This isn't what he said on the campaign trail though, lol. "Being moved for some reason" isn't really a comfort to people who losing those jobs. 

They are moving more than half of 2100 jobs to Mexico and are getting tax breaks/incentives to keep under 50% of those positions. 

Let me ask you then, if this is the precident, what stops every other company from saying "we're moving to Mexico, now give us tax breaks".

This is not what he promised, he said any of these companies that moved to Mexico would face 35% tariff for doing so. Instead they are getting a tax break, a PR photo op, and still being allowed to move more than 50% of these jobs. 

Well as I mentioned above, I have nothing against tax breaks.

Well I don' like them called tax breaks. I just feel taxes on companies should be lower. It woudl keep companies in the U.S., and may bring some back. As I said, the employees income will get taxed. The employed americans spend their money. And also they are not on unimployment.

Take those 1,000 employees. How much do you think taxpayers would be paying to support them on unemployment? I woudl bet more than $700,000.  They could hardly survive on 700 a year. Then think of local businesses, such a restuarants. People with a job are more likely to go out and eat than those looking and worrying about their finances. So 1,000 people losing a job may mean a restuarant or two also goes under. But lets ignore all those situations and just look at the flat income tax. Those 1,000 employees lets say make a modest $35,000 a year. At 35,000 a year with Indiana's tax rate of 3.3 That equates to each of those employees paying 1,155 in taxes. So $455 more dollars paid in that the tax break.

No matter how you try and spin it, I can't see how this is not financially a win all around. If anything the company is the one losing out still, cause they probably could save more money using cheap labor in mexico and cheaper taxes, ect. Obviously a big start up cost moving, but in time it would be better from profits still.

Is it a financial win for the 1000+ people who are still losing their jobs? 

This is a net job loss, I think people need to understand that, you're still losing jobs here. This is like thinking you're winning a basketball game because you only got outscored by 15 points that last quarter instead of 25 the quarter before. 

This is a company that the US gov't also had considerable leverage over as I've mentioned, companies that don't have $5 billion in defence contracts with the US gov't (which like 99% of them) can just tell Trump to go blow himself. 

$5 billion in defence contracts should at least get you 2000 jobs saved, that's a drop in the bucket, if you can't even get that many that's a problem because it shows he's likely impotent against companies that aren't really tied heavily to US gov't spending. Carrier's parent company is heavily tied to the gov't and this is the best they could do? To me it's a shitty deal, it should've been all 2000 stay or no dice, you're making billions off taxpayer funded government contracts. 

If this is how he plans to negotiate, it's not going to stop a net job loss. Carrier made out very nicely here. Got to move 1000+ jobs to Mexico, got a nice tax break (no tarrifs), and a nice PR photo op for them. 

Is it a financial win for the 1000+ people who are still losing their jobs? 

This is a net job loss, I think people need to understand that, you're still losing jobs here. This is like thinking you're winning a basketball game because you only got outscored by 15 points that last quarter instead of 25 the quarter before. 

This is a company that the US gov't also had considerable leverage over as I've mentioned, companies that don't have $5 billion in defence contracts with the US gov't (which like 99% of them) can just tell Trump to go blow himself. This is the best deal he could get in a situation where a lot of things were going his way, it's a poor deal on that basis. 

$5 billion in defence contracts should at least get you 2000 jobs saved, that's a drop in the bucket, if you can't even get that many that's a problem because it shows he's likely impotent against companies that aren't really tied heavily to US gov't spending. Carrier's parent company is heavily tied to the gov't and this is the best they could do? To me it's a shitty deal, it should've been all 2000 stay or no dice, you're making billions off taxpayer funded government contracts the least you can do is keep this small number of jobs here. 

If this is how he plans to negotiate, it's not going to stop a net job loss. Carrier made out very nicely here. Got to move 1000+ jobs to Mexico, got a nice tax break (no tarrifs), and a nice PR photo op for them. 

So your argument is he failed because he didnt' save all 2100 jobs?

Your basketball anology doesn't work. Without this deal all 2100 jobs are lost. I'll take 50% of jobs saved anyday. Yes it sucks for the other 1100 people, but 1000 people happy is better than 0.

And again, I'm saying it is a good deal financially for even the government. They are giving this company 700k, and yet will be getting in taxes back from employees working more than that. That is called a profit. The government spends 700k and gets back (35,000 x 1,000 x .033) = 1,155,000.   So a profit of 455,000 for the government is just income tax alone. When I say gov, I mean Indiana only, cause they are footing this and I used their tax rate only. The Federal gov also gets taxes on each of those 35,000 salaries. (also fyi, that 35,000 is a very conservative # for avg salary, so their profit should be higher)

So tell me why the gov't would be annoyed if other companies did this? Clearly joe Blow can't just go to govt and threaten them with moving. It woudl have to be companies that have concrete plans and statements showing the benefit of moving and hwat not that could as you say "blackmail" the govt into keeping them here. If all it takes to keep companies from leaving is lower taxes, then do it. It pays back in just employee income tax alone. This is not trickle down economics. This is just keeping americans employed so they can pay the gov't taxes.

Raises taxes on Corps is teh stupidest thing imo. Let's look at the worst case scenerio of raising taxes. The company moves. What happens when that happens. 1. You lose all the tax revenue from taht company. 2. You lose all the income tax from their employed people. Take any sim video game you play. When setting tax rates, you obviously always try to get them as high as you can withotu losing people. When you start losing people, what do you do? You lower taxes to bring them back. It's simple. 8 yr old kids playing games understand this.

1) Sorry about the article subscription. My concern lies in his close connections to Russian mafia members (Sater is the son of a boss.), as Putin has them under his thumb. The families have effectively been consolidated (Pledge allegiance or die.). A lot of them have disappeared in the last couple of years, and a few have resurfaced as devout Russian nationalists. One of the more peculiar occurences have been Russian investors who miss major deal meetings; most don't resurface. This has started to become more commonplace with Chinese investors now, so we're collectively concerned about it impacting the investment community. If you're familiar with the industry, you know that Russian investment diminished and was surpassed by Chinese: this started with the consolidation and dovetailed into OPEC breaking the Russian economy, while attempting to price out the American shale oil companies.

2) I actually visited Monticello, and most of the furnishings are replicas, near-duplicates, and or reclaimed property. The reason is that Jefferson had to auction off most of his estate, because he was in such massive debt. By all rights, he was the master of his own undoing: he spent half of his presidential salary on wine lol. He also inherited signifcant debt from his marriage in 1774 and got himself caught up in bad lending arrangements with farmers, banks, and welathy individuals. I see high income-low networth and vice versa people all the time, and the latter usually get trippped up by their illiquidity (because they need the banks and financiers to capitalize on their equity); the former usually end up like MC Hammer. The bottom line is that high net worth people, especially those relying on hard money lenders, are often beholden to said lenders and "who" is more important than "how much."

3) You ever live in NYC or a high-rise building? "One block away," during any crisis situation, might as well be a mile. During "alarm" situations, elevators also go through a recall process that sends them to the first floor. Only a fire marshal can use his key to commandeer the elevator, which makes Trump's 58 flights of stairs a mite bit of an issue. There's a petition to defray the now-estimated $1MM cost to protect Trump in NYC; that's $365MM+/year or (assuming he's not impeached) $1.5B+/term. That's on him and total BS.

4) Daily news: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/01/us/politics/trump-conflict-of-interests.html

1) Do you have any evidence that Felix Sater carries is father's obligations ? Family members being connected to terrorists does not mean that they will automatically pose as a threat and likewise for similar arguments ... (You need to show absolute evidence that proves BEYOND DOUBT that Trump is connected to Russia otherwise it'll become a precedent of a conspiracy theory!) 

3) Four Seasons Hotel is literally just 300 meters (agents could decide to engage outside targets further away making even less need to rush in a crisis) away from Trump Tower so the Secret Service does have a realistic alternative to renting out space in Trump Towers in spite of what you say. Trump isn't the one forcing them to rent his place, that's on them for thinking that the convenience is worth so much ... 

4) There's more than one solution to a problem in many of these cases where Trump doesn't have to go out of his way to interfere when it's not yet his job to take the office since he's president-elect ... (that means the current adminisitration must do their part to make way for him)

If the General Services Administration is leasing to the Trump Organization then they have an option to revoke it ... 

Also it is the current DOJ who must force Deutsche Bank into a settlement if they don't want any future conflicts of interest ...

IRS and NLRB are pretty much whatever since any executive action will pose a conflict of interest from those organizations whether he has a business or not ... 

Trump's businesses abroad are affected by a sovereign nation's domestic policy, foreign policy can't exactly do that especially when Trump takes a rather isolationist approach when he's shown to be very skeptical about NATO ... 

Blast from the passsssssst!

There's been more than enough coverage on the above, since my last post, to corroborate my positions. I simply don't have time to repeatedly belabor these points, if I'm going to have to defend perceptions of my comments (How much can a person be expected to clarify?). Point in fact of how frustrating these conversations are is #3. I literally asked if you live in NYC, and you responded with a deflection. 

#nothanks

I didn't respond with a deflection, I responded with an actual argument ... 

I don't need experience of living in New York to tell you that the distance between 2 buildings will amount to a four minute walk so you don't even need a vehicle for realistic response time when you could easily run to your target location in a minute ... 

Traffic doesn't mean shit when you're in your most mobile form such as your feet ...