Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[plainolamerican]

I will no longer coment on your ignorant ramblings
--
good ... your comments suck as bad as your mother.

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 1:10:10 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote:
>
> Sissy-Pus;
>
> I will no longer coment on your ignorant ramblings.You clearly don't 
> have a clue about what it is that you're talking about, and most especially 
> you look even more goofier than you actually are when you attempt to start 
> speculating on what my perspectives are!  
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:06 PM, plainolamerican  > wrote:
>
>> I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this
>> ---
>> because your perspective is coated with ignorance and lies.
>>
>> that you think Trump is going to ease regs on things other than safety 
>> and the environment you're delusional as usual. And Carrier is still going 
>> to send jobs to Mexico.
>>
>>  It was time for the proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation
>> ---
>> yeah ... your fucking warmongering heroes are wanting a war really bad.
>>
>> By the end of the campaign there was a lot riding on Carrier’s plan to 
>> move 2,000 manufacturing jobs out of Indiana south to Mexico. Donald Trump 
>> made a campaign pledge to keep the air-conditioner maker’s parent company, 
>> United Technologies, from closing two factories and eliminating thousands 
>> of jobs in his running mate's home state. On Tuesday, multiple outlets 
>> report that the *Trump transition team is set to announce a deal 
>> Thursday that will keep half of those jobs from leaving for Mexico.*
>>
>> It’s unclear what tools the Trump negotiating team used to limit the job 
>> losses that were set to be staggered over a three-year period. The U.S. 
>> government is a big customer of United Technologies and accounts for 
>> roughly $5.6 billion in military sales for the company each year. Losing 
>> even a small portion of those contracts would make the relocation to 
>> Mexico, which is expected to save the company $65 million a year in labor 
>> costs, far less appealing.
>>
>> “In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump 
>> and Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be 
>> friendlier to business by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate 
>> tax code,” the *Times* reports 
>> .
>>  
>> “In addition, Mr. Trump is expected to tone down his rhetoric threatening 
>> 35 percent tariffs on companies like Carrier that shift production south of 
>> the border.”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 8:50:40 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote:
>>>
>>> Good Morning Brine, and thank you for sharing that article.  I haven't 
>>> verified the accuracy of the 800 number or the 1100 number, but I'll take 
>>> your article as being truthful.
>>>
>>> I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this, and 
>>> obviously I hold much different views than Sissy-Pus does.  The new Trump 
>>> Administration's contacting of Carrier in an effort to keep them here in 
>>> the United States is a paradigm and barometer of the focus on our National 
>>> economy and getting America back on track once again.  It was time for the 
>>> proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation culturally, economically; 
>>>  mind-set wise; and time to sweep the negative Anti-American Sissy-Pus 
>>> horse hockey out on the street right behind them on their: "Marxist March 
>>> to Utopia"You will see the tenor and rhetoric coming out of S-P's mug, 
>>> along with his heroes like Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, the entire Hollywood 
>>> elite begin to diminish; and it's long overdue!
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Brian Bednarek  wrote:
>>>
 I heard the 800 number on the radio .. but the internets backed it up:


 http://www.nashfm947.com/news/trump-didnt-save-as-many-carrier-jobs-as-he-claimed/



 On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Keith In Tampa  
 wrote:

> I don't get your numbers Brine.  First, there's over 1100 jobs that 
> will remain in Indiana at the United Technologies/Carrier plant, where 
> Carrier has pledged to expend $16 million on plant renovations and 
> improvements.  
>
> The millions of tax incentives is Carrier's own money, and the federal 
> government will be getting their hands out of businesses across the 
> Nation's pockets in similar fashion which has helped to create the 
> depression that our Nation is in currently.   (There's 96 million 
> Americans 
> no longer in the work force Brine!)  
>
> As President-Elect Trump said last night, as well as the President of 
> United Technologies, the tax breaks was not the big motivator, but the 
> promise of repealing the almost 300 new federal regulations that have 
> 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[Keith In Tampa]

Sissy-Pus;

I will no longer coment on your ignorant ramblings.You clearly don't
have a clue about what it is that you're talking about, and most especially
you look even more goofier than you actually are when you attempt to start
speculating on what my perspectives are!



On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:06 PM, plainolamerican 
wrote:

> I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this
> ---
> because your perspective is coated with ignorance and lies.
>
> that you think Trump is going to ease regs on things other than safety and
> the environment you're delusional as usual. And Carrier is still going to
> send jobs to Mexico.
>
>  It was time for the proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation
> ---
> yeah ... your fucking warmongering heroes are wanting a war really bad.
>
> By the end of the campaign there was a lot riding on Carrier’s plan to
> move 2,000 manufacturing jobs out of Indiana south to Mexico. Donald Trump
> made a campaign pledge to keep the air-conditioner maker’s parent company,
> United Technologies, from closing two factories and eliminating thousands
> of jobs in his running mate's home state. On Tuesday, multiple outlets
> report that the *Trump transition team is set to announce a deal Thursday
> that will keep half of those jobs from leaving for Mexico.*
>
> It’s unclear what tools the Trump negotiating team used to limit the job
> losses that were set to be staggered over a three-year period. The U.S.
> government is a big customer of United Technologies and accounts for
> roughly $5.6 billion in military sales for the company each year. Losing
> even a small portion of those contracts would make the relocation to
> Mexico, which is expected to save the company $65 million a year in labor
> costs, far less appealing.
>
> “In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump
> and Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be
> friendlier to business by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate
> tax code,” the *Times* reports
> .
> “In addition, Mr. Trump is expected to tone down his rhetoric threatening
> 35 percent tariffs on companies like Carrier that shift production south of
> the border.”
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 8:50:40 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote:
>>
>> Good Morning Brine, and thank you for sharing that article.  I haven't
>> verified the accuracy of the 800 number or the 1100 number, but I'll take
>> your article as being truthful.
>>
>> I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this, and obviously
>> I hold much different views than Sissy-Pus does.  The new Trump
>> Administration's contacting of Carrier in an effort to keep them here in
>> the United States is a paradigm and barometer of the focus on our National
>> economy and getting America back on track once again.  It was time for the
>> proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation culturally, economically;
>>  mind-set wise; and time to sweep the negative Anti-American Sissy-Pus
>> horse hockey out on the street right behind them on their: "Marxist March
>> to Utopia"You will see the tenor and rhetoric coming out of S-P's mug,
>> along with his heroes like Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, the entire Hollywood
>> elite begin to diminish; and it's long overdue!
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Brian Bednarek  wrote:
>>
>>> I heard the 800 number on the radio .. but the internets backed it up:
>>>
>>> http://www.nashfm947.com/news/trump-didnt-save-as-many-carri
>>> er-jobs-as-he-claimed/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Keith In Tampa 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I don't get your numbers Brine.  First, there's over 1100 jobs that
 will remain in Indiana at the United Technologies/Carrier plant, where
 Carrier has pledged to expend $16 million on plant renovations and
 improvements.

 The millions of tax incentives is Carrier's own money, and the federal
 government will be getting their hands out of businesses across the
 Nation's pockets in similar fashion which has helped to create the
 depression that our Nation is in currently.   (There's 96 million Americans
 no longer in the work force Brine!)

 As President-Elect Trump said last night, as well as the President of
 United Technologies, the tax breaks was not the big motivator, but the
 promise of repealing the almost 300 new federal regulations that have
 absolutely nothing to do with environment or safety was the motivator!

 Our economy is getting ready to take off like we haven't seen since the
 1960s/1970s!

 On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, geoffrey theist 
 wrote:

> maybe a beginning of stemming the flow of jobs leaving the country
> Brian 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[plainolamerican]

I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this
---
because your perspective is coated with ignorance and lies.

that you think Trump is going to ease regs on things other than safety and 
the environment you're delusional as usual. And Carrier is still going to 
send jobs to Mexico.

 It was time for the proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation
---
yeah ... your fucking warmongering heroes are wanting a war really bad.

By the end of the campaign there was a lot riding on Carrier’s plan to move 
2,000 manufacturing jobs out of Indiana south to Mexico. Donald Trump made 
a campaign pledge to keep the air-conditioner maker’s parent company, 
United Technologies, from closing two factories and eliminating thousands 
of jobs in his running mate's home state. On Tuesday, multiple outlets 
report that the *Trump transition team is set to announce a deal Thursday 
that will keep half of those jobs from leaving for Mexico.*

It’s unclear what tools the Trump negotiating team used to limit the job 
losses that were set to be staggered over a three-year period. The U.S. 
government is a big customer of United Technologies and accounts for 
roughly $5.6 billion in military sales for the company each year. Losing 
even a small portion of those contracts would make the relocation to 
Mexico, which is expected to save the company $65 million a year in labor 
costs, far less appealing.

“In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump and 
Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be friendlier 
to business by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate tax code,” 
the *Times* reports 
.
 
“In addition, Mr. Trump is expected to tone down his rhetoric threatening 
35 percent tariffs on companies like Carrier that shift production south of 
the border.”





On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 8:50:40 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote:
>
> Good Morning Brine, and thank you for sharing that article.  I haven't 
> verified the accuracy of the 800 number or the 1100 number, but I'll take 
> your article as being truthful.
>
> I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this, and obviously 
> I hold much different views than Sissy-Pus does.  The new Trump 
> Administration's contacting of Carrier in an effort to keep them here in 
> the United States is a paradigm and barometer of the focus on our National 
> economy and getting America back on track once again.  It was time for the 
> proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation culturally, economically; 
>  mind-set wise; and time to sweep the negative Anti-American Sissy-Pus 
> horse hockey out on the street right behind them on their: "Marxist March 
> to Utopia"You will see the tenor and rhetoric coming out of S-P's mug, 
> along with his heroes like Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, the entire Hollywood 
> elite begin to diminish; and it's long overdue!
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Brian Bednarek  > wrote:
>
>> I heard the 800 number on the radio .. but the internets backed it up:
>>
>>
>> http://www.nashfm947.com/news/trump-didnt-save-as-many-carrier-jobs-as-he-claimed/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Keith In Tampa > > wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get your numbers Brine.  First, there's over 1100 jobs that will 
>>> remain in Indiana at the United Technologies/Carrier plant, where Carrier 
>>> has pledged to expend $16 million on plant renovations and improvements.  
>>>
>>> The millions of tax incentives is Carrier's own money, and the federal 
>>> government will be getting their hands out of businesses across the 
>>> Nation's pockets in similar fashion which has helped to create the 
>>> depression that our Nation is in currently.   (There's 96 million Americans 
>>> no longer in the work force Brine!)  
>>>
>>> As President-Elect Trump said last night, as well as the President of 
>>> United Technologies, the tax breaks was not the big motivator, but the 
>>> promise of repealing the almost 300 new federal regulations that have 
>>> absolutely nothing to do with environment or safety was the motivator!
>>>
>>> Our economy is getting ready to take off like we haven't seen since the 
>>> 1960s/1970s!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, geoffrey theist >> > wrote:
>>>
 maybe a beginning of stemming the flow of jobs leaving the country  
 Brian something has to be done one way or another the test will be net 
 gain 
 or loss of tax base in these local economies.

 On Dec 2, 2016 6:01 PM, "Brian Bednarek"  wrote:

> I wonder how the Carrier deal is good ... seems like theater to me ... 
> let's see, the Governor is the VP elect and he was able to broker a deal 
> where 800 jobs are saved with millions of tax incentives 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[Keith In Tampa]

Good Morning Brine, and thank you for sharing that article.  I haven't
verified the accuracy of the 800 number or the 1100 number, but I'll take
your article as being truthful.

I guess I have a different perspective than you do on this, and obviously I
hold much different views than Sissy-Pus does.  The new Trump
Administration's contacting of Carrier in an effort to keep them here in
the United States is a paradigm and barometer of the focus on our National
economy and getting America back on track once again.  It was time for the
proverbial "Change of Course" in our Nation culturally, economically;
 mind-set wise; and time to sweep the negative Anti-American Sissy-Pus
horse hockey out on the street right behind them on their: "Marxist March
to Utopia"You will see the tenor and rhetoric coming out of S-P's mug,
along with his heroes like Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, the entire Hollywood
elite begin to diminish; and it's long overdue!

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Brian Bednarek  wrote:

> I heard the 800 number on the radio .. but the internets backed it up:
>
> http://www.nashfm947.com/news/trump-didnt-save-as-many-
> carrier-jobs-as-he-claimed/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Keith In Tampa 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't get your numbers Brine.  First, there's over 1100 jobs that will
>> remain in Indiana at the United Technologies/Carrier plant, where Carrier
>> has pledged to expend $16 million on plant renovations and improvements.
>>
>> The millions of tax incentives is Carrier's own money, and the federal
>> government will be getting their hands out of businesses across the
>> Nation's pockets in similar fashion which has helped to create the
>> depression that our Nation is in currently.   (There's 96 million Americans
>> no longer in the work force Brine!)
>>
>> As President-Elect Trump said last night, as well as the President of
>> United Technologies, the tax breaks was not the big motivator, but the
>> promise of repealing the almost 300 new federal regulations that have
>> absolutely nothing to do with environment or safety was the motivator!
>>
>> Our economy is getting ready to take off like we haven't seen since the
>> 1960s/1970s!
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, geoffrey theist 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> maybe a beginning of stemming the flow of jobs leaving the country
>>> Brian something has to be done one way or another the test will be net gain
>>> or loss of tax base in these local economies.
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2016 6:01 PM, "Brian Bednarek"  wrote:
>>>
 I wonder how the Carrier deal is good ... seems like theater to me ...
 let's see, the Governor is the VP elect and he was able to broker a deal
 where 800 jobs are saved with millions of tax incentives ... not sure it's
 all that good a deal!!! Only time will tell!!!

 On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Keith In Tampa 
 wrote:

> This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against
> Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products
>  and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States
> by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of
> product.
>
> That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the
> manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade
> agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets
> and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel
> to cheaper labor markets.  Meanwhile, the service related jobs created
> within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to,
> or advertised to replace.
>
> Because of the advance of technology(ies)  some of this is obviously
> going to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 
> will
> tell you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national
> economy.
>
> It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier
> examples are a good start.
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ  wrote:
>
>>
>> 02 December 2016
>>
>> *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan
>> McMaken
>>
>> Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing
>> companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries.
>>
>> When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to
>> Mexico, the Drudge headline read:
>>
>>
>>
>> * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ...
>> "
>> *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for
>> Ford Motor Company's announcement that it would 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[Brian Bednarek]

I heard the 800 number on the radio .. but the internets backed it up:

http://www.nashfm947.com/news/trump-didnt-save-as-many-carrier-jobs-as-he-claimed/



On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Keith In Tampa 
wrote:

> I don't get your numbers Brine.  First, there's over 1100 jobs that will
> remain in Indiana at the United Technologies/Carrier plant, where Carrier
> has pledged to expend $16 million on plant renovations and improvements.
>
> The millions of tax incentives is Carrier's own money, and the federal
> government will be getting their hands out of businesses across the
> Nation's pockets in similar fashion which has helped to create the
> depression that our Nation is in currently.   (There's 96 million Americans
> no longer in the work force Brine!)
>
> As President-Elect Trump said last night, as well as the President of
> United Technologies, the tax breaks was not the big motivator, but the
> promise of repealing the almost 300 new federal regulations that have
> absolutely nothing to do with environment or safety was the motivator!
>
> Our economy is getting ready to take off like we haven't seen since the
> 1960s/1970s!
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, geoffrey theist 
> wrote:
>
>> maybe a beginning of stemming the flow of jobs leaving the country  Brian
>> something has to be done one way or another the test will be net gain or
>> loss of tax base in these local economies.
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2016 6:01 PM, "Brian Bednarek"  wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder how the Carrier deal is good ... seems like theater to me ...
>>> let's see, the Governor is the VP elect and he was able to broker a deal
>>> where 800 jobs are saved with millions of tax incentives ... not sure it's
>>> all that good a deal!!! Only time will tell!!!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Keith In Tampa 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against
 Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products
  and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States
 by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of
 product.

 That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the
 manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade
 agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets
 and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel
 to cheaper labor markets.  Meanwhile, the service related jobs created
 within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to,
 or advertised to replace.

 Because of the advance of technology(ies)  some of this is obviously
 going to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 will
 tell you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national
 economy.

 It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier examples
 are a good start.

 On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ  wrote:

>
> 02 December 2016
>
> *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan
> McMaken
>
> Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing
> companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries.
>
> When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to
> Mexico, the Drudge headline read:
>
>
>
> * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ...
> "
> *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for Ford
> Motor Company's announcement that it would not be moving the
> production of a Lincoln SUV to Mexico
> .
> Ford does plan to move forward with moving more small-car production to
> Mexico in spite of the fact that Trump had earlier promised to slap a
> 35 percent tariff on auto imports from Mexico.
> 
>
> Unfortunately, the Drudge headlines are simply helping to perpetuate
> simplistic ideas of how wealth is built, and forwards the idea that free
> trade and free movement of capital somehow make most Americans poorer.
>
> Indeed, it seems that most pundits and news organizations are treating
> it as a *given* that keeping auto production or air conditioning
> production within the borders of the United States is an automatic "win."
>
> Most of the criticism of the Trump Carrier deal has focused on the
> politics and legality of the deal. Some have even claimed that Carrier 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[Keith In Tampa]

I don't get your numbers Brine.  First, there's over 1100 jobs that will
remain in Indiana at the United Technologies/Carrier plant, where Carrier
has pledged to expend $16 million on plant renovations and improvements.

The millions of tax incentives is Carrier's own money, and the federal
government will be getting their hands out of businesses across the
Nation's pockets in similar fashion which has helped to create the
depression that our Nation is in currently.   (There's 96 million Americans
no longer in the work force Brine!)

As President-Elect Trump said last night, as well as the President of
United Technologies, the tax breaks was not the big motivator, but the
promise of repealing the almost 300 new federal regulations that have
absolutely nothing to do with environment or safety was the motivator!

Our economy is getting ready to take off like we haven't seen since the
1960s/1970s!

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, geoffrey theist 
wrote:

> maybe a beginning of stemming the flow of jobs leaving the country  Brian
> something has to be done one way or another the test will be net gain or
> loss of tax base in these local economies.
>
> On Dec 2, 2016 6:01 PM, "Brian Bednarek"  wrote:
>
>> I wonder how the Carrier deal is good ... seems like theater to me ...
>> let's see, the Governor is the VP elect and he was able to broker a deal
>> where 800 jobs are saved with millions of tax incentives ... not sure it's
>> all that good a deal!!! Only time will tell!!!
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Keith In Tampa 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against
>>> Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products
>>>  and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States
>>> by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of
>>> product.
>>>
>>> That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the
>>> manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade
>>> agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets
>>> and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel
>>> to cheaper labor markets.  Meanwhile, the service related jobs created
>>> within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to,
>>> or advertised to replace.
>>>
>>> Because of the advance of technology(ies)  some of this is obviously
>>> going to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 will
>>> tell you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national
>>> economy.
>>>
>>> It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier examples
>>> are a good start.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ  wrote:
>>>

 02 December 2016

 *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan
 McMaken

 Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing
 companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries.

 When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to
 Mexico, the Drudge headline read:



 * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ...
 "
 *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for Ford
 Motor Company's announcement that it would not be moving the
 production of a Lincoln SUV to Mexico
 .
 Ford does plan to move forward with moving more small-car production to
 Mexico in spite of the fact that Trump had earlier promised to slap a
 35 percent tariff on auto imports from Mexico.
 

 Unfortunately, the Drudge headlines are simply helping to perpetuate
 simplistic ideas of how wealth is built, and forwards the idea that free
 trade and free movement of capital somehow make most Americans poorer.

 Indeed, it seems that most pundits and news organizations are treating
 it as a *given* that keeping auto production or air conditioning
 production within the borders of the United States is an automatic "win."

 Most of the criticism of the Trump Carrier deal has focused on the
 politics and legality of the deal. Some have even claimed that Carrier was
 essentially bought off with "subsidies" from the State of Indiana, and
 possibly the federal government as well.

 As Tho Bishop has pointed out,
  however,
 what little we know of the deal suggests that it is primarily characterized
 by tax breaks which 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[geoffrey theist]

maybe a beginning of stemming the flow of jobs leaving the country  Brian
something has to be done one way or another the test will be net gain or
loss of tax base in these local economies.

