Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 30, 2016

A company that Donald Trump frequently bashed for planning to outsource 1,400 jobs to Mexico said Tuesday that it had decided to keep most of those jobs in the United States. "We are pleased to have reached a deal with President-elect Trump" and Vice President-elect Mike Pence to keep nearly 1,000 jobs in Indiana, the Carrier Corporation said on Twitter. During the campaign, Trump frequently criticized Carrier, a company that makes air conditioners and furnaces, for its plans to shutter a factory in Indianapolis in favor of one in Monterrey, Mexico. Trump held up the company as an example of all that was wrong with U.S. trade agreements that make it easy for companies to save money by using cheaper foreign labor while laying off American workers. Trump said on Twitter last week that he was negotiating with the company to change its plans.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump had vowed during the campaign to stop companies from shifting jobs to Mexico by hiking tariffs on their imports, though that's apparently not what he's done with Carrier. The Times reported that Trump and Pence pledged to ease taxes and regulations and tone down Trump's tariff rhetoric. Trump may have had some leverage over United Technologies because the company gets a chunk of its revenue from government contracts.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There are a lot of initially happy Steelworkers tonight in Indianapolis. This is a group I'm personally connected to through my profession, as a matter of fact I was in their building yesterday. I'm going to find something I wrote in recent months than pretty much anticipated that Trump may indeed make this happen. Depending upon how much and how the deal is structured, I don't think many Hoosiers will be upset with more of their tax dollars going indirectly to assist hardworking members of the community.

Tonight is a moment to celebrate a victory for beleaguered union workers. Later we'll find out the details.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-29 09:35 PM | Reply

Pretty close:

Actually, something I heard tonight has given me pause to reflect on something specific. It was openly reported that Donald Trump has had conversations with numerous US-based CEO's since he's become President-elect. The implication is obvious if anyone has been paying attention. Trump has command of an angry hoard of pissed-off white people. What CEO is going to want his or her company's name to come out of Donald Trump's mouth as being an enemy of America in his esteemed estimation?

Trump is such a wildcard, neither party can anticipate how he might act or with whom he might seek counsel. We are living in very interesting but equally dangerous times.

POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2016-11-18 01:19 AM

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-29 09:38 PM | Reply

How much was the payoff to Carrier?

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-29 10:06 PM | Reply

www.nytimes.com

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-29 10:07 PM | Reply

While Carrier will forfeit some $65 million a year in savings the move was supposed to generate, that's a small price to pay to avoid the public relations damage from moving the jobs as well as a possible threat to United Technologies' far-larger military contracting business.

Roughly 10 percent of United Technologies' $56 billion in revenue comes from the federal government; the Pentagon is its single largest customer. Its Pratt & Whitney division, for example, supplies the engines for the Air Force's most advanced fighters and host of other planes. And with $4 billion in profit last year, the company has the flexibility to find the savings elsewhere.

Members of Congress have been pressing to punish big military contractors if they move jobs outside of the United States.

"It's unfair to ask the same workers who have been laid off to pay tax dollars that will go to the company that fired them," said Senator Joe Donnelly, an Indiana Democrat. "We're in this together as Americans. When our workers succeed, our economy succeeds and our defense contractors succeed." (link above)

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-29 10:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wonder how much Trump will make from this deal?

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-11-30 12:56 AM | Reply

REAL hope and change..

#7 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2016-11-30 01:33 AM | Reply

Those jobs seem safe for now but I doubt they'll still be there in a couple of years. Realize the factory in Mexico is still being built. They will just not replace workers who retire or leave for other reasons and the jobs will just mysteriously evaporate into thin air and reapper in Mexico.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-30 06:54 AM | Reply

This is front page stuff right here. A president who saves job s before he even takes office. What a guy!

#9 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-11-30 08:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#8

And maybe a unicorn will show up shooting gold coins out it's ass.

The time for maybe's and probably's is over, Danni. It's time for results. Trump isnt even President yet and he's getting these type results.

This is what leadership looks like. Learn it..

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2016-11-30 08:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sounds like a good bi-partisan effort to do good work.

Also it appears we leveraged United Technologies lucrative defense work to keep those jobs here.

Good move, IMO.

Thanks for posting, Tony.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-30 08:53 AM | Reply

Under Trump Pressure, Carrier Keeps 1000 Jobs in IN

Welcome to Trump's America.

#12 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 09:03 AM | Reply

In this case, Trump didn't use his self-professed expertise in negotiations to reach a compromise with Carrier. Rather, he and the state of Indiana gave Carrier lots of money through state "incentives" and tax breaks in order to convince the company to stay.

That, in and of itself, isn't especially controversial. Cities, counties, and states do this all the time to keep companies happy before they pick up and go somewhere else. But it's not the basis for a sustainable, national manufacturing strategy: the Trump administration can't run around throwing grants and tax breaks at every CEO who's thinking about moving production jobs out of the country.

Indeed, there's an Economics 101 problem: if companies are led to believe the government will give them money to stay in the United States, every employer, whether they have outsourcing plans or not, will have a strong incentive to call up the Trump White House and say, "Give us a sweet, taxpayer-financed deal or we're out of here."

There is no scenario in which the Republican administration says yes to each of them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for those Hoosiers who'll keep their jobs. I also understand the benefits of a political p.r. campaign: Trump will hail himself as a hero for effectively bribing Carrier to only lay off some of its Indianapolis workforce.

But if you're suddenly optimistic that the hapless president-elect knows what he's doing when it comes to manufacturing and job creation, it's probably best to lower expectations. Steve Benen

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 09:05 AM | Reply

Welcome to Trump's America.

Yep, an unsustainable business model that encourages US-based companies to extort state and local governments for more taxpayer subsidization under threat of outsourcing US jobs. No one doubted bullying (and $$$) can affect change, just that it's normally used against the weaker not for them.

I'm very happy for the Indianapolis workers who will still have jobs, but this is not a precedent for a new federal job retention policy. it's an anomaly borne of political promises and a higher national public profile than most similar closings ever receive.

But again, we'll take it as long as there's no poison pills to undermine the union itself and their continued good faith representation of the workforce.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 09:16 AM | Reply

-Yep, an unsustainable business model that encourages US-based companies to extort state and local governments for more taxpayer subsidization under threat of outsourcing US jobs.

how is it unsustainable?

-but this is not a precedent for a new federal job retention policy

Do you have any idea how much of this goes on?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-30 09:36 AM | Reply

We have a president who is involved in this for the fanfare but normally these moves are made at the local and perhaps state level and that's it.

and yes......local govts along with the chamber of commerce leverage all they can to attract and retain manufacturing plants that bring decent jobs to the community.

This is not a new thing....what's new is that a president stuck his nose into it and is bragging about it.

But it's a move made all the time.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-30 09:39 AM | Reply

It's a nice publicity gimmick for Trump to pressure one company, but I wouldn't call it the most effective plan for the overall problem.

This deal includes new inducements to stay from the state of Indiana, so taxpayers there will be paying for some more corporate welfare.

Carrier gets a perk that other companies don't get, all because it announced it was moving jobs out of the country.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 09:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni,
Can you be happy for once? You don't have to like Trump but you can at least acknowledge he did something good here. People keeping their jobs is good news no matter who is in office. I realize their job may eventually go elsewhere but it isn't that the case for everybody? I work today but who knows maybe my company folds in 2 months. At least for the time being these workers are employed and keeping food on their tables.

#18 | Posted by byrdman at 2016-11-30 09:46 AM | Reply

You're misunderstanding the point. It's unsustainable because if every single US manufacturer threatened to offshore, our state governments could not afford to placate all of them.

Read the middle paragraph of post #13, it's fairly cut and dried.

Again, you are not incorrect about this being common and unremarkable in states across America. What it isn't is universal, nor can we afford for it to be.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This deal includes new inducements to stay from the state of Indiana, so taxpayers there will be paying for some more corporate welfare.
Carrier gets a perk that other companies don't get, all because it announced it was moving jobs out of the country.

#17 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 09:43 AM | REPLY

But remember that the State won't pay welfare and unemployment to employees who would otherwise be out of a job, the Carrier brand name gets a boost for staying meaning their sales should go up and it is just simply a feel good story to many who take pride in this country (unless you are a liberal off course.)

#20 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-30 09:52 AM | Reply

Danni,
Can you be happy for once? #18 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN AT 2016-11-30 09:46 AM | FLAG:

Um No.

#21 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-30 09:54 AM | Reply

You don't have to like Trump but you can at least acknowledge he did something good here.

#18 | Posted by byrdman at 2016-11

Stalin died, and Beria wanted the job. So he released political prisoners to curry favor.

The Russians, being a brighter people than we are in some ways, executed him anyway.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-30 09:54 AM | Reply

I understand, Tony. But not all US manufacturers are in a position to move their plants.

and yes, they see the benefit of their "threats".

But let's not shield our eyes to the reality that the threat is always present..and has been for a long time now.

This is a circumstance where the threat was addressed and handled.

There isn't a bottomless pocket of taxpayer money to incentivize these businesses to stay and that means they have to be strategic and discriminatory on who they choose to support and who they will let go.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-30 09:54 AM | Reply

Read the middle paragraph of post #13, it's fairly cut and dried - Tony Roma.

No it's not.... It depends upon amount. Overlong term might make up through individual taxes it otherwise would not have confiscated.

It might not be sustainable. But given US outstanding debt, when did liberals start caring about sustainability?

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-30 09:55 AM | Reply

But given US outstanding debt, when did liberals start caring about sustainability?

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at

Is Donald going to achieve military expansion through borrowing or taxes?

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-30 09:56 AM | Reply

-Carrier gets a perk that other companies don't get, all because it announced it was moving jobs out of the country

Yeah....life's unfair. It's been going on for a long time.

I have an idea...why don't some of you google where your local chamber of commerce is located (it's obvious some of you don't even know they exist) and go down there and ask them what they do and ask about the economic development council (or whatever it's called) arm of the chamber and how that works, where it gets funding, and where do those funds go and for what purpose.

You'll see that this move regarding Carrier happens all the time at your local level

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-30 09:59 AM | Reply

#25 Hopefully much of it will be through efficiency such as not paying $1000 for a $10 bolt for a plane and having countries that want our military support to help pay for it.

#27 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-30 09:59 AM | Reply

"But given US outstanding debt, when did liberals start caring about sustainability?"

The day George W. Bush reset the sights of the fiscal ship of state from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

When did (or rather will) conservatives start caring about sustainability? Any pretense up until now was decimated by electing the guy who plans on blowing up the debt by another $10 trillion.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-30 09:59 AM | Reply

Neither Tony nor RCADE are in a position to declare anything "unsustainable".

They, predictably, are dialed into the unfairness of what this looks like.

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-30 10:00 AM | Reply

"that it had decided to keep most of those jobs in the United States"

Terrible news.

#30 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-30 10:01 AM | Reply

#26 They try to make it happen but sometimes they need some big time help which is hopefully what Trump will provide.

#31 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-30 10:01 AM | Reply

Any pretense up until now was decimated by electing the guy (Trump) who plans on blowing up the debt by another $10 trillion.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-30 09:59 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Give it up. These guys won't even admit Trump cheats on his wife.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-30 10:02 AM | Reply

"Neither Tony nor RCADE are in a position to declare anything "unsustainable". "

Should I chime in? 'Cause from a tax standpoint, it's unsustainable. As a default position, it's a recipe for fiscal disaster.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-30 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There isn't a bottomless pocket of taxpayer money - eberly

Yes there is..

