Trump Tax Cut Layoffs Roll In

[calamity]

NO, your true bottom line is "I found something that I can twist around to blame Pres. Trump for and I don't care if it's accurate or not, I'm going to run with it"."

Add these 20K-plus jobs to the growing list of Trump related Layoffs.

As a solar company, we are devastated to learn Trump has imposed a 30% tariff on solar panels virtually killing the solar industry. Solar employs more people than coal and oil combined. today's decision will cause the loss of roughly 23,000 American jobs this year.

https://twitter.com/NOW1SOLAR/status/955579485998362625

MAGA

 

[Helix]

"difficult but necessary actions" / "tough decisions" generally means that your job is at risk and that upper management is about to make a **** ton in bonuses.

 

[sangha]

Learn to read...


All it's doing is using that savings to pay for the costs of having to downsize. It has NOTHING to do with the downsizing itself and if the tax cuts hadn't come, they would have paid for it out of other sources, but it still would have happened and the cost would most likely have been covered by an increase in prices. BUt being a TDS liberal, you can just ignore this truth and make one more lap around the block screaming TRUUUUUUMMMMPP!!!!

Yes, lets ignore the fact that this tax cut was sold as something that would create jobs so you can claim that the jobs were going to be lost anyway even though the article explicitly states that the tax cut is funding the costs associated with killing those 5000 jobs

 

[calamity]

Yes, lets ignore the fact that this tax cut was sold as something that would create jobs so you can claim that the jobs were going to be lost anyway even though the article explicitly states that the tax cut is funding the costs associated with killing those 5000 jobs

Faithful's post in a nutshell: Never has a counterargument so fully supported the argument he thought he was countering. :lol:

 

[faithful_servant]

lol...you do know that which you quoted said that KC is literally using Trump's tax cuts to lay off 5000 people. Right?

No, it's LITERALLY saying that it's using the tax savings to pay for the cost of laying off those people. It has nothing to do with laying them off, but KC is going to use that money to offset the expenses of the layoff. That's CRYSTAL clear in the article from the OP and you are intentionally ignoring that FACT in order to engage in your non-stop TDS.

 

[faithful_servant]

Add these 20K-plus jobs to the growing list of Trump related Layoffs.



MAGA

...and how many jobs making those solar panels here will it create? But that's asking you to be honest about something that Pres. Trump did that was a positive and I really doubt that you can do that...

 

[faithful_servant]

Yes, lets ignore the fact that this tax cut was sold as something that would create jobs so you can claim that the jobs were going to be lost anyway even though the article explicitly states that the tax cut is funding the costs associated with killing those 5000 jobs

The layoffs were going to happen one way or the other and they would have happened no matter who was president. Unless you can find a way to blame Pres. Trump for several years of falling birth rates here and in S. Korea.

 

[calamity]

...and how many jobs making those solar panels here will it create? But that's asking you to be honest about something that Pres. Trump did that was a positive and I really doubt that you can do that...

Lol...In a previous post you argued that Kimberly Clark using the Trump tax cut to downsize and cut jobs was not Kimberly Clark using the tax cut to layoff 5000 people. So, now you're arguing that Trump needed to destroy these 23,000 jobs today in order to create more jobs, maybe someday. :lol:

 

[sangha]

The layoffs were going to happen one way or the other and they would have happened no matter who was president. Unless you can find a way to blame Pres. Trump for several years of falling birth rates here and in S. Korea.

You have absolutely no evidence that they were going to be laid off anyway, the article contradicts you, and even if it were true, your argument destroys the rights claim that the tax cut would result in companies hiring more employees

 

[ludin]

from an actual real magazine.

Kimberly Clark Is Cutting 5,000 Jobs and Closing 10 Factories. | Fortune

instead of a hit piece.

tax cuts had nothing to do with it.
this was in the works before the tax cuts were in place.

once again another failed thread.

this company has been struggling for years.

 

[ludin]

The layoffs were going to happen one way or the other and they would have happened no matter who was president. Unless you can find a way to blame Pres. Trump for several years of falling birth rates here and in S. Korea.

ssshhh don't let facts get in the way of a good EMO.

 

[holbritter]

Just as I predicted, big business uses tax cut to expense layoffs and plant closings. Woo hoo!

Tax bill helps Kimberly-Clark plan for thousands of layoffs - Houston Chronicle

I'm sure 5000 people will be happy to know Trump's tax cuts helped get them laid off. Suckers.

They were going to do it anyway.

The company had been considering the restructuring program for much of last year, before Congress approved the tax legislation.

"Kimberly-Clark, a company with a long history of supporting American workers and manufacturing, is undertaking a restructuring program to retain its leadership in a rapidly evolving global marketplace by streamlining its operations and reducing costs in order to continue investing in its brands and long term growth," the company said in a statement. "The decision to undertake this restructuring program was made independently and not as a result of the recently passed tax reform legislation."

"Kimberly-Clark remains committed to American manufacturing, plans significant capital investments into its ongoing U.S. operations, and will remain a significant employer with more than 12,000 employees in the U.S.," the company added.
The company said it expects to spend about $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion by the end of 2020 to implement the restructuring program.

Kimberly-Clark to use savings from tax cuts to pay for layoffs | TheHill

 

[Vetplus40]

You mean Trickle Down doesn't work? :shock:

And the pool of angry voters waiting for November grows.....

Nope, but you have to be smarter than "Fox and Friends" to figure it out.

