Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.

[bussman]

Regardless of how it was done bailing out the auto industry was one of the good things Obama did. 

[racer254]

Just now, bussman said:

Regardless of how it was done bailing out the auto industry was one of the good things Obama did. 

I don't agree, but it's water over the bridge.

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, Mainecat said:

Its not sustainable economic policy you dolt.

Your debt levels are not sustainable and high corp taxes are choking your growth.

Keep piling it onto the next generation to pay for.

Get a clue.

 

 

 

[bussman]

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

I don't agree, but it's water over the bridge.

True. 

 

The banks should of never been bailed out though. 

[Snoslinger]

9 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

I have blasted programs like these before. Its a tax scam nothing more.

here's what likely happened, with carrier making out like a bandit - all the jobs, especially engineering, were likely not moving to mexico in the first place. entire engineering groups don't do that, production only. sure there are a handful to help set-up, but overall engineering centers do not make these moves. so now carrier makes trump believe their plan was to move the entire crew down, and they'll get tax breaks for that, and making themselves, and trump, look good to the people who don't know any better.

[Snake]

Again.... Forbes:

 

Compared to the airlines, GM has had a cake walk.

Indeed, four major airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after 9/11 (US Air and United in 2002; Northwest and Delta in 2005). Each company was restructured by a bankruptcy court according to the rule of law. In each case, creditors took haircuts and employees lost jobs and agreed to concessions in wages and work conditions. Each airline emerged from bankruptcy and continued to operate as a going concern.

There were no federal bailouts of any note. Planes continued to fly. Pilots, mechanics and flight attendants continued to have jobs, albeit there were fewer of them and their pay was less.

The four airlines had 204,000 employees on the dates they filed bankruptcy. They had 164,000 on the dates they emerged from bankruptcy. By this measure, bankruptcy cost airline employees some 20% of their jobs. The costs of bankruptcy were borne by employees, creditors and other stakeholders. It did not cost taxpayers.

On the date GM filed its taxpayer-funded bankruptcy, it had 92,000 employees. After bankruptcy it shrunk to 77,000, for a 16% loss of jobs. The GM job loss was only four percentage points lower than the airlines, which were in much worse shape. My guess is that a regular bankruptcy would have yielded about the same number of continuing jobs at GM as the taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.

The White House estimates an eventual $14 billion price tag for the GM and Chrysler bailouts. What has the $14 billion bought us? It certainly hasn’t saved millions of jobs–more like 4,000, and probably fewer. If we dig deeper, we find that most of the taxpayer money went to protecting members of the United Auto Workers.

---

Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructures insolvent companies with the aim of allowing them to emerge as viable concerns. It corrects past errors and is a vital link that makes market capitalism work. If we now have the federal government rather than an impartial bankruptcy judge leading this process, capitalism has lost.

Government intervention is a terrible precedent because it fosters corruption and political favoritism. It allows the current government to reward contributors to its political campaigns and, perhaps more significantly, to scare others into costly political activities. All of this lowers the productivity of the economy and makes all of us poorer. If GM becomes the precedent, we are headed toward third world status and a loss of rule of law.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/21/bailout-autoworkers-unions.html

[Snake]

5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

here's what likely happened, with carrier making out like a bandit - all the jobs, especially engineering, were likely not moving to mexico in the first place. entire engineering groups don't do that, production only. sure there are a handful to help set-up, but overall engineering centers do not make these moves. so now carrier makes trump believe their plan was to move the entire crew down, and they'll get tax breaks for that, and making themselves, and trump, look good to the people who don't know any better.

Objection: Presenting facts not in evidence

SUSTAINED!

[ArcticCrusher]

5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

here's what likely happened, with carrier making out like a bandit - all the jobs, especially engineering, were likely not moving to mexico in the first place. entire engineering groups don't do that, production only. sure there are a handful to help set-up, but overall engineering centers do not make these moves. so now carrier makes trump believe their plan was to move the entire crew down, and they'll get tax breaks for that, and making themselves, and trump, look good to the people who don't know any better.

There would be no benefit to move 300 engineering jobs down to mexico since the pay would not change, at least not enough to make it worthwhile.  They would lose their entire group.  This was never in the cards as it would have been really stupid.

 

 

 

[racer254]

Just now, Snake said:

Objection: Presenting facts not in evidence

SUSTAINED!

I wonder if he is using the same crystal ball here as he did with the election.

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

Anybody catch Obamas spokesdick saying Trump needs to do this 800 more times before he can match his job creation numbers....what a load of cunts.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Biggie Smails

[Edmo]

6 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

here's what likely happened, with carrier making out like a bandit - all the jobs, especially engineering, were likely not moving to mexico in the first place. entire engineering groups don't do that, production only. sure there are a handful to help set-up, but overall engineering centers do not make these moves. so now carrier makes trump believe their plan was to move the entire crew down, and they'll get tax breaks for that, and making themselves, and trump, look good to the people who don't know any better.

Get a grip Slinger. This just more projection and guessing from the guy who was wrong about everything. Pathetic.

[Snoslinger]

2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

There would be no benefit to move 300 engineering jobs down to mexico since the pay would not change, at least not enough to make it worthwhile.  They would lose their entire group.  This was never in the cards as it would have been really stupid.

 

 

 

exactly. they also don't have the engineering talent locally.

[Snake]

Just now, Biggie Smails said:

Anybody catching Obamas spokesdick saying Trump needs to do this 800 more times before he can match his job creation numbers....what a load of cunts.

Well, he does have a 1,300 job head start.

[Snoslinger]

4 minutes ago, Snake said:

Objection: Presenting facts not in evidence

SUSTAINED!

meh, what do I know. I'm only an engineer that had first hand experience with a US plant offshoring to mexico.

[Snoslinger]

2 minutes ago, Edmo said:

Get a grip Slinger. This just more projection and guessing from the guy who was wrong about everything. Pathetic.

um, no. I guarantee you carrier made out very well with this move.

[bussman]

3 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said:

Anybody catch Obamas spokesdick saying Trump needs to do this 800 more times before he can match his job creation numbers....what a load of cunts.

Government jobs  

[Edmo]

1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

um, no. I guarantee you carrier made out very well with this move.

At least he's trying to do something, what has Obama done to stop companies from moving except pouting about it. This is a real solution for a real problem. And once he gets a chance to fix the real reasons why they are leaving we won't have to do this anymore. This is fixing the symptom, we need to fix the problem.

[Highmark]

20 minutes ago, bussman said:

True. 

 

The banks should of never been bailed out though. 

Neither should have been.   Poor business practices by both caused their demise.   The auto industry would have come out stronger whether a bailout by the govt or a takeover or bankruptcy renegotiation for sale at penny's on the dollar.

The unions contributed to the auto industry demise and come out smelling like a rose.....especially the old union members.

Sorry nooks but that includes bringing production back from Canada. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Highmark

[1jkw]

Carriers parent company does billions of dollars in defense contracting, 9.5 billion in progress right now, the cost for them to keep Carriers jobs here is a drop in the bucket to the parent company.

[Highmark]

Just now, Edmo said:

At least he's trying to do something, what has Obama done to stop companies from moving except pouting about it. This is a real solution for a real problem. And once he gets a chance to fix the real reasons why they are leaving we won't have to do this anymore. This is fixing the symptom, we need to fix the problem.

Obama goes on TV or sends Josh Ernest out to be critical without understanding what the companies are facing.  So typical of a administration with so little real world experience.  Most of them have done little but be DC insiders their whole life.  

[Ebsell]

19 minutes ago, bussman said:

True. 

 

The banks should of never been bailed out though. 

I agree 100%. People went crazy over the auto bailout but very little was said about the banks. 

[Snoslinger]

Just now, Edmo said:

At least he's trying to do something, what has Obama done to stop companies from moving except pouting about it. This is a real solution for a real problem. And once he gets a chance to fix the real reasons why they are leaving we won't have to do this anymore. This is fixing the symptom, we need to fix the problem.

I gave trump credit for using gov contracts as a bargaining tool. that part I liked, and I cannot defend Obama because he did not do anything like that. I'm not a fan of giving a very wealthy company more wealth, especially off the back of the working class.

[Highmark]

Just now, 1jkw said:

Carriers parent company does billions of dollars in defense contracting, 9.5 billion in progress right now, the cost for them to keep Carriers jobs here is a drop in the bucket to the parent company.

 Number 1 way to force companies to stay is with the threat of govt contracts.  This is where a POTUS can yield tons of power.  

[racer254]

3 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Carriers parent company does billions of dollars in defense contracting, 9.5 billion in progress right now, the cost for them to keep Carriers jobs here is a drop in the bucket to the parent company.

You know, it gets so sickening to hear this type of response.  "drop in the bucket"  "pimple on kelloggs ass" 

I want to know, when to you guys actually decided when something is NOT a david and goliath analogy? 

Maybe the whole thought process about something being small in comparison should really just go away.

Edited December 1, 2016 by racer254

[Sleepr2]

5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

I gave trump credit for using gov contracts as a bargaining tool. that part I liked, and I cannot defend Obama because he did not do anything like that. I'm not a fan of giving a very wealthy company more wealth, especially off the back of the working class.

There it is!