President Trump

[TellyKNeasuss]

Only 700. 300 of those jobs were not in danger.

And who knows how much danger those 700 jobs really were in. I'm having a little trouble believing that a company would give up 10's of millions of dollars in savings (what Carrier claimed) for $700k/year in tax breaks.

 

[newyorkguy]

Trump can build walls, bash inner cities, illegal immigrants and Muslims but when he starts threatening American corporations he's going too far! At least that's the way it appears with House Republicans who sent strong signals today that they are not on board with his ideas on punitive taxes on American companies who move jobs overseas.

“I don’t want to get into some kind of trade war,” Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and majority leader, told reporters in response to Mr. Trump’s threats over the weekend to seek a 35 percent import tariff on goods sold by United States companies that move jobs overseas and displace American workers.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan also pushed back against Mr. Trump on Monday in an interview with a Wisconsin reporter, saying an overhaul of the corporate tax code would more effectively keep companies in the United States than tax penalties. “I think we can get at the goal here,” he said, “which is to keep American businesses American, build things in America and sell them overseas — that can be properly addressed with comprehensive tax reform.” News link

 

[Bob001]

And who knows how much danger those 700 jobs really were in. I'm having a little trouble believing that a company would give up 10's of millions of dollars in savings (what Carrier claimed) for $700k/year in tax breaks.

There's speculation that the long-term benefit might be bigger. But the real issue is that the company has billions of dollars worth of federal contracts, and Trump apparently said something like "it'd be a real shame if those pretty contracts don't get renewed."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/indiana-carrier-deal-federal-contracts-trump-232021

 

[TofuFighter]

"If I got a paper cut, that's a tragedy. If you fell down an open manhole and died, that's comedy."

Everything stops being funny if it's directed at you and you have a sufficiently fragile ego. See, for example, Isaac Hayes. He was perfectly fine with South Park making fun of everyone and everything on Earth for years, but as soon as they made fun of the cult to which he belonged, the writers were suddenly too mean-spirited for him to remain on the show. Granted, that was likely a case of the Church of Scientology ordering him to leave the show, so the fragile ego was on their part.

A bit OT, but according to his son Isaac Hayes had nothing to do with quitting. So you appear right about that the CoS

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

There's speculation that the long-term benefit might be bigger. But the real issue is that the company has billions of dollars worth of federal contracts, and Trump apparently said something like "it'd be a real shame if those pretty contracts don't get renewed."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/indiana-carrier-deal-federal-contracts-trump-232021

Interesting. Is the POTUS really able to veto decisions made through the normal procurement channel? (not just legally, but also politically) Would this be desirable? Could such authority be used to punish companies that made campaign contributions to the "wrong" candidate(s) or whose CEO backed the losing candidate?

 

[The Don]

Interesting. Is the POTUS really able to veto decisions made through the normal procurement channel? (not just legally, but also politically)

IMO not solely the POTUS but the administration as a whole could frame future procurement requests in a way that would make it more difficult for one particular firm to secure future contracts.

Would this be desirable?

No, not least because you way end up overpaying for less good equipment.

Could such authority be used to punish companies that made campaign contributions to the "wrong" candidate(s) or whose CEO backed the losing candidate?

Absolutely, and whilst in the past it would have resulted in a "scandal" that would have been damaging to the party in power - these days I'm not so sure.

 

[Stacko]

Advisors aim to privatize oil-rich Indian reservations

Native American reservations cover just 2 percent of the United States, but they may contain about a fifth of the nation’s oil and gas, along with vast coal reserves.

Now, a group of advisors to President-elect Donald Trump on Native American issues wants to free those resources from what they call a suffocating federal bureaucracy that holds title to 56 million acres of tribal lands, two chairmen of the coalition told Reuters in exclusive interviews.

The group proposes to put those lands into private ownership - a politically explosive idea that could upend more than century of policy designed to preserve Indian tribes on U.S.-owned reservations, which are governed by tribal leaders as sovereign nations.

The tribes have rights to use the land, but they do not own it. They can drill it and reap the profits, but only under regulations that are far more burdensome than those applied to private property.

 

[newyorkguy]

Can President Trump "punish" companies that move jobs out of the U.S., or try to, or refuse to move jobs back to the U.S? I guess the short answer is that he better because that was a major reason he gave voters as to why they should elect him.

But again, I think these were George Constanza tactics.

"Jerry c'mon, I was trying to get elected President for God's sake! It was just something you say."

Anyway, many states -- New York State being one of them -- already have 'build local' provisions in contracting procedures. For many equipment contracts NYS requires bidders to supply products that were "substantially manufactured, produced or assembled in New York State." They can select a higher bid if the low bidder does not satisfy that requirement. I would be surprised if the U.S. Government doesn't already have similar requirements.

As for using Nixonian tactics to retaliate against corporations who move jobs or refuse to bring them back, I don't see that working. The people who run the big corporations are tough people, I don't see them knuckling under to someone like Donald Trump. First, by law, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do what's best for them, the shareholders. I'm sure many of them take that quite seriously. Second, how would Trump retaliate? He would have to be careful not to overstep his legal bounds. If he did I'm sure the big corporations wouldn't hesitate to take legal action.

 

[Spindrift]

Trump said he wants to cancel the new Air Force Ones from Boeing. Says $4 Billion is too much. Of course he pulled that number out of his ass.

I wonder who has shorted Boeing?

 

[Belz...]

And how many jobs this will cost the US.

 

[Bob001]

.....
As for using Nixonian tactics to retaliate against corporations who move jobs or refuse to bring them back, I don't see that working. The people who run the big corporations are tough people, I don't see them knuckling under to someone like Donald Trump. First, by law, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do what's best for them, the shareholders. I'm sure many of them take that quite seriously. Second, how would Trump retaliate? He would have to be careful not to overstep his legal bounds. If he did I'm sure the big corporations wouldn't hesitate to take legal action.

The thing is that Trump has demonstrated throughout the campaign and throughout his life that he is not constrained by ordinary rules of behavior. He would be happy to be sued. The case would drag through the courts for years, and Trump would be tweeting every day about how he's protecting the American taxpayers from some corrupt corporation trying to rip them off. Doesn't matter if it's true; lies can hurt too.

 

[acbytesla]

And how many jobs this will cost the US.

It's one jet. There is a huge backlog at Boeing. I don't know of the costs, but Trump may be right. Or he may just be trying to punish us for voting heavily against him.

First he starts a trade war with China and then cancels Boeing orders? Since Washington is I believe to be (per capita) the most trade dependent state in the nation this would be a good way.

 

[Bob001]

It's one jet. There is a huge backlog at Boeing. I don't know of the costs, but Trump may be right. Or he may just be trying to punish us for voting heavily against him.

First he starts a trade war with China and then cancels Boeing orders? Since Washington is I believe to be (per capita) the most trade dependent state in the nation this would be a good way.

It's actually two jets, and when the buy was announced the Pentagon said it had budgeted $1.65 billion for both. More dumb Drumpf.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-picks-boeing-747-8-as-new-presidential-aircraft-1422476986

 

[Belz...]

It's one jet.

No, no no. It's jet one.

 

[acbytesla]

No, no no. It's jet one.

Good one....you are right.


But I now think I'm mistaken. I believe it is 2 or 3 jets. Ooops..glossed over your post Bob. Thanks.

 

[newyorkguy]

The thing is that Trump has demonstrated throughout the campaign and throughout his life that he is not constrained by ordinary rules of behavior. He would be happy to be sued. The case would drag through the courts for years...

First, I don't agree that Trump has demonstrated he is not constrained by ordinary rules. At least not without paying the consequences. This is someone who has lost hundreds of millions of his own dollars and literally billions of investor dollars through a number of failed business ventures. Not playing by the rules has not only cost him dearly, in the long run he had to obey the rules anyway. I also don't agree Trump has shown he is happy to be sued. I think he has settled many cases out of court, paying huge sums of money, with the standard proviso he admit no guilt and the plaintiff does not divulge settlement terms. Trump spouts endless self-serving rhetoric, don't be taken in by it.

Anyway, actions Trump takes against corporations as President would be litigated against the U.S. Government, not Trump personally. They would be subject to restraining orders, making it impossible for the actions to be implemented until there was a judicial review.

Don't forget, corporations are property owners, there are (and should be) many legal weapons available when a government -- any government -- tries to dictate to private citizens and private corporations what they can do with their property.

 

[Bob001]

First, I don't agree that Trump has demonstrated he is not constrained by ordinary rules. At least not without paying the consequences. This is someone who has lost hundreds of millions of his own dollars and literally billions of investor dollars through a number of failed business ventures. Not playing by the rules has not only cost him dearly, in the long run he had to obey the rules anyway. I also don't agree Trump has shown he is happy to be sued. I think he has settled many cases out of court, paying huge sums of money, with the standard proviso he admit no guilt and the plaintiff does not divulge settlement terms. Trump spouts endless self-serving rhetoric, don't be taken in by it.

Anyway, actions Trump takes against corporations as President would be litigated against the U.S. Government, not Trump personally. They would be subject to restraining orders, making it impossible for the actions to be implemented until there was a judicial review.

Don't forget, corporations are property owners, there are (and should be) many legal weapons available when a government -- any government -- tries to dictate to private citizens and private corporations what they can do with their property.

Interestingly, Trump has a history of trying to use eminent domain to benefit his private businesses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...use-of-eminent-domain/?utm_term=.5631409a2970

Trump might be limited as to what he can do personally about tariffs, moving factories, etc. But a Republican House and Senate have indicated that they will support him, and he gets to appoint Supreme Court justices and all other federal judges. And there's nothing to stop him from, say, instigating a corporate boycott via Twitter. He can hurt pretty much anybody he wants to hurt.

 

[acbytesla]

Interestingly, Trump has a history of trying to use eminent domain to benefit his private businesses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...use-of-eminent-domain/?utm_term=.5631409a2970

Trump might be limited as to what he can do personally about tariffs, moving factories, etc. But a Republican House and Senate have indicated that they will support him, and he gets to appoint Supreme Court justices and all other federal judges. And there's nothing to stop him from, say, instigating a corporate boycott via Twitter. He can hurt pretty much anybody he wants to hurt.

We will see. I'm not sure the Republican congress or traditional Republican judges wI'll go along with everything. I'm very skeptical since Presidents have only so much that they can do. His unorthodox methods could very easily backfire. Paul Ryan is pushing back on tariffs against businesses.

 

[newyorkguy]

The Republicans in Congress -- majority leader Kevin McCarthy and Speaker Paul Ryan -- are already on record as being opposed to some of what Trump has threatened to do.

“I don’t want to get into some kind of trade war,” Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and majority leader, told reporters in response to Mr. Trump’s threats over the weekend to seek a 35 percent import tariff on goods sold by United States companies that move jobs overseas and displace American workers.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan also pushed back against Mr. Trump on Monday in an interview with a Wisconsin reporter, saying an overhaul of the corporate tax code would more effectively keep companies in the United States than tax penalties. “I think we can get at the goal here,” he said, “which is to keep American businesses American, build things in America and sell them overseas — that can be properly addressed with comprehensive tax reform.”

The link to the news reports is in post 2282 in this thread

As President I don't think he will want to try and start boycotts of companies by posting messages in his twitter account. Again, he'll have to be careful what he says because there will be opportunities for legal action. Some of his fans seem to think he is this all-powerful being but I think Trump is going to discover that some of the head corporate honchos are pretty tough people too, probably a lot tougher (and smarter) than Trump is.

At least I hope so. I don't want to live in an America where if you do something the President doesn't like he goes on the Internet to flame or troll you.

The nightmare goes on!

 

[alfaniner]

I'm not sure -- do all the people he appoints "move in" on Jan 20? Do they have the power to do anything before that? If for some reason Trump does not make the inauguration, do his choices still stand, or does the new person get to pick?