President Trump

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Actually, it was in 1989 with their majority opinion in Texas v Johnson which settled the question that burning an American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. We have the right to burn as many American flags as we can afford to buy and burn and no one can say or do a damned thing about it.

Trump's people really need to take away his Twitter access right now.

I may now go out and buy a flag specifically so I can burn it, just to say "fuck you" to the President-Elect. I am still glad I didn't vote for him.

[Ur Dead]

Just wondering.. is really PE-Trump doing the messages.
You hear him lately and see who he is appointing and
the tweets don't jive.
I wondering if this is planned or if somebody is using an account that mimics his IM's.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It is impossible to tell whether he is sending those tweets himself or if someone on his staff is doing it. Hacked account? Probably not. Either way, whoever is sending those tweets needs to do their research--it took me less than one minute to search for the phrases "burning an American flag" and "Supreme Court" to locate the above-mentioned ruling via FindLaw.

Incidentally, back in 2005 then-Senator Hillary Clinton of New York cosponsored a bill which would have set up criminal penalties for willingly burning a flag; the bill did not make it out of committee.

Burning a flag falls into the same type of thinking as those people who get upset over drawing Mohammad. These people are unable to separate the Symbol from what the Symbol represents; they need to go read some more Joseph Campbell.

[Ur Dead]

A second though..wild one

Does Trump own any stake in a company that makes flags?

Just wondering.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I have no idea about that.

What I do know, though, is that he is populating his Cabinet with people who are Wall Street insiders. The person chosen for Treasury Secretary bought IndyMac back in 2008 as it was beginning to fail (that was the first mortgage broker to fail ahead of the housing collapse, leading to the recession) then later managed to sell it for a $1.8 billion profit after having foreclosed on 36,000 households, many of them in reverse mortgage status (typically only older people are eligible for reverse mortgages). He was also a partner at Goldman Sachs, a company which has had many people over the last 15 years in positions very close to the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, his choice for Commerce Secretary is a private equity investor whose company specialized in buying companies in or near bankruptcy then flipping them to foreign investors. Some of those flipped companies wound up shipping jobs overseas, an activity which Trump claims to dislike.

[Zarathustra]

Trump is not even President yet and he's already saving 1000s of jobs. He talked Carrier into staying the U.S.

Not all of his cabinet picks are going to satisfy his voters, but no one can say they are stupid picks. Clearly, he's surrounding himself with people who have experience and knowledge. I'd rather see "Wall Street insiders" as Treasury and Commerce secretaries than Washington insiders. People with real world experience in the economy--like Trump himself--rather than politicians.

Is no one impressed that he's willing to put aside the personal insults hurled at him by Mitt Romney to consider him for Secretary of State? It kind of runs counter to the "thin-skinned" caricature, right? Given the nasty, personal nature of Romney's attacks, I think it's downright magnanimous of Trump to consider him. Trump is showing himself to be the deal maker and executive he always claimed to be. It's more important to him to pick qualified people for the job than to be petty and worry about his ego.

I think his ability to negotiate and win over advisaries is going to shock a lot of people.

[Vraith]

Trump is not even President yet and he's already saving 1000s of jobs. He talked Carrier into staying the U.S.

Not all of his cabinet picks are going to satisfy his voters, but no one can say they are stupid picks. Clearly, he's surrounding himself with people who have experience and knowledge. I'd rather see "Wall Street insiders" as Treasury and Commerce secretaries than Washington insiders. People with real world experience in the economy--like Trump himself--rather than politicians.

Is no one impressed that he's willing to put aside the personal insults hurled at him by Mitt Romney to consider him for Secretary of State? It kind of runs counter to the "thin-skinned" caricature, right? Given the nasty, personal nature of Romney's attacks, I think it's downright magnanimous of Trump to consider him. Trump is showing himself to be the deal maker and executive he always claimed to be. It's more important to him to pick qualified people for the job than to be petty and worry about his ego.

I think his ability to negotiate and win over advisaries is going to shock a lot of people.

From bottom to top:
I hope he DOES shock me [in a good way, of course]...I really do.

I'm not a Romney fan in a number of ways---but I think it's possible he could do a decent job at State. Will he GET the job, though? None of the others mentioned is a good option...Rudy probably the most horrible.