~ every liberal I ever met

#34 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-30 10:07 AM | Reply

Should I chime in?

Why? Did some one forget their line, or need make-up?

#35 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-11-30 10:09 AM | Reply

"Give it up."

Never.

There are at least a half-dozen issues on which the Rs have sacrificed their talking points. Maritial fidelity is just one more to add to that list.

For example, next time some R pretends to care about debt, the simply answer will be STFU. You had the choice between the woman whose plans were set to increase the debt by $200 billion, and the man whose plans were set to blow the deficit up by $10 trillion. You chose the latter. S.T.F.U.

See? Easy as pie!

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-30 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Neither Tony nor RCADE are in a position to declare anything "unsustainable".

Nature is though, as you contradict your own prior comment:

There isn't a bottomless pocket of taxpayer money to incentivize these businesses to stay....

IOW, unsustainable. Do you always argue against yourself?

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 10:12 AM | Reply

"Why? Did some one forget their line, or need make-up?"

No, someone was wondering about the sustainability of certain tax policies. It's quite obvious from the thread.

So is reading your main problem, or is it comprehension?

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-30 10:13 AM | Reply

So is reading your main problem, or is it comprehension?

I heard it was breathing first, followed closely by issues with the coordinated use of opposable thumbs.

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 10:17 AM | Reply

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30

Ask him if he breathes through his skin.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-30 10:19 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

There are at least a half-dozen issues on which the Rs have sacrificed their talking points. Maritial fidelity is just one more to add to that list.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at

I agree with you entirely. It's only the simple truth.

Interesting experiment in political science going on around Trump. We're going to see if ditching ordinary morals and core values invites dictatorship, the way it does in other places. My money is on yes.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-30 10:22 AM | Reply

Aren't Republicans the ones who say the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers? The government should be setting policy. Not picking on, or incentivizing, individual companies. That is what leads to corruption (though it is pretty clear already that the Trump administration will be the most corrupt in history, so it is not surprising he is using this to set the groundwork for it).

Good job Trump. Indiana just lost 1000 jobs instead of 2000. And taxpayers will pay through the *** to reduce the leakage.

The problem with these Trump voters is they just want a handout. Instead of them actually developing skills that are actually competitive, they want big government to come in and use my tax dollars to force companies to create (or keep) a job for them. There are tons of jobs out there, but they are jobs that require actual creativity instead of just pushing buttons and pulling levers. The days are mostly gone, and will be completely gone soon, where you can make a decent wage doing tasks all day that require no actual thought. Any of those jobs that have stayed in the US have been automated away, or are in the process of being automated away.

Trump won by lying to people. He told them that the jobs were gone because of trade deals, or mexicans, or Democrats. But, the real reason is automation. The US currently manufactures more than it ever had. Output has increased. Only jobs have decreased. The jobs are never coming back, and they shouldn't. I am fine with my tax dollars being used to retrain people for actual useful jobs in today's economy, and to support them financially while they do so. But, I am morally offended by my tax dollars being used to move this country technologically BACKWARD.

And, he may be able to spend enough of MY tax dollars to make the economy INEFFICIENT ENOUGH so that some people still have a job, but we do not tax the ACTUAL productive members of society who ACTUALLY have useful skills enough to subsidize even a fraction of the jobs that have disappeared. Just because you were too stupid to realize that Trump was lying to you does not mean you can have my hard-earned tax dollars redistributed to you so you don't have to adapt to today's economy.

#42 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-11-30 10:22 AM | Reply

My money is also on, if we get a dictator or something like one, some people here arguing that it's what the country needs.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-30 10:23 AM | Reply

No question about it, ZED.

#44 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-11-30 10:27 AM | Reply

You'll see that this move regarding Carrier happens all the time at your local level ...

I'm aware that corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America. That doesn't make it right, or good policy. Most of the time these kinds of incentives help the company far more than the public is helped, just like how cities fork over hundreds of millions in public money to build stadiums for fat cat sports owners on the dubious premise that increased tax receipts will make up for it.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 10:51 AM | Reply

Old rule:

Obama administration saves the auto industry in MI (and industry-related jobs elsewhere) = bad.

New rule:

Trump and Pence save 1,000 carrier jobs in IN = good.

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Obama administration saves the auto industry in MI (and industry-related jobs elsewhere) = bad.

Most were OK with the auto bailout on principle (Reagan bailed out Chrysler in the '80's). What was bad was that the structure of the bailout violated bankruptcy laws in an egregious fashion. Further, despite please from Iacoca to forgive the loan, Reagan required Chrysler to pay it back. GM got off with $10 Billion and then, right after the government sold off all of their GM stock a whole slew of recalls were announced, one of which had been known about since '09 and resulted in over 100 deaths (and subsequent lawsuits). All of this occurred IMMEDIATELY after government dumped their GM stock - stock that took a nosedive right after the government sold their shares.

So yes, that is bad.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-30 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#46 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2016-11-30 10:55 AM | REPLY

The reverse is also true, depending on your political affiliation.

#48 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-30 11:36 AM | Reply

Let us know when Carrier pays everything back.

#49 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-30 11:38 AM | Reply

Bottom line:
President Trump saved Carrier jobs just like he said he would and the left sees nothing but doom and gloom.
If he created wine out of water the left would whine about that too.

#50 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2016-11-30 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Neither Tony nor RCADE are in a position to declare anything "unsustainable".

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Does corporate welfare come from a magic pot o' gold that government can pull coins from forever without it becoming empty?

#51 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 01:05 PM | Reply

Bottom line: President Trump saved Carrier jobs just like he said he would and the left sees nothing but doom and gloom.

It's easy to save 1,000 jobs when you publicly shame a company and then offer it a bribe. That's what happened here, no matter how much you want to spin this as 100% good news because Trump did it.

Obama saved the entire auto industry with a government bailout and Republicans have never stopped saying what a terrible idea that was. But at least he had the excuse that we were in a huge emergency as the nation teetered on the edge of another Depression.

#52 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 01:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Obama saved the entire auto industry with a government bailout and Republicans have never stopped saying what a terrible idea that was.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 01:07 PM | Reply

True dat.

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-30 01:10 PM | Reply

I wonder if the issue really wasn't deals with Indiana or the Federal Gov't - but was really the threat Trump has over Mexico.

If trade with Mexico, immigration, is really the hammer and nail, then financially it may be better to not have a business move to Mexico if that business is going to find punishing taxes.

#55 | Posted by Petrous at 2016-11-30 01:27 PM | Reply

I'm just waiting for the announcement that Carrier is filing for Bankruptcy about 4 years from now.

#56 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2016-11-30 01:32 PM | Reply

Liberals are hilarious. We have seen this in Wisconsin when good economic news is delivered it is NEVER because of Scott Walker but when bad economic news is delivered it is ONLY because of Scott Walker.

I am not a Trump fan and voted AGAINST Hillary not for him. BUT I will say the moves he has made since winning have made me not regret that vote thus far. My opinion may change if he doesn't keep rolling in the right direction but in the meantime, I plan to enjoy myself even though I need to regularly clean up the mess created by my liberals family members and friends' heads exploding.

#57 | Posted by MOTGK at 2016-11-30 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

1,000 jobs?! In Indiana?!? The economy is saved!!

#59 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-11-30 01:48 PM | Reply

What's more "unsustainable" less tax revenue from Carrier or no tax revenue from Carrier and their employees?

#60 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2016-11-30 02:00 PM | Reply

1,000 jobs?! In Indiana?!? The economy is saved!!

#59 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2016-11-30 01:48 PM | FLAG:

And if they left you would be chirping that because of Trump Indiana lost 2000 jobs.

#61 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-30 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

aul Krugman ‏@paulkrugman 2h2 hours ago

Another metric: Trump would have to do one Carrier-sized deal a week for 30 years to save as many jobs as Obama's auto bailout

Paul Krugman ‏@paulkrugman 5h5 hours ago

If Trump did a Carrier-style deal every week for the next 4 years, he could bring back 4% of the manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

#62 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 02:32 PM | Reply

At least he is accomplishing something, and not yet in office. What has obama done lately for the American worker?

#63 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-30 02:33 PM | Reply

Obama didn't save the Auto industry.

Taxpayers did. Obama only thought up the idea of spending more money, as liberals/democrats always do.

#64 | Posted by boaz at 2016-11-30 02:34 PM | Reply

Justin Wolfers ‏@JustinWolfers 18h18 hours ago Ann Arbor, MI

Justin Wolfers Retweeted David Faber

Every savvy CEO will now threaten to ship jobs to Mexico, and demand a payment to stay. Great economic policy.

David Faber Verified account
‏@davidfaber

Deal terms to keep Carrier jobs in Indiana include new inducements from state. Deal spear headed by former Indiana Gov Pence.

#65 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 02:36 PM | Reply

I know one thing.

Obama didn't do a damned thing to stop Carrier. If it were up to Obama, the jobs would have just left.

At least Trump did something..

And that's why he was elected.

#66 | Posted by boaz at 2016-11-30 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#64 Same thing here. State incentives = taxpayer money. And Eberly is right when he says this has been going on the state and local level for years.

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 02:38 PM | Reply

#66 Obama couldn't tell Pence, the governor of IN, what to do with his state's taxpayer dollars but Trump could.

#68 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 02:40 PM | Reply

#66 Obama couldn't tell Pence, the governor of IN, what to do with his state's taxpayer dollars but Trump could.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 02:40 PM | Reply

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh this is Boaz you are dealing with here. He doesn't understand that.

#69 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-30 02:42 PM | Reply

Trump election promise: Negotiate with Carrier to keep jobs in the USA. Use tactics from Art of the Deal, 😉.
Less than one month after winning Presidential election: Due to negotiations with President-elect Trump, Carrier announces it will keep factory open in Indiana, saving American manufacturing jerbs.

Election promise fulfilled. ☑

#70 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-30 02:47 PM | Reply

Under the promise of tax abatements to be passed on to homeowners and schools, Carrier agrees to keep jobs in Indiana.
FTFY

#71 | Posted by e1g1 at 2016-11-30 02:53 PM | Reply

As the governor of IN, this is really Pence's doing, not Trump's, but as is par for the course with Trump, his brand will go on the deal.

#72 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-30 02:58 PM | Reply

Old rule:
Obama administration saves the auto industry in MI (and industry-related jobs elsewhere) = bad.

#46 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2016-11-30 10:55 AM

Obama saved the entire auto industry with a government bailout and Republicans have never stopped saying what a terrible idea that was.

#52 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 01:07 PM

True dat.

#53 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2016-11-30 01:10 PM

Actually, True Not...

In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[87] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[88] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009[89] followed by General Motors a month later.[90]
Now watch the Usual Suspects on the DR Left scramble to agree that the Bush bailout of the Auto Industry was a bad idea...

#73 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-30 03:41 PM | Reply

As the governor of IN, this is really Pence's doing, not Trump's,

No, this is mainly Trump's doing with an assist from Pence. The hammer is UTC's government defense contracts worth $5.6 BILLION annually. Carrier's complete move to Mexico would have saved shareholders $65 million annually, most from labor cost savings. Pence could not threaten the Pratt and Whitney business, Trump could. $65 million is a rounding error and the tax incentives are parsley sprigs to let UTC save face next to the steak of continued billion dollar profits funded by US tax dollars. It's poor form to say "F you" to the poor smucks whose taxes account for 10% of your profits.

