Rogue Posted November 22, 2016 Report Share Posted November 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Legaltitan said: Trump is rejecting the alt-right..... I don't think he had much choice... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Legaltitan said: Despite saying he would "lock her up," Trump now says he has no interest in trying to lock up Hillary. That's a good thing, as I don't think more division is what we need right now. Also sounds like he wants to spend bigly on infrastructure, which is good. Sounds like he no longer wants to repeal Obamacare, which is good. It needs to be fixed, not repealed. We'll see. He may just leave it to the FBI and DOJ to investigate it. That way he is out of the pic, and Dems can't call him vindictive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/benjamin-marconi-donald-trump-call-police-231767 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Rogue said: I don't think he had much choice... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 On 11/17/2016 at 8:18 PM, OILERMAN said: He's said a lot of things that could be good, we'll see if he follows through or the Republicans let him do the stuff. This will be interesting, paperwork should be easy to pass but with how varying opinions there are within one party... It's not as one sided, ESPECIALLY if you get a guy like Ryan making it clear that he plans to run for president a year or two into Trumps cycle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 17 hours ago, Legaltitan said: Trump is rejecting the alt-right, and is open to anti climate change regulations: When asked if he’d pull out of the climate change accords, Trump said, “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it.” Not sure if that is mocking Trump or just stating a fact, but isn't that what every Dem wants and actually a great thing? I'd be furious if he said he didn't have an open mind. The first he has absolutely no choice but to say what he did, hopefully he actually believes how crazy they are too instead of just PR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, wiscotitansfan said: but isn't that what every Dem wants and actually a great thing? I'd be furious if he said he didn't have an open mind. Well yes. Yes it is. Note the title of the thread. There is a reason I posted it here. I reserve my making fun of trump for other threads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 I like how Trump has basically turned into Hillary and not remained campaign Trump. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted November 23, 2016 Report Share Posted November 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, Titanjuicy said: I like how Trump has basically turned into Hillary and not remained campaign Trump. Though what he says means less than what his administration does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 Climate, infrastructure, Obamacare. All things liberals should like, but the devil is in the details. It will really depend on how it rolls out, at the moment I'm still not optimistic we elected a secret liberal! I will guess that he won't pull out of the Paris Agreement because the other countries will respond somehow (tariffs were mentioned). While this is good, I think it's more because the cost of pulling out is so high. I will eat my hat if he does anything close to what a Democrat would do re: climate change. He might be open to it, but no one around him is going to be making the case for climate change. You can see below that he's pretty clearly a "climate skeptic." Quote TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html As for Obamacare, there's a lot more than just the two parts of it Trump said he liked. What happens there really depends more on congress than him imo. Technically they can't repeal many aspects of the law unless they have 60 votes, so full repeal is probably not on the table from what I understand. Some good links on the possible replacement plans. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/21/502612264/if-republicans-repeal-obamacare-ryan-has-replacement-blueprint http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/13626438/obamacare-replacement-plans-comparison Infrastructure also sounds good, but again, depends on the particular plan. Many on the left (and center and right) have criticized his current plan. Will really depends on how it shakes out in congress. My guess is Trump just wants to pass a bill and isn't tied to any particular implementation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-big-infrastructure-plan-its-a-trap/2016/11/18/5b1d109c-adae-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13628382/donald-trump-infrastructure-plan http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/22/news/economy/trump-infrastructure/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/build-he-wont.html tl;dr it all depends on the details of the policies. Lots to be skeptical about from the announced details. /party pooper Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Looks like Carrier isn't moving its factory after talking to Trump. Again we can quibble over the details and all of that and who knows what he agreed to with them but the fact of the matter is he saved jobs from leaving the country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Carrier was going to move more than 2,000 jobs to Mexico. Trump/Pence intervene and now nearly 1,000 jobs will stay in Indiana. Carrier is going to get special tax deals from Indiana (Pence is still the Governor of Indiana) for keeping those roughly 1,000 jobs in Indiana. Some will be opposed to this in concept and call it crony capitalism. If you agree with the concept, then you still have to look at the details of the tax inducement. It's possible that it's actually a bad deal by the numbers, but that since many people will evaluate it like you did, as "the fact of the matter is he saved jobs from leaving the country," it's still a winning scenario for Trump/Pence. It's also possible that it's not a bad deal, but that they came to a relatively fair deal because Carrier wants to build good will with the new administration. We'll have to see the details (a common refrain). I wonder how long I can keep this up (and if anyone reads them)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Yeah you are right the devil is in the details but the facto of the matter is tax breaks and inducements are standard now in deals regarding existing plants or new plants. It's just the way things go now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 17 minutes ago, Soxcat said: It needs to be the norm. Getting something is better than nothing so if we can keep those jobs, even with the corporate income tax and property taxes being hypotheitically zero, the income earned (and taxable) and business supported by those who keep their jobs is a plus. It is about time the government worked with business instead of against. I wouldn't care if we had a zero corporate tax if it kept jobs and growth inside the US. The ultimate result is a positive for everyone. I agree, to an extent. Sometimes with these things, local governments give away the absolute farm just to get the company to come there with a couple hundred jobs at most and that sometimes results in bad deals. The local official gets to take credit for the jobs and no one is the wiser as to the cost. And there is nothing that prevents the company from shaking down the local government a few years down the road over a threat to leave. So yeah, when it comes to these types of corporate sweetheart deals, esp living in a town like Macon where we need all the jobs we can get, I generally have no problem with it and think they are 90% of the time a net positive. But certainly these deals do need to have checks and scrutiny because there are numerous instances of these deals where the benefit did not justify the cost. Stadiums - NFL, MLB, and esp minor league baseball - come to mind immediately but even factories and plants can sometimes cost more to lure than they are worth. As with anything else, it depends on the details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 10 minutes ago, Soxcat said: It is hard to find a way it can be a bad deal unless the municipality pays for upgrades on the property they don't get back. Yes, this is the type of sweeteners I am talking about. New roads, bridges, costly infrastructure upgrades on top of the tax deals. I generally agree, unless there is another option, the tax abatement is almost always going to be a net positive. But when you add to it significant infrastructure build out and such, then these things can become a bad deal in a hurry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.