The other posts...as far as I can tell, not good, very very bad. Most of them seem to actually HATE everything the departments are supposed to be for. Not just some of the policies/execution, but the simple fact that they exist at all.

Carrier...I'll have to see the details. But hints/leaks seem to indicate it might not have been negotiations...it might be payoffs/cronyism.

[Zarathustra]

Whatever he did to get Carrier to stay, you have to admit that his sharpest critics thought he was full of shit, had no idea how to do it. Obama mocked him and compared such an ability to a "magic wand." Well, when someone has a skill that utterly escapes even your ability to imagine as possible, I suppose you mock what you don't understand. Real world experience will look like magic to a politician.

Trump isn't even President yet and he's defying the expectations of his critics. He's doing what looks like "magic" to them: the "impossible," the unimaginable.

But problems are soluble. Politicians are used to getting elected, not actually fixing things.

[Vraith]

Burning a flag falls into the same type of thinking as those people who get upset over drawing Mohammad. These people are unable to separate the Symbol from what the Symbol represents; they need to go read some more Joseph Campbell.

Yea. This confusion also flows over into other realms and leads to bad decision making. For instance our financial sector is fucked and dangerous to the rest of the economy---and still growing! And that is, in part, because people [and groups/structures like businesses and governments] think of money as a thing and product in itself, and act accordingly. But it isn't that. It's a symbol being conflated with what it represents.

On the Clinton flag-burning thing, though---IIRC, it wasn't flag burning in itself, it was flag burning with the intent to incite violence.
It's STILL not a good thing, it is still a swamp-reeking kettle of worms on both pragmatic and logical/ideological grounds.
But there is a difference in kind between that bad idea and Trump's bad idea.

[Cagliostro]

Whatever he did to get Carrier to stay, you have to admit that his sharpest critics thought he was full of shit, had no idea how to do it. Obama mocked him and compared such an ability to a "magic wand." Well, when someone has a skill that utterly escapes even your ability to imagine as possible, I suppose you mock what you don't understand. Real world experience will look like magic to a politician.

Trump isn't even President yet and he's defying the expectations of his critics. He's doing what looks like "magic" to them: the "impossible," the unimaginable.

But problems are soluble. Politicians are used to getting elected, not actually fixing things.

Looks like doing a simple google search says that some 700 jobs are still moving to Mexico from Carrier, and it was a tax break that taxpayers are still going to have to pay for. Not impressed.

[Zarathustra]

Whatever he did to get Carrier to stay, you have to admit that his sharpest critics thought he was full of shit, had no idea how to do it. Obama mocked him and compared such an ability to a "magic wand." Well, when someone has a skill that utterly escapes even your ability to imagine as possible, I suppose you mock what you don't understand. Real world experience will look like magic to a politician.

Trump isn't even President yet and he's defying the expectations of his critics. He's doing what looks like "magic" to them: the "impossible," the unimaginable.

But problems are soluble. Politicians are used to getting elected, not actually fixing things.

Looks like doing a simple google search says that some 700 jobs are still moving to Mexico from Carrier, and it was a tax break that taxpayers are still going to have to pay for. Not impressed.

I don't use Google (changing their search algorithms to help Hillary is just one of many reasons). Do you have a link?

Some jobs are going to Mexico from one plant, but he still saved 1000 from another.

Tax breaks don't have to be "paid for" by anyone. History has repeatedly shown that cutting taxes can actually increase tax revenues by stimulating the economy. Keeping 1000 people working, paying income tax, payroll tax, and sales tax on everything they buy is worth a tax break to the corporation. Better than putting them on unemployment or food stamps.

I don't understand looking for reasons to criticize or complain about 1000 people keeping their jobs--or even being unimpressed. We're used to hearing about Presidents doing stuff in their first 100 days. I can't ever remember hearing about a President accomplishing something before he's even sworn in. That's not impressive? He's already making deals and getting results.

[Cail]

Yeah, but has he gotten a Nobel Peace Prize yet?

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, but has he gotten a Nobel Peace Prize yet?

He might have to darken his fake tan a bit to get that kind of pre-recognition.

[Damelon]

Tax breaks don't have to be "paid for" by anyone. History has repeatedly shown that cutting taxes can actually increase tax revenues by stimulating the economy. Keeping 1000 people working, paying income tax, payroll tax, and sales tax on everything they buy is worth a tax break to the corporation. Better than putting them on unemployment or food stamps.

