Originally posted by vivifySounds like a great deal for the US tax payer.
This isn't a sarcastic post. Trump recently struck a deal with a large company that resulted in them keeping jobs in the U.S. rather than bringing them to Mexico. To be clear: the deal is far from perfect; but Trump succeeded where Obama most likely wouldn't have. The video explains why.
[youtube]kXnsF2-pav8[/youtube]
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 202508
Originally posted by vivifyHe bribed them with Indiana tax money. That's why Pence isn't giving up his position just yet. He has to clear the money.
This isn't a sarcastic post. Trump recently struck a deal with a large company that resulted in them keeping jobs in the U.S. rather than bringing them to Mexico. To be clear: the deal is far from perfect; but Trump succeeded where Obama most likely wouldn't have. The video explains why.
[youtube]kXnsF2-pav8[/youtube]
Originally posted by vivifyIn the campaign, Trump promised to punish companies that outsourced US jobs not have the taxpayers pay subsidies so they wouldn't do so.
This isn't a sarcastic post. Trump recently struck a deal with a large company that resulted in them keeping jobs in the U.S. rather than bringing them to Mexico. To be clear: the deal is far from perfect; but Trump succeeded where Obama most likely wouldn't have. The video explains why.
[youtube]kXnsF2-pav8[/youtube]
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is what you would call a lie, wouldn't' you agree? After all, it's not like we are talking about your girl Hillary here.
In the campaign, Trump promised to punish companies that outsourced US jobs not have the taxpayers pay subsidies so they wouldn't do so.
At least Trump is not taking away your doctor and health coverage and raising your premiums at the same time.
Speaking of promising to punish, Hillary does not have a care in the world now, other than counting votes at taxpayer expense after promising to abide by the election results.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYes; and this is part of what makes this far from perfect. As a Republican, you can't really expect him to punish companies for outsourcing jobs; and as a businessman who not only outsourced, but hired illegals to pay them slave-wages, I don't think Trump has it in him to do that.
In the campaign, Trump promised to punish companies that outsourced US jobs not have the taxpayers pay subsidies so they wouldn't do so.
I'm just trying to look on the bright side of Trump election, I guess. Some jobs were kept in the U.S. Obviously, we can't afford to keep bribing every company who wants to outsource.
Originally posted by whodeyShouldn't you be back in the other thread complaining about whether Hillary wears makeup or not?
That is what you would call a lie, wouldn't' you agree? After all, it's not like we are talking about your girl Hillary here.
At least Trump is not taking away your doctor and health coverage and raising your premiums at the same time.
Speaking of promising to punish, Hillary does not have a care in the world now, other than counting votes at taxpayer expense after promising to abide by the election results.
Originally posted by vivifyI thought he was going to him them with a 35 percent tariff. The Dumpster is such a liar.
Yes; and this is part of what makes this far from perfect. As a Republican, you can't really expect him to punish companies for outsourcing jobs; and as a businessman who not only outsourced, but hired illegals to pay them slave-wages, I don't think Trump has it in him to do that.
I'm just trying to look on the bright side of Trump election, I guess. So ...[text shortened]... ept in the U.S. Obviously, we can't afford to keep bribing every company who wants to outsource.
I don't think this is a success or failure, it is merely a highlight of the issue. If the United States continues to have higher tax costs, business are going to be inclined at times to do business where it is cheaper. If the US want to keep those business it may have to reduce costs -- tax breaks or other offsetting benefits. Whether or not it is a good deal obviously depends on the details, but it seems more efficient and fair to lower tax burdens than individually negotiate each case.
Originally posted by vivifyReally?
This isn't a sarcastic post. Trump recently struck a deal with a large company that resulted in them keeping jobs in the U.S. rather than bringing them to Mexico. To be clear: the deal is far from perfect; but Trump succeeded where Obama most likely wouldn't have. The video explains why.
[youtube]kXnsF2-pav8[/youtube]
Trump is going to need a thousand "Carriers" to save more jobs than Obama.
Now how much tax revenue that will cost America is another story entirely.
Originally posted by quackquackOf course, reduce the corporate tax so that revenue must be picked up by those "little people" who get to keep their jobs. Genius.
I don't think this is a success or failure, it is merely a highlight of the issue. If the United States continues to have higher tax costs, business are going to be inclined at times to do business where it is cheaper. If the US want to keep those business it may have to reduce costs -- tax breaks or other offsetting benefits. Whether or not it is a g ...[text shortened]... but it seems more efficient and fair to lower tax burdens than individually negotiate each case.
And oh, so "American".
Forget "E Pluribus Unum". How about making it "Screw the Little Guy"?