 

[Vetplus40]

Yep. The OP is deceptive.

As are many that you post as well.

 

[calamity]

They were going to do it anyway.

The company had been considering the restructuring program for much of last year, before Congress approved the tax legislation.

"Kimberly-Clark, a company with a long history of supporting American workers and manufacturing, is undertaking a restructuring program to retain its leadership in a rapidly evolving global marketplace by streamlining its operations and reducing costs in order to continue investing in its brands and long term growth," the company said in a statement. "The decision to undertake this restructuring program was made independently and not as a result of the recently passed tax reform legislation."

"Kimberly-Clark remains committed to American manufacturing, plans significant capital investments into its ongoing U.S. operations, and will remain a significant employer with more than 12,000 employees in the U.S.," the company added.
The company said it expects to spend about $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion by the end of 2020 to implement the restructuring program.

Kimberly-Clark to use savings from tax cuts to pay for layoffs | TheHill

So? Fact remains the tax cut enabled them to lay off 5000 people without financial pain. Now, how is that a good thing?

Oh, wait. Let me guess. You gotta cut 5000 jobs before you can create a few hundred new ones. Amirite?

 

[Linc]

So? Fact remains the tax cut enabled them to lay off 5000 people without financial pain. Now, how is that a good thing?

Oh, wait. Let me guess. You gotta cut jobs before you can create new ones. Amirite?

trump's losing the Union vote that carried him to his so-called victory.
The Indiana Unions that liar trump lied to are especially pissed ...

 

[calamity]

trump's losing the Union vote that carried him to his so-called victory.
The Indiana Unions that liar trump lied to are especially pissed ...

Ah, the Carrier jobs that were until they weren't.

 

[Proteus]

Again, 45 is a donkey raping **** eater. But you tweaked snowflakes act like nobody has ever been laid off before he took office.

These layoffs were going to happen regardless of anything he did or didn't do.

What I don't understand is with all the legitimate crap 45 can and should be criticized for, what purpose is served by manufacturing fake nonsense like this? Perhaps a quick re-read of the boy who cried wolf might be in order. :shrug:

 

[calamity]

Again, 45 is a donkey raping **** eater. But you tweaked snowflakes act like nobody has ever been laid off before he took office.

These layoffs were going to happen regardless of anything he did or didn't do.

What I don't understand is with all the legitimate crap 45 can and should be criticized for, what purpose is served by manufacturing fake nonsense like this? Perhaps a quick re-read of the boy who cried wolf might be in order. :shrug:

Perhaps the tale from which came the saying "death by a 1000 paper cuts" should be on your reading list.

 

[faithful_servant]

Lol...In a previous post you argued that Kimberly Clark using the Trump tax cut to downsize and cut jobs was not Kimberly Clark using the tax cut to layoff 5000 people. So, now you're arguing that Trump needed to destroy these 23,000 jobs today in order to create more jobs, maybe someday. :lol:

Everything you just said was a lie. Not one single word you tried to attribute to me was something I said.

 

[faithful_servant]

You have absolutely no evidence that they were going to be laid off anyway, the article contradicts you, and even if it were true, your argument destroys the rights claim that the tax cut would result in companies hiring more employees

The tax cut has NOTHING to do with KC's decision to lay off those people. Got it?? Do you understand that the decision was driven by a shrinking birthrate in the US and S. Korea as the article stated?? Can you read? Can you comprehend what you read? Are you able to honestly read something tells you something that you don't want to believe and actually believe it?? My guess is that honest answers from you would be "Yes", "Yes", "No".

 

[faithful_servant]

So? Fact remains the tax cut enabled them to lay off 5000 people without financial pain. Now, how is that a good thing?

Oh, wait. Let me guess. You gotta cut 5000 jobs before you can create a few hundred new ones. Amirite?

NO, the fact is that you have been shown that your claims were wrong and that the layoffs aren't the result of the tax cuts. But in spite of the facts being presented to you as clearly as possible, you are now in full blown defense mode and no facts will ever get you off of that. Truth isn't important, facts aren't important, honesty isn't important. The only thing that is now important to you is holding on to the lie you CHOOSE to believe. Is it so difficult to act like an adult and admit that you made a mistake?

 

[Proteus]

Perhaps the tale from which came the saying "death by a 1000 paper cuts" should be on your reading list.

:2rofll:

Great rebuttal. :thumbs:

And good luck taking 45 down with paper cuts.

 

[holbritter]

So? Fact remains the tax cut enabled them to lay off 5000 people without financial pain. Now, how is that a good thing?

Oh, wait. Let me guess. You gotta cut 5000 jobs before you can create a few hundred new ones. Amirite?

'Amirite'. Is that a word?

What do you care if it was painful or not? They were going to do it anyway, that's the point.

 

[calamity]

Everything you just said was a lie. Not one single word you tried to attribute to me was something I said.

:roll:

No, it's LITERALLY saying that it's using the tax savings to pay for the cost of laying off those people. It has nothing to do with laying them off, but KC is going to use that money to offset the expenses of the layoff. That's CRYSTAL clear in the article from the OP and you are intentionally ignoring that FACT in order to engage in your non-stop TDS.

Lol...In a previous post you argued that Kimberly Clark using the Trump tax cut to downsize and cut jobs was not Kimberly Clark using the tax cut to layoff 5000 people. So, now you're arguing that Trump needed to destroy these 23,000 jobs today in order to create more jobs, maybe someday. :lol: