• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Steel amendment stripped from Water Resources bill

TheDemSocialist said:
Im not arguing here on the basis of "competitive tax rates" Im arguing that you claiming that this deal was done via "free market principles" is ludicrous.


What does socialism have to do with any of this?
Click to expand...

But the market is competition. They used the market for leverage. That is ENTIRELY free market. They have the option of running to a friendlier climate, and we (our government) has the option to try to entice them to stay.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So the excuse for the Republican Party not passing this amendment is that its not January 20, 2017 yet? :doh
Click to expand...

You were talking about the influence DT has had on Congress. Now you move the goal posts to the whole Republican party. Congress isn't the "Republican Party". The "Republican Party" isn't Congress. Donald Trump isn't president yet. That's is either dishonest or ignorant. Your pick.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Apparently you dont understand my point. So Ill repeat myself: Arent Republicans flocking to his "deal" to "save" those Carrier jobs? They are praising him and yet they dont allow an amendment that would benefit American jobs?

-Are Republicans not upholding Trump "saving" these Carrier jobs? Arent they talking about how they are going to continue to "save" more jobs? Arent they trying to uphold themsleves as being good to workers? Why dont they put their money where their mouth is and pass this amendment which is good for American jobs?
Click to expand...

Got it...

You won't answer the questions.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Steel amendment stripped from Water Resources bill

Trump may have positioned himself as the champion of American workers but Republicans on the Hill are already embracing his “do as I say, not as I do” mentality.
Click to expand...

These, of course, are Republican elites who have been butting heads with Trump all along. I trust that when he takes office Trump will find a way to deal with them, or deal them out. Look for him to find allies in the Democratic ranks.
 
NonoBadDog said:
You were talking about the influence DT has had on Congress.
Click to expand...
All I have said of Trump here is that the Republican party is cheering his deal and have said they are going to work with him to "bring back jobs to America/save American jobs". If this is true maybe they should show by example by passing this amendment.....

Now you move the goal posts to the whole Republican party. Congress isn't the "Republican Party". The "Republican Party" isn't Congress. Donald Trump isn't president yet. That's is either dishonest or ignorant. Your pick.
Click to expand...
Havent moved the goal posts at all.

Gonzo Rodeo said:
But the market is competition. They used the market for leverage. That is ENTIRELY free market. They have the option of running to a friendlier climate, and we (our government) has the option to try to entice them to stay.
Click to expand...
The government picking one industry over the other by lowering that one companies tax rate and also giving it state credit is not free market.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The government picking one industry over the other by lowering that one companies tax rate and also giving it state credit is not free market.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. It's not like the government is giving Carrier an unsecured half-billion dollar loan for an unproven technology before its ready to go to market...

Any and all of Carrier's competitors are welcome to lobby the government for the same breaks, on the same threat of moving out of the country. The worst that happens is they move. It's not the same as gifting money to specific businesses in order to make them artificially succeed before the market will bear their operation without external support; the market WILL bear their operation somewhere else, just fine!
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Sure it is. It's not like the government is giving Carrier an unsecured half-billion dollar loan
Click to expand...
Essentially they kinda are. $5 million in tax credits among other things.

Any and all of Carrier's competitors are welcome to lobby the government for the same breaks, on the same threat of moving out of the country.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my point. The government giving you a break is not the free market. If the government is giving one industry a "a break" (be it a tax cut, credit, aid, etc) because they want them to stay that is not driven by the "free market". According to carrier "the market" was driving them to leave to Mexico but instead the government here intervined and said "we want you to stay so here is some tax breaks some credit and some "carrer development" aid, please stay".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Essentially they kinda are. $5 million in tax credits among other things.
Click to expand...

Giving an entity someone else's money is very much not the same as letting someone keep their own money. Also, $500 million is, oh, roughly 100 times more than $5 million. You know, give or take. So, it's not the same thing at all.


This is exactly my point. The government giving you a break is not the free market. If the government is giving one industry a "a break" (be it a tax cut, credit, aid, etc) because they want them to stay that is not driven by the "free market". According to carrier "the market" was driving them to leave to Mexico but instead the government here intervined and said "we want you to stay so here is some tax breaks some credit and some "carrer development" aid, please stay".
Click to expand...

Creating a more competitive environment is absolutely free market.

Michigan, for example, had a tax credit for film making. Michigan wanted film industry elements to move there, and created a climate to encourage entities to move. Michigan made themselves more competitive than other states for film makers. This was industry wide, trying to entice, more broadly, more industry elements

In the case of Carrier, the Mexican market is more competitive than the market here, so Carrier was going to move. They had to be enticed to stay. You know, if the entire market here was more friendly to businesses, these ones-and-twos wouldn't happen. If you want more industry elements to stay, make concessions to the entire industry. As more businesses threaten to leave, more and more individual entities will have to be individually bribed.

