• 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!

Palin Turns on Trump

reinoe said:
But you're forgetting that for most liberals it's more important to hate Trump than to love this country.
Click to expand...

For some liberals.
 
radioman said:
I've had this type of conversation with you before.
You're a weirdly combative poster.
Have a great night.
Click to expand...
I know, you don't like debates where you lose fact based argument.

cya.
 
radioman said:
Correct.
Trump isn't the prez and I'm not even certain that he had much to do with this deal.
Point is, retention of a portion of these Carrier jobs is a good thing.
Some posters can't accept that fact.
Click to expand...
Botsford161201TrumpIN9184.JPG


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...72c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.cabe87fa2026
 
radioman said:
Yes, and I would have preferred that Trump use UT's gov't contracts as a weapon also.
But he didn't and this deal isn't too bad.
If 10 million jobs could be saved for a measly $700 dollars each, it would be money well spent.
Click to expand...
If the 700 per job is accurate thats a net gain in tax revenue when you consider how much tax revenue is lost per job that leaves here.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
If the 700 per job is accurate thats a net gain in tax revenue when you consider how much tax revenue is lost per job that leaves here.
Click to expand...

Correct.
Add in the potential costs of supporting these newly unemployed workers and the benefits of keeping these jobs multiply.
Some people can't get past their contempt for Trump to acknowledge this possibility.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, it isn't money spent.....it is tax dollars not coming into Indiana. Further, it sets a precedent for other companies to ask "where is my cut?"
Click to expand...
It sets a precedent for companies to set up their shops inside our borders. This is a net revenue gain for the gov. Growing the economy grows the tax base.

Not to go off topic but if the repubs did by some miracle win enough of a majority in congress to pass a constitutional amendment. The single greatest thing they could do for the economy and the nation would be to repeal the 16th and impliment a consumption tax. That would return us to being the economic power we once were and more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
It sets a precedent for companies to set up their shops inside our borders. This is a net revenue gain for the gov. Growing the economy grows the tax base.

Not to go off topic but if the repubs did by some miracle win enough of a majority in congress to pass a constitutional amendment. The single greatest thing they could do for the economy and the nation would be to repeal the 16th and impliment a consumption tax. That would return us to being the economic power we once were and more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd be on board with that. I hate income tax.
 
radioman said:
Correct.
Add in the potential costs of supporting these newly unemployed workers and the benefits of keeping these jobs multiply.
Some people can't get past their contempt for Trump to acknowledge this possibility.
Click to expand...
I had not considered the welfare factor but thats a good point too. 700 per job is a steal to keep people working and with their dignity in tact. Wheres the lefts compassion when it comes to that?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
BrewerBob said:
Wow. The points she makes are rational and coherent. I am pleasantly surprised.

However, the fact she is making them against Trump at this point leads me to believe he did something to tick her off behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

Maybe told her directly that she is not qualified for a Cabinet job....
 
calamity said:
Oh is this ever going to be a great four years.

Sarah Palin: Trump's Carrier deal is 'crony capitalism' - POLITICO


lol...how long until they all realize that Trump is not a conservative?
Click to expand...
I just tead the link and what she said is true in a world where all things are equal. Free market trade works in that enviroment but thats not the world we live in.

The american worker enjoys higher living standards and workplace standards than most of the rest of the world. Also our industry has a higher burden of regulations to adhere to along with a higher tax burden. In these conditions the rest of the world will always have a trade advantage with us. Setting tariffs on imports and offering tax relief to domestic manufacturing is a reasonable way to counter those advantages and create equitable trade deals with our neighbors.

Its not americas job to enrich poorer nations with our wealth.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
It sets a precedent for companies to set up their shops inside our borders. This is a net revenue gain for the gov. Growing the economy grows the tax base.
Click to expand...
Um, losing 1000-1300 while "saving" maybe 800...for an undisclosed period of time...by giving away $7M...is not "growing" at all, it is a negative anyway you cut it.

Not to go off topic but if the repubs did by some miracle win enough of a majority in congress to pass a constitutional amendment. The single greatest thing they could do for the economy and the nation would be to repeal the 16th and impliment a consumption tax. That would return us to being the economic power we once were and more
Click to expand...
But you are going off topic with an insane theory that shifting fed tax to consumers will cause "greatness". It would be great fer the 1%.
 
They didn't keep a thousand jobs in the country. At the most they kept 700, the other three hundred were never leaving the country.And I have seen how this works in Wisconsin, they get the money up front and send jobs overseas anyway. That is why trump said during the campaing he would never do this and yet, here he is, doing what he said he wouldn't just to make a few political points. And in reality the state of Indiana did it and will pay for it. And in the end, the jobs will leave in a year or two, just watch. I find it funny that the cons complained when Obama lent money to the auto industry to keep several million jobs here in the US, all of which has now been paid back, and yet they cheer when Trump gies money to a company to "keep" jobs here and the State of Indiana will never see a penny of that money.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, losing 1000-1300 while "saving" maybe 800...for an undisclosed period of time...by giving away $7M...is not "growing" at all, it is a negative anyway you cut it.

But you are going off topic with an insane theory that shifting fed tax to consumers will cause "greatness". It would be great fer the 1%.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting those numbers from?

2ndly the theory is far from insane. Consumers already pay corporations taxes for them, its built into the price of their product.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
BrewerBob said:
Wow. The points she makes are rational and coherent. I am pleasantly surprised.

However, the fact she is making them against Trump at this point leads me to believe he did something to tick her off behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

Yep...

radioman said:
Uh-oh.......looks like Sarah didn't get that VA appointment.
Click to expand...

I guess not.

Captain Adverse said:
I was not impressed by the deal.

I'd prefer the original idea; dis-incorporate any "American" corporation that moves it's production and hires foreign workers overseas to strip it of all those home-field benefits, and then slap as many trade taxes and duties as possible on the goods they try to sell in the USA.

The only way you can affect any corporation is in it's pocketbook. As long as they get massive advantages relocating outside the USA while selling for massive profits inside the USA...nothing will change.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
trump going from dumbass to dumbass seems to be a developing theme.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I was not impressed by the deal.

I'd prefer the original idea; dis-incorporate any "American" corporation that moves it's production and hires foreign workers overseas to strip it of all those home-field benefits, and then slap as many trade taxes and duties as possible on the goods they try to sell in the USA.

The only way you can affect any corporation is in it's pocketbook. As long as they get massive advantages relocating outside the USA while selling for massive profits inside the USA...nothing will change.
Click to expand...

There is a better way to affect the pocketbook. Your way would be a restraint of free trade. Tariffs allow free trade but at a higher cost and that is what Trump is proposing. If the tariffs are at the right level, companies will benefit from staying here or even returning. It will increase the cost of imports to U.S. consumers but the reduced taxes and increased incomes that should follow would tend to ameliorate that to some degree. Also we have spent decades allowing the export of jobs in return for cheaper prices by our shopping habits. Maybe it is good that there is a consequence for that.
 
fmw said:
There is a better way to affect the pocketbook. Your way would be a restraint of free trade. Tariffs allow free trade but at a higher cost and that is what Trump is proposing. If the tariffs are at the right level, companies will benefit from staying here or even returning. It will increase the cost of imports to U.S. consumers but the reduced taxes and increased incomes that should follow would tend to ameliorate that to some degree. Also we have spent decades allowing the export of jobs in return for cheaper prices by our shopping habits. Maybe it is good that there is a consequence for that.
Click to expand...

There is practically no constellation ynder which tariffs are never the optimal instrument. They will reduce the general welfare of both countries. If the trade is causing domestic challenge in a country, it is better, much, much better to restructure domestically to compete more efficiently.
 
joG said:
There is practically no constellation ynder which tariffs are never the optimal instrument. They will reduce the general welfare of both countries. If the trade is causing domestic challenge in a country, it is better, much, much better to restructure domestically to compete more efficiently.
Click to expand...

No they won't. They will transfer some wealth between the two. One country will gain and the other will lose some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom