Trump woudl tax Carrier for moving production to Mexico

[martybegan]

It's just another sign of the imbalance found in our system currently. The court thinks it can legislate from the bench, the presidents think they can just get things done with the flick of a pen, and the legislatures are too gridlocked to do anything about it.

I could never understand why a wing, within a branch of government, would voluntarily give up the power delegated to them by the Constitution by accepting unconstitutional executive orders.

it's a combination of laziness, and the fact that they can still get goodies for the constituents (and keep their jobs) from the crumbs the other branches drop to them.

 

[Indeependent]

Trump can not tear up treaties either....

You all are very gullible, or ignorant on this topic.

You seem to be alone on this issue.
I would have presumed that an Establishment Republican would have mocked Trump on this issue months ago.
None has.

 

[defcon4]

Is this the position of a "conservative"? What happened to letting the free market prevail? Even though I'm a Democrat and this kind of protectionism worries me as it just kicks the problems down the road without solving them.

When government creates unfavorable conditions with over taxation it is not a free market any longer, is it?

 

[Indeependent]

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also covers groups of people, which a corporation is. Trump wants to either punish Carrier or make them change their business practices via the legislature and executive branch. It's basically what a bill of attainder is.

Wouldn't Commerce Clause come into effect here?

Is that not between the States?

 

[martybegan]

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also covers groups of people, which a corporation is. Trump wants to either punish Carrier or make them change their business practices via the legislature and executive branch. It's basically what a bill of attainder is.

Wouldn't Commerce Clause come into effect here?

If you made it about relocation of companies in general, and didn't make the taxes to onerous. However the taxes would have to be onerous to mitigate the cost savings of moving.

Y

 

[Indeependent]

Is this the position of a "conservative"? What happened to letting the free market prevail? Even though I'm a Democrat and this kind of protectionism worries me as it just kicks the problems down the road without solving them.

When government creates unfavorable conditions with over taxation it is not a free market any longer, is it?

Define "Free Market".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Who said it was going to be specific? Get rid of NAFTA and we will be much better off.

 

[martybegan]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Who said it was going to be specific? Get rid of NAFTA and we will be much better off.

it was implied in the whole "Trump is going to go to Carrier and say do X or else" part of the post.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

He is just taking lessons from libs and throwing out words he doesn't understand that he found in the Constitution.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Who said it was going to be specific? Get rid of NAFTA and we will be much better off.

it was implied in the whole "Trump is going to go to Carrier and say do X or else" part of the post.

Read it again. That is not what he said.

 

[alang1216]

Is this the position of a "conservative"? What happened to letting the free market prevail? Even though I'm a Democrat and this kind of protectionism worries me as it just kicks the problems down the road without solving them.

When government creates unfavorable conditions with over taxation it is not a free market any longer, is it?

Define "Free Market".

Free Markets are like spare change, they may exist in theory but not in practice. Business only what a free market when they are breaking into a market. Once established they do their utmost to close off the access of others.

 

[martybegan]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Who said it was going to be specific? Get rid of NAFTA and we will be much better off.

it was implied in the whole "Trump is going to go to Carrier and say do X or else" part of the post.

Read it again. That is not what he said.

He said he would tax units made by carrier when shipped back to the US. Implied is that if they don't move, this doesn't happen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Who said it was going to be specific? Get rid of NAFTA and we will be much better off.

it was implied in the whole "Trump is going to go to Carrier and say do X or else" part of the post.

Read it again. That is not what he said.

He said he would tax units made by carrier when shipped back to the US. Implied is that if they don't move, this doesn't happen.

It is called a tariff. Have a nice day!

 

[martybegan]

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Who said it was going to be specific? Get rid of NAFTA and we will be much better off.

it was implied in the whole "Trump is going to go to Carrier and say do X or else" part of the post.

Read it again. That is not what he said.

He said he would tax units made by carrier when shipped back to the US. Implied is that if they don't move, this doesn't happen.

It is called a tariff. Have a nice day!

A company specific tariff unless written properly, i.e. a bill of attainder.

 

[Si modo]

The electorate has been so dumbed down (thank you Dept. of Ed.) that they have no idea what a POTUS can or can't do. Candidates know that and say shit to get votes. Abortion is a great example.

 

[TNHarley]

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also covers groups of people, which a corporation is. Trump wants to either punish Carrier or make them change their business practices via the legislature and executive branch. It's basically what a bill of attainder is.

Wouldn't Commerce Clause come into effect here?

Is that not between the States?

Foreign commerce clause?[/QUOTE]

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Who said it was going to be specific? Get rid of NAFTA and we will be much better off.

it was implied in the whole "Trump is going to go to Carrier and say do X or else" part of the post.

Read it again. That is not what he said.

He said he would tax units made by carrier when shipped back to the US. Implied is that if they don't move, this doesn't happen.

It is called a tariff. Have a nice day!

A company specific tariff unless written properly, i.e. a bill of attainder.

You still haven't read the definition of a a bill of attainder yet, have you?

That is NOT what it means.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This sounds like the kind of bullshit Obama does to certain industries trying to bankrupt them or force change out of them.

 

[martybegan]

it was implied in the whole "Trump is going to go to Carrier and say do X or else" part of the post.

Read it again. That is not what he said.

He said he would tax units made by carrier when shipped back to the US. Implied is that if they don't move, this doesn't happen.

It is called a tariff. Have a nice day!

A company specific tariff unless written properly, i.e. a bill of attainder.

You still haven't read the definition of a a bill of attainder yet, have you?

That is NOT what it means.

He wants to punitively punish Carrier for moving their production to mexico, and he wants to bring the legislature along for the ride.

Bill of attainder.

 

[TNHarley]

Trump and Bernie would be able to "tear up those trade deals". I believe, according to Nixons "fast track", they can do what they want, THEN Congress would get a vote.
If Congress voted down those things, they would be voted out. At least by the "pro-americans"
Everyone and their momma wants new trade deals.