Trump cancels Boeing's deal to build a new Air Force One!

HardLoper wrote:

agip wrote:

Did Obama threaten companies that rely on gov't contracts to do things Obama's way?

Why shouldn't companies relying on government contracts do things the government's way? Who do you think they work for?

United Technology is a publically traded company, owned by shareholders. One of its subsids is Carrier.

The CEO of United Tech says he has to do what Trump says because 10% of United Tech revs are from gov't contracts. And if he doesn't do what the gov't says, he thinks contracts could be pulled or regulations aimed at his company.

The gov't is not a normal customer. A normal 10% customer wouldn't be able to tell a giant company to keep 800 jobs in Indiana. Or else.

The government can, because it has power over everyone.

That power must not be used much by the gov't. Look up what Brasil did to Petrobras or what Venezuela did to PDVSA. The gov't pushed them around and they became national disasters.

If the gov't pushes around United Tech and other companies, capital willl flee the US. Having a mercurial prez who tells you what you can and can't do is very bad for business, so they will stay away.

that's one reason the Russian economy has been in recession for a long time...the gov't threatens its companies.

I'm surprised I have to tell this to a 'conservative'

weird.

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

players 500 wrote:

There is no evidence that he is lying. Maybe he is incorrect but that doesn't mean lying. Furthermore, maybe he has access to the real number and your number is not accurate. Anyway, he far more honest than Hillary or the other Democrats.

If you misstate incorrect information as fact and with confidence then it is functionally equivalent to lying. Why would he be the only one with access to the real number? No one anywhere can corroborate his claim.

http://gizmodo.com/trump-bitches-about-air-force-one-upgrade-he-wont-get-t-1789726467

not true - look above - some indie analyst was quoted by the washpo as saying the entire program might be $4 bn.

Trump can not cancel a contract nor can he enter one. Only the PCO can.

Companies go out of business all the time because they lose a major customer. The government threatening to pull a small portion of their contracts is not threatening them in any way that a private consumer could not do. What I disagree with is your apparent belief these companies are unconditionally entitled to every federal contract.

so your view, as a conservative, is that it's fine for the fed gov't to publically push around privately held companies and try to get those companies to spend capital as the government thinks appropriate?

that is your view? yes or no.

agip wrote:

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

If you misstate incorrect information as fact and with confidence then it is functionally equivalent to lying. Why would he be the only one with access to the real number? No one anywhere can corroborate his claim.

http://gizmodo.com/trump-bitches-about-air-force-one-upgrade-he-wont-get-t-1789726467

not true - look above - some indie analyst was quoted by the washpo as saying the entire program might be $4 bn.

So it's acceptable to take the input from one analyst that says it MIGHT take $4 billion to develop new tech to replace 35 year old planes, and state it will take over $4billion just to purchase a couple 747s? These are not equivalent statements. Once again its a simple man yelling ill informed things into the internet with no regard for detail or repercussions.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

jamin wrote:

He is getting work done! With a single Tweet just cut government spending by 4 billion.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/12/06/trump-attacks-boeings-deal-new-air-force-one/95033188/

And with that single tweet he just fired 1,100 people at Boeing.

So now Trump decides who does and who doesn't get to have a job. Communism is coming fast.

How many coal miners did Obama put out of work? A hell of lot more than 1,100. You libtarrrrds were silent then. Trump keeps on winning.

agip wrote:

so your view, as a conservative, is that it's fine for the fed gov't to publically push around privately held companies and try to get those companies to spend capital as the government thinks appropriate?

that is your view? yes or no.

The idea that Trump will impose some new regulation just to spite a company is 100% imaginary.

I don't support the 35% tariff idea on companies that leave, but that's not what happened in the Carrier or Boeing case, we don't know how many companies it would actually affect, and it obviously wouldn't turn us into Russia. Lots of countries put ~175% tariffs on auto imports, which is kind of harmful, but they obviously aren't Venezuela. We don't have anywhere close to free trade right now.

Yes the government has the right to withdraw contracts if their demands are not met and they can get a better deal somewhere else. Something they don't do enough of.

This is one of reasons why Trump has hired so many BUSINESSMEN. People who know now to negotiate and to get the best deals for their customers. I rather have a businessman vs a career politician negotiating for the American people.

MAGA!!!

agip wrote:

so your view, as a conservative, is that it's fine for the fed gov't to publically push around privately held companies and try to get those companies to spend capital as the government thinks appropriate?

that is your view? yes or no.

Quicker answer: every federal regulation in existence can be framed as the federal government pushing around privately held companies to get them to spend capital as the government thinks appropriate. It only sounds like Putin to you because you want to frame it that way.

Go Trump! wrote:

sbeefyk1 wrote:

And with that single tweet he just fired 1,100 people at Boeing.

So now Trump decides who does and who doesn't get to have a job. Communism is coming fast.

How many coal miners did Obama put out of work? A hell of lot more than 1,100. You libtarrrrds were silent then. Trump keeps on winning.

dude, coal is dead. even corporate america knows that. and it had nothing to do with obama.

HardLoper wrote:

agip wrote:

so your view, as a conservative, is that it's fine for the fed gov't to publically push around privately held companies and try to get those companies to spend capital as the government thinks appropriate?

that is your view? yes or no.

Quicker answer: every federal regulation in existence can be framed as the federal government pushing around privately held companies to get them to spend capital as the government thinks appropriate. It only sounds like Putin to you because you want to frame it that way.

eh

weak sauce

regulations like what you are talking about - anti-pollution, water protection etc...that's to preserve a common good.

Carrier was different - there is no material public good to save 800 jobs. Something like 50,000 people get laid off every day. This is just political nonsense that will end the end, if repeated, hurt more people than it will help.

you are arguing too broadly - like saying all taxes are the same. it's not true. some regulations are needed and good. others, like the carrier thing, are different and new and frightening.

trump controls news cycle wrote:

Trump: she wants to bring 100k unvetted refugees

Factcheckerz: Nuh-uh! Only 65,000 unvetted refugees!

Trump: this is an unnecessary 4 billion deal!

Factcheckerz: Nuh-uh! Only an unnecessary 2.9 billion!

Do people not catch on to what he's doing?

Nope. They don't get it.

It's not like it's a big secret. He writes about it in The Art of the Deal.

wddad wrote:

Go Trump! wrote:

How many coal miners did Obama put out of work? A hell of lot more than 1,100. You libtarrrrds were silent then. Trump keeps on winning.

dude, coal is dead. even corporate america knows that. and it had nothing to do with obama.

stay on truth

Obama regulations did indeed hurt the coal business. Coal was hurt vastly more by free market conditions, but Obama rules played a role.

Go Trump! wrote:

sbeefyk1 wrote:

And with that single tweet he just fired 1,100 people at Boeing.

So now Trump decides who does and who doesn't get to have a job. Communism is coming fast.

How many coal miners did Obama put out of work? A hell of lot more than 1,100. You libtarrrrds were silent then. Trump keeps on winning.

Obama, none.

Energy companies decided other investments were more profitable; fracking and oil sands.

Do try to keep up next time.

HardLoper wrote:

RANT RANT RANT

agip wrote:

weak sauce

+1

His boyfriend jamin keeps defending the idiot Hardloper using his Rigged for Hillary name. Jamin hasn't use his Crooked Hillary nic yet.

agip wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Quicker answer: every federal regulation in existence can be framed as the federal government pushing around privately held companies to get them to spend capital as the government thinks appropriate. It only sounds like Putin to you because you want to frame it that way.

eh

weak sauce

regulations like what you are talking about - anti-pollution, water protection etc...that's to preserve a common good.

Carrier was different - there is no material public good to save 800 jobs. Something like 50,000 people get laid off every day. This is just political nonsense that will end the end, if repeated, hurt more people than it will help.

you are arguing too broadly - like saying all taxes are the same. it's not true. some regulations are needed and good. others, like the carrier thing, are different and new and frightening.

Okay, well, we already have thousands of deals like Carrier at the state level, at least hundreds maybe thousands of tariffs currently in existence, thousands of pages of regulations which don't protect a common good (even if they were written with that intent). I care about the big picture. You're just singling out the ones that Trump tweets about which are probably far from the most harmful if at all.

focus on the implied threat instead of the tax break

this deal stands out that way.

the state of NY giving Citibank a tax break if hey stay does not include the threat of taking away 10% of Citi's business and the possibliity of futher retribution.

If Carrier had said no...Trump could have done irreperable brand damage to Carrier. Guvner Cuomo couldn't.

focus on the implied threat - that's what pro-trump don't seem to get.

trump is always threatening someone else, so trump supporters aren't worried.

can't let gov't get away with threats like that - they'll get more and more brave and keep coming after more and more people.

this is absurd, my talking like this to a conservative. Things are so twisted!

agip wrote:

focus on the implied threat instead of the tax break

this deal stands out that way.

the state of NY giving Citibank a tax break if hey stay does not include the threat of taking away 10% of Citi's business and the possibliity of futher retribution.

If Carrier had said no...Trump could have done irreperable brand damage to Carrier. Guvner Cuomo couldn't.

focus on the implied threat - that's what pro-trump don't seem to get.

trump is always threatening someone else, so trump supporters aren't worried.

can't let gov't get away with threats like that - they'll get more and more brave and keep coming after more and more people.

this is absurd, my talking like this to a conservative. Things are so twisted!

"Could have" is the operative phrase. Trump "could have" done all sorts of bad things in your imagination, but he didn't. You don't actually know that he would have done anything.