Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
On the FEC reports dividends are treated as interest. As you well know if a stock pays a dividend of say $2.50 a year to make the numbers easy, (it's .66 a quarter per share for UT), that is a 1,000 to 2,000 share at $108 per share investment that Tramp will want to protect.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Politico is misinterpreting what Sarah Palin said. To begin with, Palin said she didn't know shit about the conditions that were talked about that kept Carrier here. Secondly, she mostly commented on a level playing field for all, not just friends of the Administration, which Obama has abused for so many years. She was very clear about that.well no cabinet post for you palin
Another conservative is calling “crony capitalism” on Donald Trump’s deal with Carrier, albeit an unexpected one — Sarah Palin.
In an op-ed for the website Young Conservatives, the former Alaska governor allowed that the details behind the manufacturer’s decision to keep some 1,000 jobs in Indiana at the president-elect’s behest, rather than move them to Mexico, are not yet clear. But touting the value of free markets, Palin signaled her disapproval if it was a case of “political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist.”
“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent,” she asserted.
Sarah Palin: Trump's Carrier deal is 'crony capitalism'
Tramp sends the bill to his Tramp Crime Family Foundation slush fund to pay.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.
What family restaurants do you go to that cost $2,500?
When I was in management consulting and went to the kind of places Trump takes his family to? A bunch I could spend that
That is not definition Pailn and many conservative use:
When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent.....we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.
According to their wide definition any special government deal for a company is ideologically wrong.
Is this more opinion or do you have a link for the definition you placed in bold?
So let me ask, how big of a company does it take in order for them to be able to push their weight around and get the government to give them tax breaks?
Well there's a thread on the site were Nike got 2 billion from Oregon to put a factory there. But even smaller companies get some pretty good breaks. Here's a link to a few examples.
List of factories that will receive tax breaks
You're missing the point. Where do you draw the line? Where does the favoritism stop? Is there an invisible line that says, unless you can guarantee at least $500 million a year in revenue we aren't giving you a tax break to stay here? Unless I have stock in your company or your parent company I don't think you deserve a tax break? Unless you or your parent company has contracts with the government we aren't giving you a tax break?
Actually you're the one missing the point, States compete with each other for new facilities and jobs, as long as that is the case, they will offer the companies incentives.
Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.
What family restaurants do you go to that cost $2,500?
Where did I mention a family restaurant, they estimated his dinner with Romney likely cost $1500-1800, that was for three.
oh 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant. What restaurants do you go to that cost $2,500? That better?
Tramp sends the bill to his Tramp Crime Family Foundation slush fund to pay.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.
What family restaurants do you go to that cost $2,500?
When I was in management consulting and went to the kind of places Trump takes his family to? A bunch I could spend that
On the FEC reports dividends are treated as interest. As you well know if a stock pays a dividend of say $2.50 a year to make the numbers easy, (it's .66 a quarter per share for UT), that is a 1,000 to 2,000 share at $108 per share investment that Tramp will want to protect.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
That's right, it was the Tramp Crime Family Foundation slush fund that pays for the Tramp Crime Family's dinners, like that pay for his paintings and business bribes and fines.Tramp sends the bill to his Tramp Crime Family Foundation slush fund to pay.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.
Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.
What family restaurants do you go to that cost $2,500?
When I was in management consulting and went to the kind of places Trump takes his family to? A bunch I could spend that
I feel you, no way Hillary's Crime Family Foundation slush fund is paying Trump's dinner tab
On the FEC reports dividends are treated as interest. As you well know if a stock pays a dividend of say $2.50 a year to make the numbers easy, (it's .66 a quarter per share for UT), that is a 1,000 to 2,000 share at $108 per share investment that Tramp will want to protect.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Exactly how would he be protecting anything if higher profits could have been realized by moving everything to Mexico? If that's the case didn't he just do something against his own interest? Kind of the opposite of corny capitalism.