It's a good deal if Carrier were creating jobs not cutting their employment by roughly half and getting a credit for keeping what's left.

The problem with the premise stated here is that Indiana is not cutting taxes. Not every corporation there is receiving that credit. They, along with the individual taxpayers of Indiana are picking up the tab for Carrier to put a portion of their workers on unemployment or food stamps.

[Zarathustra]

Tax breaks don't have to be "paid for" by anyone. History has repeatedly shown that cutting taxes can actually increase tax revenues by stimulating the economy. Keeping 1000 people working, paying income tax, payroll tax, and sales tax on everything they buy is worth a tax break to the corporation. Better than putting them on unemployment or food stamps.

It's a good deal if Carrier were creating jobs not cutting their employment by roughly half and getting a credit for keeping what's left.

They employ 45,000 people. Sending 700 to Mexico isn't "cutting their employment by roughly half."

The problem with the premise stated here is that Indiana is not cutting taxes. Not every corporation there is receiving that credit. They, along with the individual taxpayers of Indiana are picking up the tab for Carrier to put a portion of their workers on unemployment or food stamps.

What "tab" is this? I thought our MMT discussions settled the issue that the government doesn't need taxes to pay for stuff. I suppose that doesn't apply to Indiana, only the federal government, but I haven't seen any figures or links that purport to show exactly what tax break they're getting and how much this will cost anyone. Are tax payers actually seeing an increase in their tax burdens because of this? Can anyone prove that's happening? By how much, exactly?

I think it's ironic that as soon as a Republican starts saving jobs, people start complaining about the cost. Where was this concern when we were discussing unions and how much they add to the cost of goods? What about that "tab" that the rest of us have to finance?

I actually disagree with Trump on the globalization issue. I think it's foolish to try to "keep jobs in America" instead of reaping the benefits of cheap labor elsewhere. I think it's foolish to pay Americans inflated wages to do jobs that can be mechanized or outsourced. But for years the other side has been arguing that it's more important to keep manufacturing in America, without worrying at all about how expensive it is to consumers to finance excessive union wages.

I don't understand this thinking that if Carrier gets a tax break, it's a burden on the rest of us. What if Carrier decided that it has had enough of paying taxes and being a political talking point, and decided to go out of business altogether? It would no longer pay any taxes whatsoever. Would the rest of us suddenly see an increase in our taxes because some corporation goes out of business? Corporations go out of business all the time. I don't notice any spikes in my tax burden from those "tax loses."

I think that my tax burden is entirely independent of what some other entity is paying. It is merely class warfare and zero-sum thinking that makes us believe otherwise. Neither the economy nor the tax code is a zero-sum game. Someone else getting a benefit doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of us suffer. They're not literally taking anything away from you.

[Fist and Faith]

Actually, it was in 1989 with their majority opinion in Texas v Johnson which settled the question that burning an American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. We have the right to burn as many American flags as we can afford to buy and burn and no one can say or do a damned thing about it.

Anyone can say anything they want about it. And they surely do.

[Cail]

Carrier's getting $7 million in tax breaks. For keeping 700 jobs here. I'm no rocket surgeon, but that doesn't sound like a good deal.

[Zarathustra]

Carrier's getting $7 million in tax breaks. For keeping 700 jobs here. I'm no rocket surgeon, but that doesn't sound like a good deal.

I thought it was over 1000 jobs. 700 are still going to Mexico. CNN says 800. I don't know.

I'm no rocket surgeon either, but I have a calculator. To keep this simple, let's assume 1000 employees. $7 million is $7000 per employee. Sounds like a lot, right? But how much payroll tax do you think Carrier pays for each of those employees? In other words, how much tax revenue would the government have lost if those jobs were going to Mexico? Well, the employer contribution to payroll taxes is 7.7%. Carrier employees average $23/hr, or roughly $46,000/yr. So the employer contribution is $3,542 per employee, or $3.5 million per year for 1000 employees. If you factor in the employee's contribution (equal to the employer's), it comes out to--surprise surprise--$ 7 million! So it looks like it is costing the government EXACTLY ZERO to keep those jobs. In other words, that's the same amount of payroll tax dollars the federal government would have lost if those jobs had gone to Mexico.

