• 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

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.
 
Sounds sensible to me. She admitted she didn't know the details but put her theory out there anyway in what seemed to be a friendly reminder.
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:
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...

What is interesting about this deal is the seemingly low cost.
In order to keep 1000 or so jobs in Indy, it's only going to cost--allegedly--$700 per year.
That's practically nothing.
 
MaggieD said:
It's absolutely UNHEARD of for local and/or state gvmt s to give tax incentives to companies. Oh, wait...
Click to expand...
Hence, the hilarity of Prez Dump taking credit.
 
radioman said:
What is interesting about this deal is the seemingly low cost.
In order to keep 1000 or so jobs in Indy, it's only going to cost--allegedly--$700 per year.
That's practically nothing.
Click to expand...

They should have kept all 2000 jobs here, without any special incentives at all.

As I said, eliminate the benefits of moving overseas while selling in the USA, and all those jobs would stay here. :coffeepap:
 
Duplicate
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
They should have kept all 2000 jobs here, without any special incentives at all.

As I said, eliminate the benefits of moving overseas while selling in the USA, and all those jobs would stay here. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

He made a grab for her p*ssy. What did she expect?
 
MaggieD said:
You have a very strange definition of hilarity.
Click to expand...
"I'm not gonna address the fact that my President Dump threatened US companies who planned to leave.....and then pushes for tax breaks, no, Ima gonna talk about what you find funny"
 
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...

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?"
 
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...

All true.
If such a precedent has been set, I would guess it will be examined on a case by case basis.
What do you suppose the costs to the state/federal gov't would have been if those workers would have been laid off?
 
Considering US record low unemployment and jobs created in the past 3 years it seems Trump has lost humility on his recent howling of Carrier's decision to stay domestic after some "deal".
I can certainly give Trump recognition for a small deal. I am not sure this falls into conservative free market territory.
 
radioman said:
All true.
Click to expand...
then yer representation was all wrong.
If such a precedent has been set, I would guess it will be examined on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...
Yer not in position to have a say, I have no idea why you framed yer answer as you did.
What do you suppose the costs to the state/federal gov't would have been if those workers would have been laid off?
Click to expand...
I have no idea, and that isn't the point, the point is that Pres Dump was going to threaten Carrier into staying, his threat would have stopped ANY loses, or so the assumption goes. Instead, we have give-aways.

Some threat...."here, take my money" That'll make em quake with fear.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I have no idea, and that isn't the point, the point is that Pres Dump was going to threaten Carrier into staying, his threat would have stopped ANY loses, or so the assumption goes. Instead, we have give-aways.
Click to expand...

Yes, Trump did not save ALL the jobs.
But apparently, 1000 were saved at a minimal cost.
If 1/2 of all the jobs off-shored in the last decades could have been retained, that would be a good thing, right?


Some threat...."here, take my money" That'll make em quake with fear.
Click to expand...
I don't care about making any corporation "quake with fear".
I reiterate, if $700 per job is all that was needed to retain these jobs, it was money well-spent.
 
radioman said:
Yes, Trump did not save ALL the jobs.
Click to expand...
Another non-sequitur, you got a million of them.
But apparently, 1000 were saved at a minimal cost.
Click to expand...
Um, yer inflating it by 20%, but then I shouldn't expect accuracy from you.....carry on...
If 1/2 of all the jobs off-shored in the last decades could have been retained, that would be a good thing, right?
Click to expand...
Tax breaks and other races to the bottom is not winnable, so no, it would not be a good thing. A good thing would be investing into our strengths......but then yer still trying to steer the point away from what the Dump said.....and what he did.



I don't care about making any corporation "quake with fear".
Click to expand...
Of course you don't....and you are not interested in the lack of integrity in what Dump says...and then does.

I reiterate, if $700 per job is all that was needed to retain these jobs, it was money well-spent.
Click to expand...
That is per year, while another 1000-1300 Carrier positions are still leaving. Dumps promise of threats/consequences....was empty rhetoric.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Another non-sequitur, you got a million of them.
Um, yer inflating it by 20%, but then I shouldn't expect accuracy from you.....carry on...
Tax breaks and other races to the bottom is not winnable, so no, it would not be a good thing. A good thing would be investing into our strengths......but then yer still trying to steer the point away from what the Dump said.....and what he did.
Click to expand...

I've had this type of conversation with you before.
You're a weirdly combative poster.
Have a great night.
 
radioman said:
What is interesting about this deal is the seemingly low cost.
In order to keep 1000 or so jobs in Indy, it's only going to cost--allegedly--$700 per year.
That's practically nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, which let's you know just how bad our actual trade deals are that it's not really that much cheaper to manufacture things overseas.
 
Last edited:
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...

Donald Trump isn't president and therefore, couldn't.
 
radioman said:
Yes, Trump did not save ALL the jobs.
But apparently, 1000 were saved at a minimal cost.
If 1/2 of all the jobs off-shored in the last decades could have been retained, that would be a good thing, right?



I don't care about making any corporation "quake with fear".
I reiterate, if $700 per job is all that was needed to retain these jobs, it was money well-spent.
Click to expand...

But you're forgetting that for most liberals it's more important to hate Trump than to love this country.
 
reinoe said:
Donald Trump isn't president and therefore, couldn't.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom