(11-30-2016 02:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 10:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:22 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 10:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 09:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  1000 American people have jobs that they didn't have before. Are you suggesting that Trump made a bad deal? It is interesting to think about though. Is Apple getting the same deal? How about Ford? Just how did Trump accomplish this before becoming President? Why in the world has the market set record after record since Trump won?

Your post is dumb. It's dumb because the tone of your post indicates that you're too defensive/insecure to actually question the terms of a deal before declaring it good or bad.

It may be a great deal, and it may be a terrible deal. We can only know whether or not it's good for sure by weighing the deal's pros and the cons. The pros are the ~1,000 jobs that were saved (netted against any jobs that wouldn't have been lost), and the cons are unknown. Nothing determinative can be said other than Trump acted fast - for better or worse.

While I wouldn't quantify Dasville's post as dumb, I agree with your comment that there's something of an emotional element to it. But so what?

I'm feeling pretty emotional these days about seeing what appears to be a president-elect who really will make an effort to get this country back on track. I think more than anything this agreement represents a symbolic first step, something of a shot fired across the bow of corporate America that this president will not be doing business as usual.

So what's the downside of the agreement you ask? That's a fair question. Tax incentives to the company at the expense of the local, state, and federal government? Perhaps, but personally, I'd gladly trade those taxes for the thought of 1,000 bread winners doing an honest day's work to provide for their families as opposed to seeing them stand in an unemployment line and wondering how they're going to maintain a roof over their heads.

Sure, maybe there'll be an extra pothole or two in the local roadways due to the loss of those taxes, but I'm betting there's enough waste in the handling of those tax dollars that eventually the short term hardships will be overcome.

in no way is his post dumb....and people that care about the engine that drives this country should be emotionally and positively charged....

also, it's more than simply 1000 jobs....families and local businesses also will benefit from this...

tax revenues derived from a robust working class far outweighs the dimwit robin-hood principle....

If you really cared about the economic engine and/or the countless American families that rely on millions of American bread winners, you'd want to know the cost.

Making any determinative judgements without weighing the costs is really, really dumb.

So one thing I just learned is that over 85% of Carrier's total cash was overseas at the end of 2015. I'm watching Fox Business and will be happy to post anything having to do with Liz Clamen when it becomes available. Could that be a factor in the deal? Perhaps. My question is why is 85% of their cash overseas to begin with?

(11-30-2016 03:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So one thing I just learned is that over 85% of Carrier's total cash was overseas at the end of 2015. I'm watching Fox Business and will be happy to post anything having to do with Liz Clamen when it becomes available. Could that be a factor in the deal? Perhaps. My question is why is 85% of their cash overseas to begin with?

When you say "cash", do you mean earnings? If it's earnings, then there's probably a good reason they leave it overseas. Carrier probably doesn't pay taxes on the money until its repatriated.

(11-30-2016 03:33 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 03:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So one thing I just learned is that over 85% of Carrier's total cash was overseas at the end of 2015. I'm watching Fox Business and will be happy to post anything having to do with Liz Clamen when it becomes available. Could that be a factor in the deal? Perhaps. My question is why is 85% of their cash overseas to begin with?

When you say "cash", do you mean earnings? If it's earnings, then there's probably a good reason they leave it overseas. Carrier probably doesn't pay taxes on the money until its repatriated.

Yep, It's just common sense to leave the cash overseas.

(11-30-2016 03:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 10:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:22 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 10:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Your post is dumb. It's dumb because the tone of your post indicates that you're too defensive/insecure to actually question the terms of a deal before declaring it good or bad.

It may be a great deal, and it may be a terrible deal. We can only know whether or not it's good for sure by weighing the deal's pros and the cons. The pros are the ~1,000 jobs that were saved (netted against any jobs that wouldn't have been lost), and the cons are unknown. Nothing determinative can be said other than Trump acted fast - for better or worse.

While I wouldn't quantify Dasville's post as dumb, I agree with your comment that there's something of an emotional element to it. But so what?

I'm feeling pretty emotional these days about seeing what appears to be a president-elect who really will make an effort to get this country back on track. I think more than anything this agreement represents a symbolic first step, something of a shot fired across the bow of corporate America that this president will not be doing business as usual.

So what's the downside of the agreement you ask? That's a fair question. Tax incentives to the company at the expense of the local, state, and federal government? Perhaps, but personally, I'd gladly trade those taxes for the thought of 1,000 bread winners doing an honest day's work to provide for their families as opposed to seeing them stand in an unemployment line and wondering how they're going to maintain a roof over their heads.

Sure, maybe there'll be an extra pothole or two in the local roadways due to the loss of those taxes, but I'm betting there's enough waste in the handling of those tax dollars that eventually the short term hardships will be overcome.

in no way is his post dumb....and people that care about the engine that drives this country should be emotionally and positively charged....

also, it's more than simply 1000 jobs....families and local businesses also will benefit from this...

tax revenues derived from a robust working class far outweighs the dimwit robin-hood principle....

If you really cared about the economic engine and/or the countless American families that rely on millions of American bread winners, you'd want to know the cost.

Making any determinative judgements without weighing the costs is really, really dumb.

So one thing I just learned is that over 85% of Carrier's total cash was overseas at the end of 2015. I'm watching Fox Business and will be happy to post anything having to do with Liz Clamen when it becomes available. Could that be a factor in the deal? Perhaps. My question is why is 85% of their cash overseas to begin with?

I can answer that.

Our corporate tax policy is insane.

Also, a significant chunk of their business is overseas.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/eco...index.html

Per Carrier:

Quote: "The incentives offered by the state were an important consideration," to staying, Carrier said in a statement Wednesday. Pence is the governor of Indiana.

Carrier didn't specify what the incentives were. Trump threatened Carrier with stiff tariffs during the campaign, but Carrier's statement depicted a friendlier negotiation.

"The incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate," Carrier said.

(11-30-2016 02:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 10:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:22 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 10:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Your post is dumb. It's dumb because the tone of your post indicates that you're too defensive/insecure to actually question the terms of a deal before declaring it good or bad.

It may be a great deal, and it may be a terrible deal. We can only know whether or not it's good for sure by weighing the deal's pros and the cons. The pros are the ~1,000 jobs that were saved (netted against any jobs that wouldn't have been lost), and the cons are unknown. Nothing determinative can be said other than Trump acted fast - for better or worse.

While I wouldn't quantify Dasville's post as dumb, I agree with your comment that there's something of an emotional element to it. But so what?

I'm feeling pretty emotional these days about seeing what appears to be a president-elect who really will make an effort to get this country back on track. I think more than anything this agreement represents a symbolic first step, something of a shot fired across the bow of corporate America that this president will not be doing business as usual.

So what's the downside of the agreement you ask? That's a fair question. Tax incentives to the company at the expense of the local, state, and federal government? Perhaps, but personally, I'd gladly trade those taxes for the thought of 1,000 bread winners doing an honest day's work to provide for their families as opposed to seeing them stand in an unemployment line and wondering how they're going to maintain a roof over their heads.

Sure, maybe there'll be an extra pothole or two in the local roadways due to the loss of those taxes, but I'm betting there's enough waste in the handling of those tax dollars that eventually the short term hardships will be overcome.

in no way is his post dumb....and people that care about the engine that drives this country should be emotionally and positively charged....

also, it's more than simply 1000 jobs....families and local businesses also will benefit from this...

tax revenues derived from a robust working class far outweighs the dimwit robin-hood principle....

If you really cared about the economic engine and/or the countless American families that rely on millions of American bread winners, you'd want to know the cost.

Making any determinative judgements without weighing the costs is really, really dumb.

The markets will determine if any policy is a bad move....this is much more complicated than posting tlc tac do re mi on a bbs

Knowing this is comfort enough...

Spending on senseless wars and social programs that dont work is as dumb as it gets....that includes bush too...

The tic tac do re mi part doesn't seem coherent, and the clear indictment on the Bush and Obama administrations doesn't seem relevant - unless it's a general statement against government waste. If so, then I agree, government waste is bad, and I hope that there wasn't any in this deal.

(11-30-2016 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 10:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:22 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  While I wouldn't quantify Dasville's post as dumb, I agree with your comment that there's something of an emotional element to it. But so what?

I'm feeling pretty emotional these days about seeing what appears to be a president-elect who really will make an effort to get this country back on track. I think more than anything this agreement represents a symbolic first step, something of a shot fired across the bow of corporate America that this president will not be doing business as usual.

So what's the downside of the agreement you ask? That's a fair question. Tax incentives to the company at the expense of the local, state, and federal government? Perhaps, but personally, I'd gladly trade those taxes for the thought of 1,000 bread winners doing an honest day's work to provide for their families as opposed to seeing them stand in an unemployment line and wondering how they're going to maintain a roof over their heads.

Sure, maybe there'll be an extra pothole or two in the local roadways due to the loss of those taxes, but I'm betting there's enough waste in the handling of those tax dollars that eventually the short term hardships will be overcome.

in no way is his post dumb....and people that care about the engine that drives this country should be emotionally and positively charged....

also, it's more than simply 1000 jobs....families and local businesses also will benefit from this...

tax revenues derived from a robust working class far outweighs the dimwit robin-hood principle....

If you really cared about the economic engine and/or the countless American families that rely on millions of American bread winners, you'd want to know the cost.

Making any determinative judgements without weighing the costs is really, really dumb.

The markets will determine if any policy is a bad move....this is much more complicated than posting tlc tac do re mi on a bbs

Knowing this is comfort enough...

Spending on senseless wars and social programs that dont work is as dumb as it gets....that includes bush too...

The tic tac do re mi part doesn't seem coherent, and the clear indictment on the Bush and Obama administrations doesn't seem relevant - unless it's a general statement against government waste. If so, then I agree, government waste is bad, and I hope that there wasn't any in this deal.

yes....that was exactly the point....

the tic tac was relative to him defining within the broadest of range possible.....the market will determine the micro/macro side as policy begins to unfold....

(11-30-2016 07:10 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 10:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  in no way is his post dumb....and people that care about the engine that drives this country should be emotionally and positively charged....

also, it's more than simply 1000 jobs....families and local businesses also will benefit from this...

tax revenues derived from a robust working class far outweighs the dimwit robin-hood principle....

If you really cared about the economic engine and/or the countless American families that rely on millions of American bread winners, you'd want to know the cost.

Making any determinative judgements without weighing the costs is really, really dumb.

The markets will determine if any policy is a bad move....this is much more complicated than posting tlc tac do re mi on a bbs

Knowing this is comfort enough...

Spending on senseless wars and social programs that dont work is as dumb as it gets....that includes bush too...

The tic tac do re mi part doesn't seem coherent, and the clear indictment on the Bush and Obama administrations doesn't seem relevant - unless it's a general statement against government waste. If so, then I agree, government waste is bad, and I hope that there wasn't any in this deal.

yes....that was exactly the point....

the tic tac was relative to him defining within the broadest of range possible.....the market will determine the micro/macro side as policy begins to unfold....

I guess we can get into a strong/weak hypothesis argument here.

But in an effort to avoid that rabbit hole, I'll try to stay high level. The market will only react if there is information about this deal on the market. And since this is one company's plant in one state, any market reaction will be lost in general market noise.

My original point is that there really isn't enough information about the deal to either cheer it, or to criticize it.

(11-30-2016 08:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:10 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  If you really cared about the economic engine and/or the countless American families that rely on millions of American bread winners, you'd want to know the cost.

Making any determinative judgements without weighing the costs is really, really dumb.

The markets will determine if any policy is a bad move....this is much more complicated than posting tlc tac do re mi on a bbs

Knowing this is comfort enough...

Spending on senseless wars and social programs that dont work is as dumb as it gets....that includes bush too...

The tic tac do re mi part doesn't seem coherent, and the clear indictment on the Bush and Obama administrations doesn't seem relevant - unless it's a general statement against government waste. If so, then I agree, government waste is bad, and I hope that there wasn't any in this deal.

yes....that was exactly the point....

the tic tac was relative to him defining within the broadest of range possible.....the market will determine the micro/macro side as policy begins to unfold....

I guess we can get into a strong/weak hypothesis argument here.

But in an effort to avoid that rabbit hole, I'll try to stay high level. The market will only react if there is information about this deal on the market. And since this is one company's plant in one state, any market reaction will be lost in general market noise.

My original point is that there really isn't enough information about the deal to either cheer it, or to criticize it.

You care too much about the markets. We need conditions to make real money the old fashioned way, not banking, smokescreens, and statistics.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(11-30-2016 08:47 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:10 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  The markets will determine if any policy is a bad move....this is much more complicated than posting tlc tac do re mi on a bbs

Knowing this is comfort enough...

Spending on senseless wars and social programs that dont work is as dumb as it gets....that includes bush too...

The tic tac do re mi part doesn't seem coherent, and the clear indictment on the Bush and Obama administrations doesn't seem relevant - unless it's a general statement against government waste. If so, then I agree, government waste is bad, and I hope that there wasn't any in this deal.

yes....that was exactly the point....

the tic tac was relative to him defining within the broadest of range possible.....the market will determine the micro/macro side as policy begins to unfold....

I guess we can get into a strong/weak hypothesis argument here.

But in an effort to avoid that rabbit hole, I'll try to stay high level. The market will only react if there is information about this deal on the market. And since this is one company's plant in one state, any market reaction will be lost in general market noise.

My original point is that there really isn't enough information about the deal to either cheer it, or to criticize it.

You care too much about the markets. We need conditions to make real money the old fashioned way, not banking, smokescreens, and statistics.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If I was trying to sink the economy as fast as possible, I'd say what you just said.

We need to leverage our comparative advantages. That would mean embracing change (innovation/high tech manufacturing) and financing risk (banking).

We 100% should not try to regress the economy by emphasizing low skill manufacturing. We can out China China.

(11-30-2016 09:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:47 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:10 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The tic tac do re mi part doesn't seem coherent, and the clear indictment on the Bush and Obama administrations doesn't seem relevant - unless it's a general statement against government waste. If so, then I agree, government waste is bad, and I hope that there wasn't any in this deal.

yes....that was exactly the point....

the tic tac was relative to him defining within the broadest of range possible.....the market will determine the micro/macro side as policy begins to unfold....

I guess we can get into a strong/weak hypothesis argument here.

But in an effort to avoid that rabbit hole, I'll try to stay high level. The market will only react if there is information about this deal on the market. And since this is one company's plant in one state, any market reaction will be lost in general market noise.

My original point is that there really isn't enough information about the deal to either cheer it, or to criticize it.

You care too much about the markets. We need conditions to make real money the old fashioned way, not banking, smokescreens, and statistics.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If I was trying to sink the economy as fast as possible, I'd say what you just said.

We need to leverage our comparative advantages. That would mean embracing change (innovation/high tech manufacturing) and financing risk (banking).

We 100% should not try to regress the economy by emphasizing low skill manufacturing. We can out China China.

Innovation naturally happens when you are producing, out of thin air at a college campus. It happens by strategic planning from businessmen, not bankers. The technocratic solutions of shifting sand from one side of the room to the other aren't working.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(11-30-2016 09:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:47 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:10 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  yes....that was exactly the point....

the tic tac was relative to him defining within the broadest of range possible.....the market will determine the micro/macro side as policy begins to unfold....

I guess we can get into a strong/weak hypothesis argument here.

But in an effort to avoid that rabbit hole, I'll try to stay high level. The market will only react if there is information about this deal on the market. And since this is one company's plant in one state, any market reaction will be lost in general market noise.

My original point is that there really isn't enough information about the deal to either cheer it, or to criticize it.

You care too much about the markets. We need conditions to make real money the old fashioned way, not banking, smokescreens, and statistics.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If I was trying to sink the economy as fast as possible, I'd say what you just said.

We need to leverage our comparative advantages. That would mean embracing change (innovation/high tech manufacturing) and financing risk (banking).

We 100% should not try to regress the economy by emphasizing low skill manufacturing. We can out China China.

Innovation naturally happens when you are producing, out of thin air at a college campus. It happens by strategic planning from businessmen, not bankers. The technocratic solutions of shifting sand from one side of the room to the other aren't working.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If that's your opinion, then you have absolutely no idea how capitalism works.

Jamie Dimon wrote a great article on banks creating value by becoming illiquid, so the rest of society is more liquid. The article's primary focus was risk and risk management. However, it does clearly show how capital markets add value. You should read his article.

Also, if you don't think that bankers are businessmen, then you really, really need to meet more bankers.

Regressing our economy would be an unmitigated disaster on every front for virtually everyone in the world, but especially Americans.

(12-01-2016 12:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:47 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I guess we can get into a strong/weak hypothesis argument here.

But in an effort to avoid that rabbit hole, I'll try to stay high level. The market will only react if there is information about this deal on the market. And since this is one company's plant in one state, any market reaction will be lost in general market noise.

My original point is that there really isn't enough information about the deal to either cheer it, or to criticize it.

You care too much about the markets. We need conditions to make real money the old fashioned way, not banking, smokescreens, and statistics.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If I was trying to sink the economy as fast as possible, I'd say what you just said.

We need to leverage our comparative advantages. That would mean embracing change (innovation/high tech manufacturing) and financing risk (banking).

We 100% should not try to regress the economy by emphasizing low skill manufacturing. We can out China China.

Innovation naturally happens when you are producing, out of thin air at a college campus. It happens by strategic planning from businessmen, not bankers. The technocratic solutions of shifting sand from one side of the room to the other aren't working.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If that's your opinion, then you have absolutely no idea how capitalism works.

Jamie Dimon wrote a great article on banks creating value by becoming illiquid, so the rest of society is more liquid. The article's primary focus was risk and risk management. However, it does clearly show how capital markets add value. You should read his article.

Also, if you don't think that bankers are businessmen, then you really, really need to meet more bankers.

Regressing our economy would be an unmitigated disaster on every front for virtually everyone in the world, but especially Americans.

Finance adds value to the economy, I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that 80% of the economy comes from business that is not publically traded. When the markets (their competition) boom, that doesn't mean they do. And for the past 20 years, government and the Fed have been setting policy and spending money to prop up 20% of the economy based on the day to day fluctuations. How many times has the fed punted on raising interest rates because the market lost 500 points after the trial balloon?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(11-30-2016 07:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/eco...index.html

Per Carrier:

Quote: "The incentives offered by the state were an important consideration," to staying, Carrier said in a statement Wednesday. Pence is the governor of Indiana.

Carrier didn't specify what the incentives were. Trump threatened Carrier with stiff tariffs during the campaign, but Carrier's statement depicted a friendlier negotiation.

"The incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate," Carrier said.

Id say from that statement?....Trump wins. I forgot that Pence was Gov. He probably had a lot to do with this.

A little bit of new info regarding one of the reasons United Technologies may have wanted to move plant......

Union jobs pay $23 per hour here in US

Same job in Mexico pays $3 per hour.

Somehow Trump and Pence were able to bridge that gap and Obama couldn't.
I don't think Hillary even cared.

(11-30-2016 09:59 AM)Paul M Wrote:  This sudden cheering for protectionism of union jobs from the right seems... odd.

Probably because the symbolism of this is quite great for those who support him.

(12-01-2016 09:39 AM)Dasville Wrote:  A little bit of new info regarding one of the reasons United Technologies may have wanted to move plant......

Union jobs pay $23 per hour here in US

Same job in Mexico pays $3 per hour.

Somehow Trump and Pence were able to bridge that gap and Obama couldn't.
I don't think Hillary even cared.

The word out now is that they Trump administration is given Carrier "incentives" to stay.

(12-01-2016 09:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:59 AM)Paul M Wrote:  This sudden cheering for protectionism of union jobs from the right seems... odd.

Probably because the symbolism of this is quite great for those who support him.

Unions are going to have to start earning it. The leadership in the Unions can't deliver the vote to the Dems any longer. They are going to have to go to work. Unions will be better for this. Collective bargaining has a case to be made. Unfortunately, they are addicted to Dems free money and, like the Obama administration, have become lazy and piss poor. They dangle pension over our heads to manipulate.

(12-01-2016 10:56 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 09:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:59 AM)Paul M Wrote:  This sudden cheering for protectionism of union jobs from the right seems... odd.

Probably because the symbolism of this is quite great for those who support him.

Unions are going to have to start earning it. The leadership in the Unions can't deliver the vote to the Dems any longer. They are going to have to go to work. Unions will be better for this. Collective bargaining has a case to be made. Unfortunately, they are addicted to Dems free money and, like the Obama administration, have become lazy and piss poor. They dangle pension over our heads to manipulate.

You know back in the day, pensions allowed people to remain loyal to their companies and in some ways allowed people to have single income families where mom stayed at home, kept the home fires burning, and raised the kids. Those are all very conservative values.

(12-01-2016 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 10:56 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 09:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 09:59 AM)Paul M Wrote:  This sudden cheering for protectionism of union jobs from the right seems... odd.

Probably because the symbolism of this is quite great for those who support him.

Unions are going to have to start earning it. The leadership in the Unions can't deliver the vote to the Dems any longer. They are going to have to go to work. Unions will be better for this. Collective bargaining has a case to be made. Unfortunately, they are addicted to Dems free money and, like the Obama administration, have become lazy and piss poor. They dangle pension over our heads to manipulate.

You know back in the day, pensions allowed people to remain loyal to their companies and in some ways allowed people to have single income families where mom stayed at home, kept the home fires burning, and raised the kids. Those are all very conservative values.

The value of the Unions to the Democrats is a voting block taken for granted. The value of the Union worker to Donald Trump is a fellow foot in the ground.