I don't even think that's counting income tax, just SS and Medicare, i.e. "payroll tax." And it's certainly not counting sales taxes that those working people would pay by still having jobs and being active participants in the economy.

Sounds like a good deal to me. It costs us nothing to save 1000 families from financial ruin.

Besides, I thought there was general agreement that all corporations paid too much in taxes, and that the corporate tax rate was going to be decreased across the board. Carrier is a $12.5 billion company. If Trump reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, they are going to get a $2.5 billion tax cut anyway. $7 million is 0.28% of the tax cut coming to them once Trump is President.

[Cail]

Carrier's getting $7 million in tax breaks. For keeping 700 jobs here. I'm no rocket surgeon, but that doesn't sound like a good deal.

I thought it was over 1000 jobs. 700 are still going to Mexico. CNN says 800. I don't know.

I'm no rocket surgeon either, but I have a calculator. To keep this simple, let's assume 1000 employees. $7 million is $7000 per employee. Sounds like a lot, right? But how much payroll tax do you think Carrier pays for each of those employees? In other words, how much tax revenue would the government have lost if those jobs were going to Mexico? Well, the employer contribution to payroll taxes is 7.7%. Carrier employees average $23/hr, or roughly $46,000/yr. So the employer contribution is $3,542 per employee, or $3.5 million per year for 1000 employees. If you factor in the employee's contribution (equal to the employer's), it comes out to--surprise surprise--$ 7 million! So it looks like it is costing the government EXACTLY ZERO to keep those jobs. In other words, that's the same amount of payroll tax dollars the federal government would have lost if those jobs had gone to Mexico.

I don't even think that's counting income tax, just SS and Medicare, i.e. "payroll tax." And it's certainly not counting sales taxes that those working people would pay by still having jobs and being active participants in the economy.

Sounds like a good deal to me. It costs us nothing to save 1000 families from financial ruin.

Besides, I thought there was general agreement that all corporations paid too much in taxes, and that the corporate tax rate was going to be decreased across the board. Carrier is a $12.5 billion company. If Trump reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, they are going to get a $2.5 billion tax cut anyway. $7 million is 0.28% of the tax cut coming to them once Trump is President.

No, it's not a good deal, even if it is revenue neutral.

First of all, Mr. Libertarian, why are you celebrating the POTUS (and not even the sitting POTUS) dictating to a company where they can do business? Second of all, how can you be happy when the government picks specific businesses to target with their largesse? Moreover, Trump's just shown that any company can get a tax break as long as they threaten to leave the country. Great.

I hate myself for agreeing with Sarah Palin (I'll just assume she agrees with me), but this is the worst kind of crony capitalism and government intervention. This is worse than Obama's Solyndra deal.

[Zarathustra]

First of all, Mr. Libertarian, why are you celebrating the POTUS (and not even the sitting POTUS) dictating to a company where they can do business? Second of all, how can you be happy when the government picks specific businesses to target with their largesse? Moreover, Trump's just shown that any company can get a tax break as long as they threaten to leave the country. Great.

1st: Trump didn't dictate anything. He incentivized. He made a deal.

2nd: I'm not advocating picking specific companies, I advocate an across-the-board tax cut for all corporations, just as Trump promises to do.

3rd: The implicit threat of outsourcing has been with us for decades now. Trump didn't create that problem, he responded to it with a solution. The Republican/conservative response to that ever-present threat has always been tax relief to keep jobs here. Trump just proved that it can work. American companies don't *want* to outsource. They are being forced to do it by economic realities that are being created--in a large part--by our government and liberals in particular treating corporations and/or success as bad and something to punish.

You can call Trump's move here an experiment, a trial run for a larger policy. He has tested the fiscally conservative solution and proven that it works. Now we can do it on a large scale, and won't have to pick individual winners/losers, but rather apply the same winning strategy to the entire economy.

It is entirely consistent with Libertarian principles to minimize the government impact on the economy via lower taxes and less restrictive policy*. I have openly stated that I disagree with Trump on free trade and globalization, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with making it more profitable and less expensive to keep jobs here.

*[Lower taxes are just the first part of Trump's plan. He's also going to abolish many of the job-killing regulations that the liberals have imposed upon our economy.]