There is nothing Indiana offered now that they wouldn't have if asked last winter when the move was first announced. This is all Trump and again, I'm happy for the workers because they are my customers and they deserve a break.

However, there is no doubt that if Obama had tried to strong-arm UTC like Trump did the very people praising Trump now would have condemned Obama for using the government to force the hand of private industry where he had no right to. Anyone saying anything different is a bald-faced liar.

#74 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 04:00 PM | Reply

Obama saved the entire auto industry with a government bailout and Republicans have never stopped saying what a terrible idea that was.

#52 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 01:07 PM: Really? Then why did GM have to still have to file bankruptcy after his bailout?

#75 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-30 04:10 PM | Reply

In late 2008, Chrysler and General Motors told America that they were in danger of folding. George W. Bush agreed to a temporary bailout, but handed the auto companies' long-term future over to his successor, President-Elect Barack Obama. Obama then shepherded a comprehensive bailout of the two companies that allowed them to stay in business but imposed numerous conditions that, it was hoped, would secure their viability and allow the companies to eventually return to profitability.

If you were a progressive, you saw that Obama selected the best of unattractive options. While he didn't particularly want the government running car companies, the alternative was to let them go out of business right at the moment when the economy was reeling from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. If you're a conservative, on the other hand, the auto bailout was part of Obama's government power grab. Eager to amass power and increase the federal government's control of the economy, he took the opportunity to take over the auto industry, serving his thirst for centralized control.

These competing interpretations offer a textbook case of the "fundamental attribution error," in which we assume that our own behavior (or that of people we like) is a response to circumstance, while others' behavior (or that of people we don't like) is a function of their inherent nature. There's something else going on, too: once we make a value judgment about which policy choice is right, we tend to follow that up with a bunch of empirical predictions about what practical effects each alternative will produce. And when that happens, one side can be proven right, and the other side can be proven wrong. TAP

We have a winner!

#76 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 04:17 PM | Reply

i heard they were going to outsource 2200.
these other 1200 will still go.

#77 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-11-30 04:26 PM | Reply

'Cause from a tax standpoint, it's unsustainable. As a default position, it's a recipe for fiscal disaster."

Are you assuming that this would be done for all manufacturing companies in the US?

I assume you are if you are asserting it's unsustainable.

I'm not making that assumption. It's targeted and specific.

And it's done all the time. [...]

#78 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-30 05:39 PM | Reply

Obama didn't do a damned thing to stop Carrier. If it were up to Obama, the jobs would have just left.

Obama saved over a million jobs in the auto industry after the economy crashed under Bush.

You're praising Trump for saving 1,000 jobs while losing 1,200, but I bet you never had a good word to say about Obama for saving over 1,000 times as many.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-30 05:53 PM | Reply

"I'm just waiting for the announcement that Carrier is filing for Bankruptcy about 4 years from now."

Carrier won't. First, United Technologies will sell off the company-soon-in order to be rid of it. Maybe a US parent company will pick it up, maybe not. Eventually, Carrier will be brand image only. Most likely owned by a foreign company producing "Carrier" products in a country where it is profitable to do so.

Maybe UT can spin this in a way that can maintain profit parity. But if not...what I just said.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-11-30 05:57 PM | Reply

I'm not making that assumption. It's targeted and specific.

Eberly, really... go back and read this discussion from the beginning. We have no disagreement. You created one by misconstruing the same thing you said yourself: IF taken to the extreme, deals like this are unsustainable because there are limited amounts of tax dollars and incentives. No one but you were placing that context upon any limited use of incentives. We all agree, hell, that's the point, it's going to be a huge success for Donald from many directions and that's fine.

It's right there in black and white numerous times from numerous posters. The unsustainability is based on the breaking of a very finite tipping point, not a couple isolated incidences.

#82 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 06:16 PM | Reply

You're praising Trump for saving 1,000 jobs while losing 1,200, but I bet you never had a good word to say about Obama for saving over 100 times as many.

#80 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 05:53 PM | FLAG: Can you specify exactly which jobs obama 'saved'? Trump, not yet even in office can cite cases of Ford and Carrier.

#83 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-30 06:55 PM | Reply

You're praising Trump for saving 1,000 jobs while losing 1,200, but I bet you never had a good word to say about Obama for saving over 100 times as many.

#80 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-30 05:53 PM

As I pointed out earlier, the Bush Administration arranged for and approved the Auto Bailout, Pres. Obama was merely the shepherd of the funds based on the terms laid out by the Bush Administration when W unilaterally arranged for the bailout.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: IT WAS GEORGE W. BUSH WHO BAILED OUT THE AUTOMAKERS

Joe Biden is right about the auto bailout. There was a President who bucked a public outraged about the Wall Street bailout, and loud criticisms from within his own party, to make an unpopular decision that ended up saving tens of thousand of jobs and putting Detroit on the road to recovery. Joe Biden is right about the auto bailout. There was a President who bucked a public outraged about the Wall Street bailout, and loud criticisms from within his own party, to make an unpopular decision that ended up saving tens of thousand of jobs and putting Detroit on the road to recovery.

So Biden was telling the truth when he said, in reference to the Republican candidates, that the President "made the tough call… [he] was right, and they were dead wrong."

The only problem with Biden's history lesson is that the "man with steel in his spine" he referred to should have been George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. Lest we forget, it was Bush rather than Obama who initiated the government rescue of the auto companies.

On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn't impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers' money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed tarp program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. "I didn't want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment," he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. "I didn't want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.' "

Obama deserves a lot of credit for finishing the job that Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, had started. He stood with the auto companies, which were victims of extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. As the price of the bailout, he also insisted on some changes at G.M., including the installation of new leadership and the elimination of several brands.

In bailing out the auto companies, Bush earned the lasting enmity of many on the Tea Party/crackpot right, who regard him as a traitorous big-government Republican. And given the anger felt toward him by many liberals and progressives, the decision to intervene didn't earn him much credit on the left, either.

That, perhaps, was inevitable. But let's at least acknowledge what he did.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-30 07:03 PM | Reply

#84

There wasn't a thing that Bush did regarding the economy after the 2008 election that Obama wasn't part of the decision making process as it was occurring. If you remember correctly, both McCain and Obama were completely briefed in the Fall of 2008 at one point.

It's fine that Bush's fans want to give him credit after the fact. The chronology is what it is. But even as your author points out, Obama had to make the deal reality, not just a concept. And he made things happen that weren't in the Bush framework. Obama had to sell the deal to Congress so that they'd release the 2nd installment of funds. W had nothing to do with that. He had to sell the structured bankruptcy and make it palatable.

Again, the record is what it is, but this particular decision wasn't W's alone, Obama either had to agree or be in agreement less than a month before the problem would be his. It's only common sense, and for as many things I thought were lacking in W, being respectful towards his successor wasn't one of them. W wasn't a dick on his way out, he was a President who loved his country and respected the electorate's choice, just like Obama is doing for Trump.

#85 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-30 08:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What was bad was that the structure of the bailout violated bankruptcy laws in an egregious fashion."

Exactly.

And because of that, investors were stuck with a company that actually had value and didn't go bankrupt, instead of one that went bankrupt and left behind stock worth pennies.
www.marketwatch.com

What a terrible, terrible President, huh?

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-01 08:16 AM | Reply

"Are you assuming that this would be done for all manufacturing companies in the US?"

I'm assuming you understand what the phrase "default position" means.

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-01 08:38 AM | Reply

"As I pointed out earlier, the Bush Administration arranged for and approved the Auto Bailout, Pres. Obama was merely the shepherd of the funds based on the terms laid out by the Bush Administration when W unilaterally arranged for the bailout."

Oh just shut up. Many of us right here told you over and over that the "great Bush economy" was a "house of cards" getting ready to collapse. After it did you can pretend anything you want but it is utter nonsense. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Republican Depression of 1929. He saved capitalism, again. Now, the same morons that elected Bush have elected Trump who plans another big tax cut for the wealthy which will create another big bubble in stocks and real estate and then crash just like it did in 2007-2008. Some folks never learn anything. Profit while you can but get out before the crash.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-01 09:02 AM | Reply

"What was bad was that the structure of the bailout violated bankruptcy laws in an egregious fashion."
Exactly."

Baloney. For once jobs were more important than investors. This country needed those jobs more than we needed to protect those investors. We will see more of this as time goes on because we will either protect jobs of end up in revolution.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-01 09:05 AM | Reply

Instead of busting up a system that rewards companies for taking jobs outside of the country, Trump just reinforced it by bribing them to stay.

#90 | Posted by 726 at 2016-12-01 09:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So Trump threatens to impose a tariff and ends up paying $65,000,000 to keep 1/2 the jobs. How can we stand all this winning?

#91 | Posted by 726 at 2016-12-01 10:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would love to see all of the posts from this site about the time Obama saved GM.

I wonder which of the trumpeteers typed "government motors" the most?

Which ones explained that if the imaginary businesses that they run went bankrupt Obama wouldn't bail them out?

It sure would be interesting to see...

#92 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2016-12-01 10:28 AM | Reply

There isn't a bottomless pocket of taxpayer money - eberly
Yes there is..
~ every liberal I ever met

#34 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

That Iraq war and Bush tax cut pay for itself yet?

#93 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-12-01 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I would love to see all of the posts from this site about the time Obama saved GM.
I wonder which of the trumpeteers typed "government motors" the most?
Which ones explained that if the imaginary businesses that they run went bankrupt Obama wouldn't bail them out?
It sure would be interesting to see...

#92 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

They weren't leaving. They were going bankrupt and destroying the industry.

Don't post until you learn to read.

#94 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-12-01 10:43 AM | Reply

So Trump threatens to impose a tariff and ends up paying $65,000,000 to keep 1/2 the jobs. How can we stand all this winning?

#91 | Posted by 726 at 2016-12-01 10:19 AM | Reply

Did you just make that up?

#95 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2016-12-01 10:45 AM | Reply

#94 has obviously typed "Government Motors" before and likely still calls GM that.

LOL

#96 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2016-12-01 10:48 AM | Reply

A CNBC correspondent reported that part of the deal includes new "inducements" from Pence's government.

They also reported that the deal was largely due to the threat of losing government contracts and "inducements" centered around Trump's corporate tax rate cut.

#97 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2016-12-01 10:50 AM | Reply

Socialism - The state owns the means of production

Trumpism - The state pays all the costs of production but doesn't get ownership

Yipppeeeee!!

#98 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-12-01 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

18,204,679 businesses in the US. He is going to negotiate with them each individually, get them to keep only half the jobs they are exporting, by just dumping tax rebates/money into their pockets.

I've seen this rodeo before. When the incentives run out, the rest of the jobs go too.

#99 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-12-01 11:11 AM | Reply

I could open a company tomorrow if the government would pay my employees wages and exempt me from property taxes and promise to get rid of the rules everybody has to play by.

The issue is not taxes or regulations. The issue is wage differential. ELIMINATING corporate taxes will not make companies choose to forgoe the TRILLIONS they save by paying low wages elsewhere. It is really simple math.

For example over 1 million people make apple products 16 hours a day 6 days a week for $350/month (actually a substantial raise in recent years). So they are getting 4.8 BILLION labor hours for $4.2 Billion a year. If they pay minimum wage it would cost $34.8 Billion to hire Americans to do that work. Apple paid $16 Billion in taxes in 2015.

If you eliminate corporate taxes altogether Apple would still LOSE $14.6 Billion dollars if they brought the jobs to America at minimum wage.

#100 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-12-01 11:25 AM | Reply

A company with $4 Billion PROFIT needs tax incentives ie tax CUTS.

How is it that keeping the jobs in America wasn't profitable?

Them thar American Patriotic Defense Contractors.

#101 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-12-01 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By pressure they mean a tidal wave of cash

#102 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-12-01 11:42 AM | Reply

In Carrier Deal, Trump Is Taking Credit for Some Blatant Crony Capitalism
Trump promised to get tough with companies that offshore jobs.
He never said anything about buying them off with our tax dollars.

www.thenation.com

Donald Trump, who claimed to be uniquely positioned to fight special interests in Washington and vowed to crack down hard on companies that send jobs overseas, is now taking credit for cutting a deal that epitomizes corporate socialism at the expense of American taxpayers....

Donald Trump, who claimed to be uniquely positioned to fight special interests in Washington and vowed to crack down hard on companies that send jobs overseas, is now taking credit for cutting a deal that epitomizes corporate socialism at the expense of American taxpayers....

CNN reports that United Technologies gets about 10 percent of its annual revenues from federal contracts, and that "the government also pays for nearly $1.5 billion of the company's annual research and development spending." That figure represents 23 times as much money as the company would save in labor costs by moving its Indiana facilities to Mexico. United Technologies shelled out around $18 million for lobbying in 2015 and 2016, according to Open Secrets, making it the 33rd biggest spender on Capitol Hill. So much for draining the swamp....

The Indy Star, citing senior United Technologies officials, reported that the company's desire to work with Trump was motivated more by the prospect of additional access to federal contracts and gaining input on regulatory and tax policy than the incentives Mike Pence arranged from the state of Indiana. Ball State University economist Michael Hicks told The Star that "the chance for Carrier (and their lawyers) to help craft a huge regulatory relief bill is worth every penny they might save over delaying the closure of this plant for a few years

Finally, while any jobs that stay in Indiana are vitally important to the people who work them, they represent only a fraction of United Technologies' larger plans to move jobs from "high-cost locations" to countries that offer cheap labor and minimal regulations. According to The Street, United Technologies' plan to move its Indiana plants to Mexico was just "one of the many cost-cutting measures" announced last December as part of a multi-year, $1.5 billion dollar restructuring plan that would "move manufacturing locations around the world" to countries like Mexico and Poland.

#103 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-12-01 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The whole reason Pence hasn't stepped down as governor of Illinois is so he could help strong arm carrier in to this PR stunt.

But what message does it send?

Trump said he was going to punish companies that leave.

Instead companies are threatening to leave in order to get backroom deals with the government. That's not being a tough negotiator, it's being blackmailed.

As Bernie Sanders wrote:

"In essence, United Technologies (parent of Carrier) took Trump hostage and won. And that should send a shock wave of fear through all workers across the country," Sanders said in an Op-Ed in The Washington Post on Thursday.

Sanders key point: If corporations want cushy tax cuts, all you have to do is threaten Trump and say "we're moving to Mexico."

"He has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives," Sanders wrote.

Our country is the the hands of a moron.

#104 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 01:13 PM | Reply

"In exchange for allowing United Technologies to continue to offshore more than 1,000 jobs, Trump will reportedly give the company tax and regulatory favors that the corporation has sought. Just a short few months ago, Trump was pledging to force United Technologies to "pay a damn tax." He was insisting on very steep tariffs for companies like Carrier that left the United States and wanted to sell their foreign-made products back in the United States. Instead of a damn tax, the company will be rewarded with a damn tax cut. Wow! How's that for standing up to corporate greed? How's that for punishing corporations that shut down in the United States and move abroad?"

www.washingtonpost.com

And the Morons acheer him on.

You're all Donnie's tools.

Bunch of useful idiots. Cheering that buffoon on.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-12-01 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

obama is POTUS, so how come he did not try to save these jobs? Guess he just does not care about the little people that much, in fact this is one of the main reasons that the dems lost the election, because they forgot their own 'line': 'It's the economy stupid'. Guess who is stupid now.

It's the economy, stupid. "It's the economy, stupid" is a slight variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid", which James Carville had coined as a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush.

#106 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-12-01 01:56 PM | Reply

Guess who is stupid now.

#106 | Posted by MSgt

Still you.

Any anyone else who thought the way to take the country back from the billionaires was to elect one.

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 02:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The whole reason Pence hasn't stepped down as governor of Illinois is so he could help strong arm carrier in to this PR stunt. But what message does it send? [...] POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Mike Pence has never been governor of Illinois.

#108 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-12-01 02:22 PM | Reply

Mike Pence has never been governor of Illinois.

#108 | Posted by GOnoles92

Indiana. my bad.

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 02:28 PM | Reply

Headline fail. Trump pressure? Bwahaha! Trump bribe using taxpayer money? Yup.

#110 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2016-12-01 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Headline fail. Trump pressure? Bwahaha! Trump bribe using taxpayer money? Yup.

#110 | Posted by mOntecOre

Get used to it. We're in for 4 years of PR moves that make trump look good at the taxpayer's expense - and not the taxpayers who can afford it. He'll make it rain on them.

#111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

# 2 > "....We are living in very interesting but equally dangerous times."

My sentiments exactlly.

#112 | Posted by shane at 2016-12-01 04:31 PM | Reply

Nah they'll just hire H1-Bs to fill all the positions Trump "saved"

#113 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-12-01 05:02 PM | Reply

It is pathetic that Americans could once trust the media to at least give relatively honest unbiased reporting. After this election season there is nothing they tell us that we should trust as fact. The ordered goal of their master oligarch puppeteers is get and marginalize Trump, just as they did the Tea Party. We should not trust anything they report other than to know it is intended to make it negative against Trump.

The elites have spent decades from 1965 and before to condition ordinary white Americans to accept being turned into second class citizens in their own country by the racist media that conveniently perpetuates their narrative by hiring only their own, or other new minorities that will obey and follow.

#114 | Posted by Robson at 2016-12-01 06:06 PM | Reply

It is pathetic that Americans could once trust the media to at least give relatively honest unbiased reporting. After this election season there is nothing they tell us that we should trust as fact. The ordered goal of their master oligarch puppeteers is get and marginalize Trump, just as they did the Tea Party. We should not trust anything they report other than to know it is intended to make it negative against Trump.

The elites have spent decades from 1965 and before to condition ordinary white Americans to accept being turned into second class citizens in their own country by the racist media that conveniently perpetuates their narrative by hiring only their own, or other new minorities that will obey and follow.

#114 | Posted by Robson

Robson blames the media! Everybody drink!

So where are you going to get your information about politics then? Gossip? Fake news sites run by russian teenagers? That's where most trump voters got their info.

Sounds like Breitbart is exactly what you're looking for: Information by whites, for whites. Not TRUE information, but who cares? At least it's not the mainstream media right?

#115 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 06:18 PM | Reply

#85

Tony, you are smarter than that post...you know as well as I do that the machinery to get $17B transferred from TARP doesn't happen over night and the fact that Obama was briefed on what was going on is meaningless. Whether you, Danni, Danforth, Doc, 726 or squeak like it or not, the fact remains that the Bush Administration saved those jobs, not Obama.

Deal with it, or not, as you usually do.

#116 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-12-01 07:12 PM | Reply

So in the first deal from the master dealmaker the taxpayer loses. It's going to be a long 4 years.

#117 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2016-12-01 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Headline fail. Carrier acted like the mafia and shook down Pence for "protection" money. That's how those jobs were saved.

#118 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-12-01 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump throws money and tax breaks to a company in a publicity move.

Republicans and morons swoon.

Trump buckles on what he originally said.

Republicans shower him with admiration.

#119 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-12-01 08:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From our President.
news.grabien.com

#120 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-12-01 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From our President.
news.grabien.com

#120 | Posted by Federalist

I guess he never thought anyone would be dumb enough to start bribing america's companies to stay here with taxpayer money.

Trump proved him wrong.

#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 09:31 PM | Reply

"Those jobs of the past are just not going to come back," Obama told Carrier employee Cottonham.
Instead, Obama advised workers losing their jobs to learn how to adapt their skills to "some of these new technologies," in particular, the "clean energy sector."

Hmmm...Trump's economic "plans have given us renewed confidence in the future of manufacturing in America," said Greg Hayes, CEO of United Technologies Corp, Carrier's parent company.

And Zed, quod erat demonstrandum

Who would you rather hear if you worked and if you worked for Carrier?

#122 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2016-12-01 09:42 PM | Reply

#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
Like the Unions who do not conform to Obamcare?

#123 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-12-01 09:44 PM | Reply

Like the Unions who do not conform to Obamcare?

#123 | Posted by Federalist

No idea what you're talking about but it smells like youre trying to hijack the thread into a completely different subject.

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 09:48 PM | Reply

...if you worked for Carrier?

...I'd wish I worked for Pratt & Whitney instead.

#125 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-12-01 09:48 PM | Reply

Funny, I always figure you'd favor United Cannabis Corp.

#126 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2016-12-01 10:21 PM | Reply

Obama saved 1.5 million auto worker jobs and Republicans threw every insult and Fox News tirade at him.

Trump saves 1,000 jobs and the Republicans want to put him on Mt. Rushmore.

Hypocrisy anyone?

#127 | Posted by marvin71 at 2016-12-01 11:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Under Pressure? I wish I could be under the amount of pressure Carrier was under. Now who writes me the check?

#128 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-12-02 01:01 AM | Reply

Hypocrisy anyone?

Hypocrisy is part of the Republican motto.

Trump fit in perfectly.

#129 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-12-02 01:03 AM | Reply

Take care, young ladies, and value your wine.
Be watchful of young men in their velvet prime.
Deeply they'll swallow from your finest kegs,
Then swiftly be gone, leaving bitter dregs.
Ahh-ah-ah-ah, bitter dregs.

#130 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2016-12-02 07:19 AM | Reply

I just read that 300 of the jobs were never leaving anyway and that Indiana gave Carrier 7 million in the deal.

Trump, the brilliant negotiator that he is, paid Carrier 1 million per job. I'd imagine the jobs pay around 40k a year.

Whadda deal!

#131 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2016-12-02 07:43 AM | Reply

Ugh, no coffee. Math is bad.

#132 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2016-12-02 07:50 AM | Reply

I love me some corporate socialism!!!! Mmmmm-mmmmmmm

---Trumpians-----

#133 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-12-02 07:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Obama saved 1.5 million auto worker jobs and Republicans threw every insult and Fox News tirade at him.
Trump saves 1,000 jobs and the Republicans want to put him on Mt. Rushmore.
Hypocrisy anyone?

#127 | POSTED BY MARVIN71 AT 2016-12-01 11:49 PM | REPLY

To some extent you are correct. There is a difference, Ford received a bailout to prevent bankruptcy, but did pay it back or so I heard. Carrier received a "bailout" so to speak from the state of Indiana but the real deal was the promise of fewer regulations and lower corporate tax rate for Carrier in the future, not to mention negating very bad publicity for Carrier.

Hypocrisy, yeah, that is a good point Marvin71. Besides bailing out a manufacturing company that is a American icon is better than bailing out banks.

#134 | Posted by danv at 2016-12-02 08:26 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort