/QUOTE] I read Scott Adams describe this as the "New CEO Effect". Trump wanted to have a small win to give a "positive" first impression to his fanbase as president-elect. Doesn't excuse the fact that a specified deal like this is shit, but you get my meaning

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51477493]I read Scott Adams describe this as the "New CEO Effect". Trump wanted to have a small win to give a "positive" first impression to his fanbase as president-elect. Doesn't excuse the fact that a specified deal like this is shit, but you get my meaning[/QUOTE] I've lost a lot of respect for Scott Adams over the course of the election, especially when he pretend-endorsed Hillary Clinton because he thought there would be a race war if Hillary won and claimed he would be a "top-ten assassination target" due to his previous praise of Trump.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51477956]I've lost a lot of respect for Scott Adams over the course of the election, especially when he pretend-endorsed Hillary Clinton because he thought there would be a race war if Hillary won and claimed he would be a "top-ten assassination target" due to his previous praise of Trump.[/QUOTE] Oh it's obvious he's a pretty big troll. I just think his blogposts are strangely interesting. He treats Trump like a wild beast and he's David Attenborough.

[QUOTE=srobins;51477360]This is the kind of thing I needed to make this all click, thanks for the reply. [I]That[/I] makes sense to me.[/QUOTE] oh and also srobins, it's 700 $ per year per job only if in the next 10 years carrier doesn't cut more people out. me, i'd bet that they will indeed cut more people.

I thought the problem was that this isn't really the President's job nor will he have time to do this in the vast majority of cases, and this isn't how a government intervenes in the economy usually either. It seemed very informal to me. Trump can't act like a business man in office. He has to act like a politician.

[QUOTE=srobins;51477008]Okay, why? Like I said, I'm coming to this thread with an admitted lack of understanding so if someone can educate me on why this is bad I'll be happy to join you guys in the outrage.[/QUOTE] Gremlins ate my original reply, but I'll try to remember the points I made. This suggests that Trump doesn't feel at home Oval Office, so he'd rather continue striking deals with businessmen. If he does this on a daily basis, it's going to consume a great portion of his time and will leave more of actual governing to his cabinet, particularly Pence. Less time keeping up with the big picture and foreign policy will make him more dependent on his people, who don't seem entirely reassuring to me. Making it a policy to strike deals with individual businesses rather than making more general rules will make decision-making more opaque and dependent on president's person. This means that businesses will get different deals depending on how Trump perceives them and weakens market position of those that don't get to negotiate with him directly, hampering smaller and less-connected businesses. This creates fertile ground for secretive deal-making and favors, possibly even making an inner circle of favored businesses which have fast lane to government subsidies and contracts in exchange for favors. Competitiveness of market in general is weakened and new businesses are harder to start when existing ones have negotiated themselves privileges. Trump's proposal for more lax business legislation suggests that he may open more legal channels to cultivate this relationship. It's up to GOP how these will pass. Tariffs run the risk of retribution from countries they target and they may raise import restrictions from US. Combined with likelihood higher costs of US manufacturing, the move may weaken US's position in international markets. Individually other countries except China are in weaker position, but drastic enough measures may catalyze trade blocs where several countries ally to gain stronger position. While more domestic jobs are going to increase Americans' income in the short term, it might be offset with increased production and import costs. Trump's policies as demonstrated seem to be backward-looking and prone to micromanagement, which are not effective ways to go about. How does plan to foster innovation and new industries, just let free market deal with it? Free market on the whole responds poorly to inconsistent government intervention, which tends to be inefficient. It's often done to cater for special interest groups and rarely necessary. I wait with curiosity how dedicated to free market principles GOP is when their own president is protectionist and economic interventionist. Trump's approach is ballsy and risky. It may work for everyone, but more likely it centralizes power around president's office and its benefits are unevenly distributed. Personally I'm against decreased transparency and level playing field for businesses that seem inevitable with his approach.