On Dec 2, 2016 6:01 PM, "Brian Bednarek"  wrote:

> I wonder how the Carrier deal is good ... seems like theater to me ...
> let's see, the Governor is the VP elect and he was able to broker a deal
> where 800 jobs are saved with millions of tax incentives ... not sure it's
> all that good a deal!!! Only time will tell!!!
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Keith In Tampa 
> wrote:
>
>> This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against
>> Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products
>>  and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States
>> by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of
>> product.
>>
>> That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the
>> manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade
>> agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets
>> and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel
>> to cheaper labor markets.  Meanwhile, the service related jobs created
>> within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to,
>> or advertised to replace.
>>
>> Because of the advance of technology(ies)  some of this is obviously
>> going to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 will
>> tell you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national
>> economy.
>>
>> It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier examples
>> are a good start.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 02 December 2016
>>>
>>> *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan
>>> McMaken
>>>
>>> Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing
>>> companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries.
>>>
>>> When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to Mexico,
>>> the Drudge headline read:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ...
>>> "
>>> *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for Ford
>>> Motor Company's announcement that it would not be moving the production
>>> of a Lincoln SUV to Mexico
>>> .
>>> Ford does plan to move forward with moving more small-car production to
>>> Mexico in spite of the fact that Trump had earlier promised to slap a
>>> 35 percent tariff on auto imports from Mexico.
>>> 
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the Drudge headlines are simply helping to perpetuate
>>> simplistic ideas of how wealth is built, and forwards the idea that free
>>> trade and free movement of capital somehow make most Americans poorer.
>>>
>>> Indeed, it seems that most pundits and news organizations are treating
>>> it as a *given* that keeping auto production or air conditioning
>>> production within the borders of the United States is an automatic "win."
>>>
>>> Most of the criticism of the Trump Carrier deal has focused on the
>>> politics and legality of the deal. Some have even claimed that Carrier was
>>> essentially bought off with "subsidies" from the State of Indiana, and
>>> possibly the federal government as well.
>>>
>>> As Tho Bishop has pointed out,
>>>  however,
>>> what little we know of the deal suggests that it is primarily characterized
>>> by tax breaks which cannot accurately be called subsidies. And, if tax
>>> breaks are truly behind the deal, there's no reason to criticize the deal
>>> because of *that.*
>>>
>>> What is troubling, however, is the continued insistence by pundits and
>>> politicians that it's a great victory to not have a factory move to a
>>> neighboring political jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> This is then reinforced by a focus on only what Frédéric Bastiat called
>>> "the seen." 
>>> That is, there's a focus on only the people who will keep their jobs (for
>>> now) with the move to Mexico not taking place. This makes for good TV, such
>>> as in this case
>>> when
>>> FoxNews featured a Carrier employee thanking Trump for supposedly keeping
>>> the jobs in the United States.
>>>
>>> But what about those "unseen" groups and individuals who would have
>>> benefited from a Carrier move to Mexico?
>>>

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[Brian Bednarek]

I wonder how the Carrier deal is good ... seems like theater to me ...
let's see, the Governor is the VP elect and he was able to broker a deal
where 800 jobs are saved with millions of tax incentives ... not sure it's
all that good a deal!!! Only time will tell!!!

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Keith In Tampa 
wrote:

> This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against
> Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products
>  and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States
> by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of
> product.
>
> That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the
> manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade
> agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets
> and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel
> to cheaper labor markets.  Meanwhile, the service related jobs created
> within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to,
> or advertised to replace.
>
> Because of the advance of technology(ies)  some of this is obviously going
> to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 will tell
> you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national economy.
>
> It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier examples
> are a good start.
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ  wrote:
>
>>
>> 02 December 2016
>>
>> *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan
>> McMaken
>>
>> Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing
>> companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries.
>>
>> When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to Mexico,
>> the Drudge headline read:
>>
>>
>>
>> * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ...
>> "
>> *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for Ford
>> Motor Company's announcement that it would not be moving the production
>> of a Lincoln SUV to Mexico
>> .
>> Ford does plan to move forward with moving more small-car production to
>> Mexico in spite of the fact that Trump had earlier promised to slap a 35
>> percent tariff on auto imports from Mexico.
>> 
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Drudge headlines are simply helping to perpetuate
>> simplistic ideas of how wealth is built, and forwards the idea that free
>> trade and free movement of capital somehow make most Americans poorer.
>>
>> Indeed, it seems that most pundits and news organizations are treating it
>> as a *given* that keeping auto production or air conditioning production
>> within the borders of the United States is an automatic "win."
>>
>> Most of the criticism of the Trump Carrier deal has focused on the
>> politics and legality of the deal. Some have even claimed that Carrier was
>> essentially bought off with "subsidies" from the State of Indiana, and
>> possibly the federal government as well.
>>
>> As Tho Bishop has pointed out,
>>  however,
>> what little we know of the deal suggests that it is primarily characterized
>> by tax breaks which cannot accurately be called subsidies. And, if tax
>> breaks are truly behind the deal, there's no reason to criticize the deal
>> because of *that.*
>>
>> What is troubling, however, is the continued insistence by pundits and
>> politicians that it's a great victory to not have a factory move to a
>> neighboring political jurisdiction.
>>
>> This is then reinforced by a focus on only what Frédéric Bastiat called
>> "the seen." 
>> That is, there's a focus on only the people who will keep their jobs (for
>> now) with the move to Mexico not taking place. This makes for good TV, such
>> as in this case
>> when
>> FoxNews featured a Carrier employee thanking Trump for supposedly keeping
>> the jobs in the United States.
>>
>> But what about those "unseen" groups and individuals who would have
>> benefited from a Carrier move to Mexico?
>>
>> After all, Carrier had originally stated that the purpose of the move was to
>> save $65 million in labor costs
>>  for
>> the company. This would have translated to lower prices for Carrier's
>> customers, and that would have, in turn, helped Carrier maintain market
>> share and 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[geoffrey theist]

Keith such loss is dangerous  to national security if the US had the
munufacturing base at end of the 1930s as it has now Europe would be
speaking German.

On Dec 2, 2016 5:07 PM, "Keith In Tampa"  wrote:

> This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against
> Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products
>  and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States
> by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of
> product.
>
> That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the
> manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade
> agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets
> and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel
> to cheaper labor markets.  Meanwhile, the service related jobs created
> within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to,
> or advertised to replace.
>
> Because of the advance of technology(ies)  some of this is obviously going
> to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 will tell
> you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national economy.
>
> It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier examples
> are a good start.
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ  wrote:
>
>>
>> 02 December 2016
>>
>> *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan
>> McMaken
>>
>> Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing
>> companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries.
>>
>> When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to Mexico,
>> the Drudge headline read:
>>
>>
>>
>> * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ...
>> "
>> *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for Ford
>> Motor Company's announcement that it would not be moving the production
>> of a Lincoln SUV to Mexico
>> .
>> Ford does plan to move forward with moving more small-car production to
>> Mexico in spite of the fact that Trump had earlier promised to slap a 35
>> percent tariff on auto imports from Mexico.
>> 
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Drudge headlines are simply helping to perpetuate
>> simplistic ideas of how wealth is built, and forwards the idea that free
>> trade and free movement of capital somehow make most Americans poorer.
>>
>> Indeed, it seems that most pundits and news organizations are treating it
>> as a *given* that keeping auto production or air conditioning production
>> within the borders of the United States is an automatic "win."
>>
>> Most of the criticism of the Trump Carrier deal has focused on the
>> politics and legality of the deal. Some have even claimed that Carrier was
>> essentially bought off with "subsidies" from the State of Indiana, and
>> possibly the federal government as well.
>>
>> As Tho Bishop has pointed out,
>>  however,
>> what little we know of the deal suggests that it is primarily characterized
>> by tax breaks which cannot accurately be called subsidies. And, if tax
>> breaks are truly behind the deal, there's no reason to criticize the deal
>> because of *that.*
>>
>> What is troubling, however, is the continued insistence by pundits and
>> politicians that it's a great victory to not have a factory move to a
>> neighboring political jurisdiction.
>>
>> This is then reinforced by a focus on only what Frédéric Bastiat called
>> "the seen." 
>> That is, there's a focus on only the people who will keep their jobs (for
>> now) with the move to Mexico not taking place. This makes for good TV, such
>> as in this case
>> when
>> FoxNews featured a Carrier employee thanking Trump for supposedly keeping
>> the jobs in the United States.
>>
>> But what about those "unseen" groups and individuals who would have
>> benefited from a Carrier move to Mexico?
>>
>> After all, Carrier had originally stated that the purpose of the move was to
>> save $65 million in labor costs
>>  for
>> the company. This would have translated to lower prices for Carrier's
>> customers, and that would have, in turn, helped Carrier maintain market
>> share and profitability.
>>
>> It is entirely possible that the deal worked out with the Trump
>> administration and the State of Indiana 

