Don't worry America

[johntt44]

I take back what I said about trump.
Carrier is still sending 1300 jobs to mexico. Trump saved 800 jobs by having the taxpayers of indiana mike pences home state pay carrier 7 million dollars. So indiana taxpayers are paying carrier for keeping those 800 jobs here.

That and they are still going to be making the air conditioning units in mexico. And I guarantee he wont be charging them the 35% tarrif he campaigned on.

Lying mother fucker.
Make America great again at the expense of taxpayers. Yay!!!!

I thought they kept 1000 out of 1400 jobs?
Yeah, I think I read 1000 out of 2000 jobs are saved for 7 million in tax cuts over 10 yrs. Each job saved will cost the taxpayers $700 a year which still sucks but cheaper than public assistance for the whole 2000 workers. Its a band aid on a amputation honestly.

 

[XKawN]

I thought they kept 1000 out of 1400 jobs?
Yeah, I think I read 1000 out of 2000 jobs are saved for 7 million in tax cuts over 10 yrs. Each job saved will cost the taxpayers $700 a year which still sucks but cheaper than public assistance for the whole 2000 workers. Its a band aid on a amputation honestly.

Not sure that saying it will cost taxpayers monies is the correct term. they are tax breaks. it means carrier will keep more of its "own" money not take money from taxpayers. but, this is something that states do all the time. in California we gives tax breaks to companies like yahoo and Google. many millions of dollars worth. this is just the way it is. lose or save a thousand jobs and that affects more than a thousand people and their families. it affects everyone they come in contact with and so on. personally, I'd rather save jobs than pay unemployment or welfare. is this particular deal worth it? I don't know, but I'm sure there's many, many people thinking so.

 

[flenser]

If it requires presidential intervention in the business decisions of individual companies to keep them in the US, it will rapidly become yet another government imposed barrier to entry for small businesses. It will ultimately limit competition, prevent job growth and increase prices.

 

[kawilt]

Well it looks as if they not only want to close the border, ... but our mouths as well!

"the bill would codify a controversial State Department definition of anti-Semitism that broadly defines criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic."


New anti-Semitism legislation may stifle campus activism for Palestinian rights


Annie Robbins on December 1, 2016


Increasingly, students on American campuses perceive advocating for justice in Palestine as a moral imperative. The steady growth of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian freedom has been met by a wave legislation aimed at punishing or suppressing our 1st amendment rights to free speech and silencing student activism. The latest of these bills is the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, introduced yesterday by U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Tim Scott (R-SC), which redefines anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel.

Ostensibly, according to Senators Casey and Scott, the purpose of the legislation is to “ensure the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has the necessary statutory tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish incidents”, implying previous investigations by the DOE, which failed to substantiate accusations of anti-Semitism, lacked sufficient tools to criminalize activism critical of Israel on campus.

Jewish Voice for Peace says the bill would “codify a controversial State Department definition of anti-Semitism that broadly defines criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic.” And Kenneth Stern, the American Jewish Committee’s specialist on anti-Semitism and one of the drafters of the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism, thinks “official adoption of the State Department’s definition would do more harm than good.” He doesn’t think the definition should be used as a speech code for university students and rejected that proposal in an op-ed in the Jewish Journal last year:

“… official adoption of the State Department’s definition would do more harm than good. I say this sadly, as the lead author of the somewhat more detailed European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s (EUMC) “working definition on anti-Semitism,” upon which the State Department definition is based, and as a strong advocate of State’s use of the definition in its global work.

The EUMC definition was crafted as a tool for data collectors in European countries to identify what to include and exclude from their reports about anti-Semitism, and to have a common frame of reference so that data might be compared across borders. …

But to enshrine such a definition on a college campus is an ill-advised idea that will make matters worse, and not only for Jewish students; it would also damage the university as a whole.

(JVP), press release: Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, new Senate bill threatens free speech

Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, new Senate bill threatens free speech

Fast-tracked “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” designed to condemn criticism of Israel

December 1, 2016 – The United States Senate is due to consider the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” a bill that, rather than fight anti-Semitism as it purports to do, will enable a crackdown against activism for Palestinian human rights on college campuses. Introduced and fast-tracked this week by Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Tim Scott (R-SC), the bill would codify a controversial State Department definition of anti-Semitism that broadly defines criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic.

The bill is supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “Given the silence of most of those organizations on the appointment of Bannon, an actual white supremacist anti-Semite to a position of power in the White House, and their poor track records of Islamophobia, it is outrageous that they are pushing through this legislation targeted at student activism for Palestinian human rights,” said Tallie Ben Daniel, academic program manager of Jewish Voice for Peace. “Instead of fighting the anti-Semitism entering the White House, this bill will go after 19-year-old students carrying protest signs against human rights abuses. This is not how to fight anti-Semitism, this is a recipe for restricting civil liberties like the right to criticize a government for its policies.”

The legislation would codify a problematic definition of anti-Semitism that right-wing Israel advocates have been trying for years to implement on college campuses in order to police student criticism of Israeli policy. The State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism includes vague wording regarding “demonizing” the state of Israel that can and has been interpreted to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel’s human rights abuses and discriminatory policies. Civil rights groups, free speech advocates and news outlets including the Los Angeles Times editorial board have raised free speech concerns about the implementation of this definition. Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the European Monitoring Centre’s definition upon which the state department definition is based, stated that to use this definition on college campuses would “do more harm than good.”

“We must be vigilant to fight against the intensified racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism that have been unleashed by Trump’s campaign and the threat of racist, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant policies promised by his incoming administration. It is more essential than ever that our lawmakers and Jewish communal leaders insist that fighting anti-Semitism go hand in hand with fighting racism and Islamophobia, not reinforce them with misguided legislation designed to defend Israeli policies, not Jews.” said Rabbi Alissa Wise, deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Liz Jackson, civil rights attorney with Palestine Legal and cooperating counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights: “As Trump calls for jailing flag burners, every lawmaker must stand up to protect cherished First Amendment freedoms to criticize the government. That includes the right of college students to criticize the U.S. and foreign governments like Israel. Regardless of one’s views on Palestine-Israel, we should all be alarmed at this attempt to pile on top of Trump’s attacks on free speech rights. It is plainly unconstitutional for Congress, the Department of Education, a state legislature, or any public school to punish campus speech critical of Israel

 

[flenser]

Well it looks as if they not only want to close the border, ... but our mouths as well!

"the bill would codify a controversial State Department definition of anti-Semitism that broadly defines criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic."


New anti-Semitism legislation may stifle campus activism for Palestinian rights


Annie Robbins on December 1, 2016


Increasingly, students on American campuses perceive advocating for justice in Palestine as a moral imperative. The steady growth of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian freedom has been met by a wave legislation aimed at punishing or suppressing our 1st amendment rights to free speech and silencing student activism. The latest of these bills is the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, introduced yesterday by U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Tim Scott (R-SC), which redefines anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel.

Ostensibly, according to Senators Casey and Scott, the purpose of the legislation is to “ensure the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has the necessary statutory tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish incidents”, implying previous investigations by the DOE, which failed to substantiate accusations of anti-Semitism, lacked sufficient tools to criminalize activism critical of Israel on campus.

Jewish Voice for Peace says the bill would “codify a controversial State Department definition of anti-Semitism that broadly defines criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic.” And Kenneth Stern, the American Jewish Committee’s specialist on anti-Semitism and one of the drafters of the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism, thinks “official adoption of the State Department’s definition would do more harm than good.” He doesn’t think the definition should be used as a speech code for university students and rejected that proposal in an op-ed in the Jewish Journal last year:

“… official adoption of the State Department’s definition would do more harm than good. I say this sadly, as the lead author of the somewhat more detailed European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s (EUMC) “working definition on anti-Semitism,” upon which the State Department definition is based, and as a strong advocate of State’s use of the definition in its global work.

The EUMC definition was crafted as a tool for data collectors in European countries to identify what to include and exclude from their reports about anti-Semitism, and to have a common frame of reference so that data might be compared across borders. …

But to enshrine such a definition on a college campus is an ill-advised idea that will make matters worse, and not only for Jewish students; it would also damage the university as a whole.

(JVP), press release: Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, new Senate bill threatens free speech

Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, new Senate bill threatens free speech

Fast-tracked “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” designed to condemn criticism of Israel

December 1, 2016 – The United States Senate is due to consider the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” a bill that, rather than fight anti-Semitism as it purports to do, will enable a crackdown against activism for Palestinian human rights on college campuses. Introduced and fast-tracked this week by Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Tim Scott (R-SC), the bill would codify a controversial State Department definition of anti-Semitism that broadly defines criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic.

The bill is supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “Given the silence of most of those organizations on the appointment of Bannon, an actual white supremacist anti-Semite to a position of power in the White House, and their poor track records of Islamophobia, it is outrageous that they are pushing through this legislation targeted at student activism for Palestinian human rights,” said Tallie Ben Daniel, academic program manager of Jewish Voice for Peace. “Instead of fighting the anti-Semitism entering the White House, this bill will go after 19-year-old students carrying protest signs against human rights abuses. This is not how to fight anti-Semitism, this is a recipe for restricting civil liberties like the right to criticize a government for its policies.”

The legislation would codify a problematic definition of anti-Semitism that right-wing Israel advocates have been trying for years to implement on college campuses in order to police student criticism of Israeli policy. The State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism includes vague wording regarding “demonizing” the state of Israel that can and has been interpreted to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel’s human rights abuses and discriminatory policies. Civil rights groups, free speech advocates and news outlets including the Los Angeles Times editorial board have raised free speech concerns about the implementation of this definition. Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the European Monitoring Centre’s definition upon which the state department definition is based, stated that to use this definition on college campuses would “do more harm than good.”

“We must be vigilant to fight against the intensified racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism that have been unleashed by Trump’s campaign and the threat of racist, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant policies promised by his incoming administration. It is more essential than ever that our lawmakers and Jewish communal leaders insist that fighting anti-Semitism go hand in hand with fighting racism and Islamophobia, not reinforce them with misguided legislation designed to defend Israeli policies, not Jews.” said Rabbi Alissa Wise, deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Liz Jackson, civil rights attorney with Palestine Legal and cooperating counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights: “As Trump calls for jailing flag burners, every lawmaker must stand up to protect cherished First Amendment freedoms to criticize the government. That includes the right of college students to criticize the U.S. and foreign governments like Israel. Regardless of one’s views on Palestine-Israel, we should all be alarmed at this attempt to pile on top of Trump’s attacks on free speech rights. It is plainly unconstitutional for Congress, the Department of Education, a state legislature, or any public school to punish campus speech critical of Israel

This kind of stuff gets into bills all the time. It's what happens when you let foreign governments lobby your politicians.

 

[ronin17]

He is a bad ass. totally 100% behind his appointment.

 

[ronin17]

Not sure that saying it will cost taxpayers monies is the correct term. they are tax breaks. it means carrier will keep more of its "own" money not take money from taxpayers. but, this is something that states do all the time. in California we gives tax breaks to companies like yahoo and Google. many millions of dollars worth. this is just the way it is. lose or save a thousand jobs and that affects more than a thousand people and their families. it affects everyone they come in contact with and so on. personally, I'd rather save jobs than pay unemployment or welfare. is this particular deal worth it? I don't know, but I'm sure there's many, many people thinking so.

I agree. What angers me is there are other ways to keep those jobs here. He said he was a no nonsense tough guy.
Instead, he pulled one of the oldest scams. He could of threatned pulling thier military contracts. He could of stuck to the 35% tax on goods manufactured out of country.

Instead, he bribed them. Oldest scam in the book.

 

[ronin17]

If it requires presidential intervention in the business decisions of individual companies to keep them in the US, it will rapidly become yet another government imposed barrier to entry for small businesses. It will ultimately limit competition, prevent job growth and increase prices.

So, are you saying he shouldnt do something to keep AMERICAN companys from going overseas?

 

[ronin17]

You have a point @flenser . The problem is there aren't going to be any more companies left manufacturing here at this rate. our fundamental problem is we dont make anything here anymore.

Honestly if trump could stem the tide of companies leaving..I will 100% be behind him.

 

[kawilt]

This kind of stuff gets into bills all the time. It's what happens when you let foreign governments lobby your politicians.

I don't know of many foreign government lobbiest that are dictating bills to politicians that have been pushed through the congress and senate.

 

[flenser]

You have a point @flenser . The problem is there aren't going to be any more companies left manufacturing here at this rate. our fundamental problem is we dont make anything here anymore.

Honestly if trump could stem the tide of companies leaving..I will 100% be behind him.

The fundamental problem is the tax and regulation burdens placed on US businesses, both employer and employee. Where manufacturing or any other industry happens to be located is only a significant issue to tax collectors.

So one large corporation gets a nice tax break to keep most of its business in the US. In the process, it was also given an advantage over its competitors. MOST of its competitors are small businesses that Trump will have no time to deal with personally.

They are already at a significant disadvantage, because the high costs of regulation and licensing are proportionately smaller for larger firms. Some of those firms will likely go out of business as a result of that and similar future deals, most will have slower growth as a result. Lost competition will result in higher prices. But tax revenues will increase, at least in the short term.

Small businesses make up something like 99.5% of employers in the US, 98% of the exporters, and nearly half the (private) employment. So while Trump concentrates on deals for the 0.5% large corporations that will get him favorable press coverage and greater short term tax revenue, the vast majority of the companies and workers will be made poorer.

 

[flenser]

I don't know of many foreign government lobbiest that are dictating bills to politicians that have been pushed through the congress and senate.

Am I supposed to take that seriously?

 

[kawilt]

Am I supposed to take that seriously?

 

[flenser]

It really isn't about Trump..

And Then There Was One

by Tyler Durden
Dec 4, 2016 8:39 PM

So much has changed in just the 8 months since April 25, 2016, when this "https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/april-2016-photo-day" of the day was taken.



As Will Jordan notes, the photo showed a meeting of the world's top political leaders, President Barack Obama talking with European leaders before their meeting in Hannover, Germany.

From left: British Prime Minister David Cameron, the President, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

As of this evening, of the five, just one remains on the global political scene. The real question is for how much longer.

 

[ronin17]

The fundamental problem is the tax and regulation burdens placed on US businesses, both employer and employee. Where manufacturing or any other industry happens to be located is only a significant issue to tax collectors.

So one large corporation gets a nice tax break to keep most of its business in the US. In the process, it was also given an advantage over its competitors. MOST of its competitors are small businesses that Trump will have no time to deal with personally.

They are already at a significant disadvantage, because the high costs of regulation and licensing are proportionately smaller for larger firms. Some of those firms will likely go out of business as a result of that and similar future deals, most will have slower growth as a result. Lost competition will result in higher prices. But tax revenues will increase, at least in the short term.

Small businesses make up something like 99.5% of employers in the US, 98% of the exporters, and nearly half the (private) employment. So while Trump concentrates on deals for the 0.5% large corporations that will get him favorable press coverage and greater short term tax revenue, the vast majority of the companies and workers will be made poorer.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Except Im pretty sure it matters to American workers if thier employer is located in the united states or overseas.
Not just the taxman. Theres no question alot of jobs are gone and not coming back because of our insatiable apettite for "cheap goods".

Alot of companies have abandoned the usa out of pure greed. They will still be prosperous but every cent profit is all that matters. Its unpatriotic to say the least. Thanks Nafta and tpp!

Im sure you know not all corporations pay 35% tax either. that's a misnomer.

Can you give me a couple of examples of regulations that are forcing companies to fold or move overseas? I hear this alot with my friends about job killing regulations. I would like to know what those are.

Aside from uranium mining, coal mining, etc. Not being argumentative. Im curious what you think.

 

[flenser]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Except Im pretty sure it matters to American workers if thier employer is located in the united states or overseas.
Not just the taxman. Theres no question alot of jobs are gone and not coming back because of our insatiable apettite for "cheap goods".

When a company closes or moves, sure it maters to workers. But I don't think too many people would lament their frustrated desires to work an A/C assembly line if the company never opened a factory in their backyards. So why do companies close or move?

Alot of companies have abandoned the usa out of pure greed. They will still be prosperous but every cent profit is all that matters. Its unpatriotic to say the least. Thanks Nafta and tpp!

Is it greed or government imposed "free trade" laws? You seem to be blaming both. I would like to see your definition of greed. Since nearly every human endeavor is defined or at least strongly influenced by competition, I have always found the term greed to be little more than a defamation of human nature. I have no problem with competition, whatever you choose to call it.

Im sure you know not all corporations pay 35% tax either. that's a misnomer.

True, the larger the corporation the greater its ability to navigate around corporate tax laws. That was one of my original points.

Can you give me a couple of examples of regulations that are forcing companies to fold or move overseas? I hear this alot with my friends about job killing regulations. I would like to know what those are.

Aside from uranium mining, coal mining, etc. Not being argumentative. Im curious what you think.

The two most obvious business crushing taxes and regulations respectively are Social Security and minimum wage laws.

For a more general analysis of regulations you would need to pick an industry and look up the regulations that apply. Just figuring out which ones are applicable for any given task can be overwhelming. Try cpsc.gov for a sample, and those are only a subset of the regulations applied to the finished product. There are safety, environmental, and numerous human resources divisions that must be placated on demand.