How is allowing 1,300 jobs move to Mexico against his interests, by your logic? 300 of the 800 jobs were executive and research positions that were not moving all along, and the other 500 will probably be moved at a later date after they reach the point where they can milk no more publicity out of it.On the FEC reports dividends are treated as interest. As you well know if a stock pays a dividend of say $2.50 a year to make the numbers easy, (it's .66 a quarter per share for UT), that is a 1,000 to 2,000 share at $108 per share investment that Tramp will want to protect.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Exactly how would he be protecting anything if higher profits could have been realized by moving everything to Mexico? If that's the case didn't he just do something against his own interest? Kind of the opposite of corny capitalism.
That's right, it was the Tramp Crime Family Foundation slush fund that pays for the Tramp Crime Family's dinners, like that pay for his paintings and business bribes and fines.Tramp sends the bill to his Tramp Crime Family Foundation slush fund to pay.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.
What family restaurants do you go to that cost $2,500?
When I was in management consulting and went to the kind of places Trump takes his family to? A bunch I could spend that
I feel you, no way Hillary's Crime Family Foundation slush fund is paying Trump's dinner tab
Is this more opinion or do you have a link for the definition you placed in bold?
So let me ask, how big of a company does it take in order for them to be able to push their weight around and get the government to give them tax breaks?
Well there's a thread on the site were Nike got 2 billion from Oregon to put a factory there. But even smaller companies get some pretty good breaks. Here's a link to a few examples.
List of factories that will receive tax breaks
You're missing the point. Where do you draw the line? Where does the favoritism stop? Is there an invisible line that says, unless you can guarantee at least $500 million a year in revenue we aren't giving you a tax break to stay here? Unless I have stock in your company or your parent company I don't think you deserve a tax break? Unless you or your parent company has contracts with the government we aren't giving you a tax break?
Actually you're the one missing the point, States compete with each other for new facilities and jobs, as long as that is the case, they will offer the companies incentives.
We aren't just talking about that anymore. We are talking about companies threatening to move out of the country. I'll ask one more time so you can get the point. What is the thresh hold of a company being worth giving a tax break to stay?
Do you realize at some point there has to be favoritism?
Think of it this way... you're standing outside the hottest night club in NY. You are second in line... but the door guy picks some hot chick 20 people back to get inside. You ask him why she got to go in before you even though you are second in line. He tells you that she has the "look" that they want in the club. How does that make you feel? Is that fair?
So let me ask, how big of a company does it take in order for them to be able to push their weight around and get the government to give them tax breaks?
Well there's a thread on the site were Nike got 2 billion from Oregon to put a factory there. But even smaller companies get some pretty good breaks. Here's a link to a few examples.
List of factories that will receive tax breaks
You're missing the point. Where do you draw the line? Where does the favoritism stop? Is there an invisible line that says, unless you can guarantee at least $500 million a year in revenue we aren't giving you a tax break to stay here? Unless I have stock in your company or your parent company I don't think you deserve a tax break? Unless you or your parent company has contracts with the government we aren't giving you a tax break?
Actually you're the one missing the point, States compete with each other for new facilities and jobs, as long as that is the case, they will offer the companies incentives.
We aren't just talking about that anymore. We are talking about companies threatening to move out of the country. I'll ask one more time so you can get the point. What is the thresh hold of a company being worth giving a tax break to stay?
Do you realize at some point there has to be favoritism?
Think of it this way... you're standing outside the hottest night club in NY. You are second in line... but the door guy picks some hot chick 20 people back to get inside. You ask him why she got to go in before you even though you are second in line. He tells you that she has the "look" that they want in the club. How does that make you feel? Is that fair?
How would giving companies incentives to stay be any different than giving them incentives to come in the first place. Both have to make economic sense to the entity giving the incentives.
Oh and here's a little bit of advice. If you're going to use an analogy, you might want to do one that the person you're talking to can relate to. I don't stand in line to go anywhere and I don't go to fancy clubs, or any clubs for that matter.
On the FEC reports dividends are treated as interest. As you well know if a stock pays a dividend of say $2.50 a year to make the numbers easy, (it's .66 a quarter per share for UT), that is a 1,000 to 2,000 share at $108 per share investment that Tramp will want to protect.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Exactly how would he be protecting anything if higher profits could have been realized by moving everything to Mexico? If that's the case didn't he just do something against his own interest? Kind of the opposite of corny capitalism.
that's why he saved 800 jobs and not 2,300 jobs. It made him look good while still cutting his loses.
How is allowing 1,300 jobs move to Mexico against his interests, by your logic? 300 of the 800 jobs were executive and research positions that were not moving all along, and the other 500 will probably be moved at a later date after they reach the point where they can milk no more publicity out of it.On the FEC reports dividends are treated as interest. As you well know if a stock pays a dividend of say $2.50 a year to make the numbers easy, (it's .66 a quarter per share for UT), that is a 1,000 to 2,000 share at $108 per share investment that Tramp will want to protect.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.Any proof there is a prior relationship between UT and Trump?
Exactly how would he be protecting anything if higher profits could have been realized by moving everything to Mexico? If that's the case didn't he just do something against his own interest? Kind of the opposite of corny capitalism.
On the FEC reports dividends are treated as interest. As you well know if a stock pays a dividend of say $2.50 a year to make the numbers easy, (it's .66 a quarter per share for UT), that is a 1,000 to 2,000 share at $108 per share investment that Tramp will want to protect.Oh wow, that's what, 1 family dinner at a nice restaurant? Also I think you're referring to dividends, not interest.Tramp owns enough stock in UT to net between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest per year according to Tramp's 2015 and 2016 FEC filings.
Exactly how would he be protecting anything if higher profits could have been realized by moving everything to Mexico? If that's the case didn't he just do something against his own interest? Kind of the opposite of corny capitalism.
that's why he saved 800 jobs and not 2,300 jobs. It made him look good while still cutting his loses.
Actually they're reporting he saved 1100 jobs that pay an average of 77+K per year. But I know how you hypocrites operate, if your dear leader had managed to cut the same deal he'd be the second coming. Now run along and cuddle with your hypocrisy, we're done.
Well there's a thread on the site were Nike got 2 billion from Oregon to put a factory there. But even smaller companies get some pretty good breaks. Here's a link to a few examples.
List of factories that will receive tax breaks
You're missing the point. Where do you draw the line? Where does the favoritism stop? Is there an invisible line that says, unless you can guarantee at least $500 million a year in revenue we aren't giving you a tax break to stay here? Unless I have stock in your company or your parent company I don't think you deserve a tax break? Unless you or your parent company has contracts with the government we aren't giving you a tax break?
Actually you're the one missing the point, States compete with each other for new facilities and jobs, as long as that is the case, they will offer the companies incentives.
We aren't just talking about that anymore. We are talking about companies threatening to move out of the country. I'll ask one more time so you can get the point. What is the thresh hold of a company being worth giving a tax break to stay?
Do you realize at some point there has to be favoritism?
Think of it this way... you're standing outside the hottest night club in NY. You are second in line... but the door guy picks some hot chick 20 people back to get inside. You ask him why she got to go in before you even though you are second in line. He tells you that she has the "look" that they want in the club. How does that make you feel? Is that fair?
How would giving companies incentives to stay be any different than giving them incentives to come in the first place. Both have to make economic sense to the entity giving the incentives.
Oh and here's a little bit of advice. If you're going to use an analogy, you might want to do one that the person you're talking to can relate to. I don't stand in line to go anywhere and I don't go to fancy clubs, or any clubs for that matter.
Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean you can't understand it... it's used on television and in movies all the time.
Should I have used a Bingo Hall as an example instead? Ok, here you go.
You go to a Bingo Hall and they sell pull-tab tickets and they have one for a big jackpot. You call to one of the ticket sellers working the floor but they go to someone else first that yelled for them after you did. They then start to walk your way and someone else yells for them and they go to them again before you. They finally come over to you, and they are sold out. Finally you realize the people they went to instead of you are the ones spending a lot of money. How do you feel?