Re: [PoliticalForum] Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico

[Keith In Tampa]

This is the same (or similar) argument that alleges tariffs against
Nation-States who are subsidizing manufacturing and/or specific products
 and/or currency manipulated products built and flooding the United States
by Nation-States targeting a specific market, will raise the cost of
product.

That very well may be, but as we have seen over the last 26 years, the
manufacturing base in this Nation has been decimated due to trade
agreements allowing these foreign Nation-States to flood American markets
and likewise, our manufacturing base being shipped lock, stock and barrel
to cheaper labor markets.  Meanwhile, the service related jobs created
within our Nation are not comparable to those jobs they are purported to,
or advertised to replace.

Because of the advance of technology(ies)  some of this is obviously going
to happen, but just a brief understanding of Macro-Economics-101 will tell
you that such a loss is unsustainable for our overall national economy.

It's time for a course change, and the recent Ford and Carrier examples are
a good start.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM, MJ  wrote:

>
> 02 December 2016
>
> *Countless Ordinary Americans Benefit When Companies Move to Mexico *Ryan
> McMaken
>
> Matt Drudge has been applauding Donald Trump's efforts at preventing
> companies from locating their production facilities to foreign countries.
>
> When Carrier announced it would not be moving 1,000 positions to Mexico,
> the Drudge headline read:
>
>
>
> * " AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS ...
> "
> *Drudge carried a similar headline when Trump claimed credit for Ford
> Motor Company's announcement that it would not be moving the production
> of a Lincoln SUV to Mexico
> .
> Ford does plan to move forward with moving more small-car production to
> Mexico in spite of the fact that Trump had earlier promised to slap a 35
> percent tariff on auto imports from Mexico.
> 
>
> Unfortunately, the Drudge headlines are simply helping to perpetuate
> simplistic ideas of how wealth is built, and forwards the idea that free
> trade and free movement of capital somehow make most Americans poorer.
>
> Indeed, it seems that most pundits and news organizations are treating it
> as a *given* that keeping auto production or air conditioning production
> within the borders of the United States is an automatic "win."
>
> Most of the criticism of the Trump Carrier deal has focused on the
> politics and legality of the deal. Some have even claimed that Carrier was
> essentially bought off with "subsidies" from the State of Indiana, and
> possibly the federal government as well.
>
> As Tho Bishop has pointed out,
>  however,
> what little we know of the deal suggests that it is primarily characterized
> by tax breaks which cannot accurately be called subsidies. And, if tax
> breaks are truly behind the deal, there's no reason to criticize the deal
> because of *that.*
>
> What is troubling, however, is the continued insistence by pundits and
> politicians that it's a great victory to not have a factory move to a
> neighboring political jurisdiction.
>
> This is then reinforced by a focus on only what Frédéric Bastiat called
> "the seen." 
> That is, there's a focus on only the people who will keep their jobs (for
> now) with the move to Mexico not taking place. This makes for good TV, such
> as in this case
> when
> FoxNews featured a Carrier employee thanking Trump for supposedly keeping
> the jobs in the United States.
>
> But what about those "unseen" groups and individuals who would have
> benefited from a Carrier move to Mexico?
>
> After all, Carrier had originally stated that the purpose of the move was to
> save $65 million in labor costs
>  for
> the company. This would have translated to lower prices for Carrier's
> customers, and that would have, in turn, helped Carrier maintain market
> share and profitability.
>
> It is entirely possible that the deal worked out with the Trump
> administration and the State of Indiana renders the move unnecessary and
> will allow Carrier to reduce costs anyway. The fact is we know precious few
> details in the matter.
>
> Let's suppose, however, that Carrier elected not to move in order to avoid
> possible future tariffs threatened by Trump, or that the alleged tax-cut
> deal does not totally compensate for the $65