But I can totally see how one would assume they were given something special, if one were to be under the assumption that Carrier's earnings didn't actually belong to Carrier in the first place.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Giving an entity someone else's money is very much not the same as letting someone keep their own money. Also, $500 million is, oh, roughly 100 times more than $5 million. You know, give or take. So, it's not the same thing at all.




Creating a more competitive environment is absolutely free market.

Michigan, for example, had a tax credit for film making. Michigan wanted film industry elements to move there, and created a climate to encourage entities to move. Michigan made themselves more competitive than other states for film makers.

In the case of Carrier, the Mexican market is more competitive than the market here, so Carrier was going to move. They had to be enticed to stay. You know, if the entire market here was more friendly to businesses, these ones-and-twos wouldn't happen. But I can totally see how one would assume they were given something special, if one were to be under the assumption that Carrier's earnings didn't actually belong to Carrier in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thats not making it more competitive. Thats giving carrier an advantage over other companies.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Thats not making it more competitive. Thats giving carrier an advantage over other companies.
Click to expand...

If you declare other companies barred from such action, I would agree. However, that's not what's happening.

And again, Carrier is still allowed to move, and if it is advantageous for them to do so, they will. The fact that a company can have this kind of freedom for self-determination really seems to chap your ass.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
If you declare other companies barred from such action, I would agree. However, that's not what's happening.
Click to expand...
Just because one can lobby does not make it a free market based decision.....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Just because one can lobby does not make it a free market based decision.....
Click to expand...

And any other company is free to stay or leave as they see fit. Can you just not see that, or are you refusing to see that?

Striking a deal to have a smaller percentage of something as opposed to a bigger percentage of nothing is what we in the business world call a deal. Deals are part of the market.
 
PeteEU said:
Oh that is the excuse you going to be using when Trump fails massively as a President?
Click to expand...

And if he succeeds? What excuse will you have? Are you a fortune teller? Can you see into the future? :roll:
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Protectionism isn't exactly free market. And how much "more" can we get with cheaper steel? How many more projects can we fund, and how many more workers are employed, if the market is used to deliver less expensive goods?
Click to expand...

But protectionism represented the core of Trump's economic message. Seems as if he's being checked on it before he ever gets into office.
 
Fledermaus said:
Lets wait for him to get into office first.
Click to expand...

No dammit!!!!! HE MUST FAIL!!!!! Or it will expose Marxism for the failure that it's always been.

:boohoo:
 
Phys251 said:
But protectionism represented the core of Trump's economic message. Seems as if he's being checked on it before he ever gets into office.
Click to expand...

Trump said a lot of things. Much of it contradictory, and much of it we can only hope was political theater and no where near what he actually means to do.

That being said, protectionist policies aren't necessarily beneficial when broadening your scope beyond simply what the government gets back in revenue.
 
countryboy said:
And if he succeeds? What excuse will you have? Are you a fortune teller? Can you see into the future? :roll:
Click to expand...

He wont succeed, since he is already failing with the lies and appointments he is making. He is destroying American society and with that the planet.
 
PeteEU said:
He wont succeed, since he is already failing with the lies and appointments he is making. He is destroying American society and with that the planet.
Click to expand...

You seem to have no understanding of human resilience,
 
PeteEU said:
He wont succeed, since he is already failing with the lies and appointments he is making. He is destroying American society and with that the planet.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get it. He's "failing" because you don't like his "appointments". In other words, the leftist Marxist way, is the only way. You people should quit with the condescension, arrogance, and marginalization of any who disagree with you. Leftism is losing big around the globe because you people just won't come off your high horse. Well, be prepared to have that horse shot out from underneath you. ;)
 
PeteEU said:
Yes the Germans did come out of the destruction of Nazi Germany quite quickly..
Click to expand...

Again with the Nazi comparisons. This idiotic hyperbole is not helping you and your ilk. But that's a good thing, keep up the good work.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
And any other company is free to stay or leave as they see fit. Can you just not see that, or are you refusing to see that?
Click to expand...
I'm not refusing to see that. Hell I've pointed that out here twice now.

Striking a deal to have a smaller percentage of something as opposed to a bigger percentage of nothing is what we in the business world call a deal. Deals are part of the market.
Click to expand...
Using this logic, hell, anything can be "free market" principled then.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I'm not refusing to see that. Hell I've pointed that out here twice now.


Using this logic, hell, anything can be "free market" principled then.
Click to expand...

If Carrier went to Mexico, and we decided to enact a tariff on all of the things Carrier makes... but then gave Carrier's products a special exemption from the tariff while imposing the tariff on all Carrier's competitors, well I'd say you would have a point.

But that's not at all what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom