Trump

HughFreakingDillon

so I'm watching CNN on my lunch. who's on? Mike Pence. at a Carrier press conference. Trump just spent $7m on tax breaks to save 1000 jobs. I was awe as he spoke about not even really considering saving Carrier jobs in the first place, thinking "that ship had sailed". But he mentioned it at one point, which he admits he didn't recall until seeing the video. Now, he's watching the news, "but I won't say which one, I can't stand them, I tell you, I can't stand them, so I won't give them the credit", and he sees an employee of Carrier saying "Trump is going to save my job". He openly admits that the only reason he did this deal was because of the faith of this ONE GUY. He is spending millions of tax payer dollars to appease ONE GUY who said he had faith in him. He said after seeing that on the news, he got on the phone with Carrier's CEO and said "we've got to make a deal".

how many other companies are going to see that and go "hmmm.....I want tax breaks, let's threaten to ship some jobs abroad".

he is single handedly going to bankrupt the US in record time.

and then he'll blame it on the democrats.

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

so I'm watching CNN on my lunch. who's on? Mike Pence. at a Carrier press conference. Trump just spent $7m on tax breaks to save 1000 jobs. I was awe as he spoke about not even really considering saving Carrier jobs in the first place, thinking "that ship had sailed". But he mentioned it at one point, which he admits he didn't recall until seeing the video. Now, he's watching the news, "but I won't say which one, I can't stand them, I tell you, I can't stand them, so I won't give them the credit", and he sees an employee of Carrier saying "Trump is going to save my job". He openly admits that the only reason he did this deal was because of the faith of this ONE GUY. He is spending millions of tax payer dollars to appease ONE GUY who said he had faith in him. He said after seeing that on the news, he got on the phone with Carrier's CEO and said "we've got to make a deal".

how many other companies are going to see that and go "hmmm.....I want tax breaks, let's threaten to ship some jobs abroad".

he is single handedly going to bankrupt the US in record time.

and then he'll blame it on the democrats.

I listened too...he made more threats about businesses leaving the US and yet Carrier is still cutting 700 jobs in nearby Huntington, IN. What about those jobs?

http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2016/02/10/carrier-move-indy-unit-mexico-eliminate-1400-jobs/80181804/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/30/hundreds-could-still-lose-jobs-at-carriers-indianapolis-plant-despite-trump-deal.html

It's all smoke and mirrors and it's scary. He's giving his dumbass base headlines to believe while they bypass the details.

Jason P

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

Halifax2TheMax

What happened to the republican mantra of "let the markets decide" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps?"

Gern Blansten

Disagree

JC29856

Halifax2TheMax said:

What happened to the republican mantra of "let the markets decide" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps?"

Republican congress scrapped that with the trillion dollar bailouts.

JC29856

Halifax2TheMax said:

I don't know how else to communicate this, because you're a broken record. A presidential candidate in a democratic society may only be deemed ineligible on legal grounds. In the nearly year and a half since Trump began campaigning, the people and the courts have both failed to prove any substantial link to Trump and illegal activities. If the legal route fails, then it falls on the people to debate and discuss reasonably to reach the outcome they desire by convincing Trump supporters otherwise, and by convincing undecideds/uncarings to decide/care. Non-Trump supporters such as yourself failed at doing this, and your dissatisfaction should only be pointed inwards.

The three threads you were active on prior to the election (and as far as I can tell not a mention of Trump any time prior to the election):
-This is why you can not hate Justin Bieber
-Article: Albums ranked from worst to best
-Binaural Live...Was there a Reason

Maybe you should've given a shit and worked on that reasonable debate and discussion at a time when it mattered, instead of waking up to tell the world why you don't like the outcome and that it should be changed because it hurts your feelings. Know what Germany would have done if a Trumpian candidate was running? Debate and discuss, and convince his supporters that they are wrong about him, like you and all Americans opposed to him should've done WHEN IT MATTERED. This is not done by insulting or belittling his supporters, nullifying their voices, or defining them as morally corrupt and therefore not worth your time or effort. It is done with facts and evidence.

You're wrong on the facts and evidence part. Trump voters were ignoring the facts and voting emotionally. Clinton needed to match this emotional message with her own message that connected on the same frequency. Policy debate wasn't going to shift many trump voters.


Correct.

Trump either knowingly or unknowingly ran a very successful campaign understanding the fact that the simple person's vote counts just as much as any other.

'I'll make your wildest dreams come true"... "Let's make America great again"... and "I'm gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" proved to be very useful campaign tactics.

He's an unabashed master manipulator. Just seems that some people don't mind being manipulated

Almost reminds me of all the "Hope and change" rhetoric of the previous election.

He accomplished much more than you'd ever care to admit. He could have accomplished much more if the Repubs hadn't sat in congress with their arms across their chest.

He could have accomplished much more if the democrats didn't pass Obamacare and get slaughtered in every down ballot election from 2010 onward. His only domestic achievement is about to be repealed while his foreign policy record is one of absolute disaster. His party has collapsed and descended into one that only has identity politics left. A legacy to celebrate for sure.

What about foreign policy is an absolute disaster? I've asked people who claim this to clarify, but they don't come up with much.

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously.

Niall Ferguson sums it up pretty well:

"Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure, most obviously in the Middle East, where the smoldering ruin that is Syria—not to mention Iraq and Libya—attests to the fundamental naivety of his approach, dating all the way back to the 2009 Cairo speech. The President came to believe he had an ingenious strategy to establish geopolitical balance between Sunni and Shi’a. But by treating America’s Arab friends with open disdain, while cutting a nuclear deal with Iran that has left Tehran free to wage proxy wars across the region, Obama has achieved not peace but a fractal geometry of conflict and a frightening, possibly nuclear, arms race. At the same time, he has allowed Russia to become a major player in the Middle East for the first time since Kissinger squeezed the Soviets out of Egypt in the 1972-79 period. The death toll in the Syrian war now approaches half a million; who knows how much higher it will rise between now and Inauguration Day?

Meanwhile, global terrorism has surged under Obama. Of the past 16 years, the worst year for terrorism was 2014, with 93 countries experiencing an attack and 32,765 people killed. 2015 was the second worst, with 29,376 deaths. Last year, four radical Islamic groups were responsible for 74 per cent of all deaths from terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. In this context, the President’s claims to be succeeding against what he euphemistically calls “violent extremism” are absurd. Much opprobrium has been heaped on Donald Trump in the course of the past year. But there was much that was true in his underreported August 15 foreign policy speech on the subject of Islamic extremism and the failure of the Obama Administration to defeat it. The “Obama Doctrine” has failed in Europe, too, where English voters opted to leave the EU in defiance of the President’s threats, and where the German leadership he recently praised has delivered, first, an unnecessarily protracted financial crisis in the European periphery and, second, a disastrous influx to the core of migrants, some but not all of them refugees from a region that Europe had intervened in just enough to exacerbate its instability. The President has also failed in eastern Europe, where not only has Ukraine been invaded and Crimea annexed, but also Hungary and now Poland have opted to deviate sharply from the President’s liberal “arc of history.” Finally, his foreign policy has failed in Asia, where little remains of the much-vaunted pivot. “If you look at how we’ve operated in the South China Sea,” the President boasted in an interview published in March, “we have been able to mobilize most of Asia to isolate China in ways that have surprised China, frankly, and have very much served our interest in strengthening our alliances.” The new President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, apparently did not receive this memorandum. In October he went to Beijing’s Great Hall of the People to announce his “separation from the United States.”

You should really take the time to read the whole thing since the people you speak to "don't come up with much".

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-new-world-order/

So Trump should base his foreign policy on a world that existed 100 years ago? WTF is that? And why shouldn't Obama have treated our "Arab Friends" with disdain? Particularly the Saudis and Pakistanis, who willingly smile and take our largess in the form of money and military weapons systems while willingly and knowingly harboring the terrorists who want to kill us, Osama Bid Laden and Al Qaeda, Pakistan, and the Salafist extremists that spread their hateful ideology in the form of Madrassas throughout the world, Saudi Arabia. Obama finally called them out on it and oops, too bad, we're not subsidizing your shit anymore, sorry. There's a reason the Congress called out the Saudi's for 9/11. That story will come to light but like the neocon Bush's, you'd prefer to spirit them out of the country and ignore the connections of corruption. If I have a criticism of Obama its that he went through with the arms deal for the Saudis but I'm sure a package of that size was begun in the waning days of the Bush Administration and it does create and maintain American jobs.

All terrorism worldwide is the responsibility of the US? Really?

A world in perpetual conflict, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse carving the rest of the world up to be their minions. Fuck Henry Kissinger and his world view. Ask the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians, not to mention the Argentinians, Chileans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans what they think of Henry Kissinger. But I'm sure this is pure glory in your neocon mind. Like moving pieces on a Risk board, simple really.

How's that splendid little war in Yemen working out for you and will Trump invade Yemen too, to make it great again?

Who this to?

CM189191

Jason P said:

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

hmph....people actually believe this...???

Gern Blansten

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

hmph....people actually believe this...???

yeah....I was going to respond but gave up.

Indiana's tax rate is low. Personal rate (state/county) is like 5%. $7mil in tax incentives relates to $140mil in taxable income. Those jobs better stay for a long time to make up for that revenue.

tbergs

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

hmph....people actually believe this...???

yeah....I was going to respond but gave up.

Indiana's tax rate is low. Personal rate (state/county) is like 5%. $7mil in tax incentives relates to $140mil in taxable income. Those jobs better stay for a long time to make up for that revenue.

Until the next democratic governor or president I'm sure...

CM189191

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

hmph....people actually believe this...???

yeah....I was going to respond but gave up.

Indiana's tax rate is low. Personal rate (state/county) is like 5%. $7mil in tax incentives relates to $140mil in taxable income. Those jobs better stay for a long time to make up for that revenue.

Not sure how the incentive for Carrier is structured, but here's a fun anecdote from my home town:

They wanted to entice a large factory to move to town, and provided TIF incentives for 7 years. After 7 years, factory threatens to leave town and is ultimately sold to another company who re-negotiates the TIF incentive. They then proceed to lay off 1/2 it's workforce (sound familiar). Well now 1/2 the workforce is unemployed, with no social structure or safety net to support them because the factory has had a tax break for 7+ years. TIF incentives expired again, and the factory was sold again, automated again, and laid off 1/2 it's work force again.

Even in grade school I could see this was a raw deal for the city. It's not like our town had high unemployment before the factory moved to town, but we sure did after it left. Incidentally, our neighbor was the COO - he retired early to his 2 homes in Florida, a yacht, and a 32 year kid who's never worked a day in his life.

tbergs

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

hmph....people actually believe this...???

yeah....I was going to respond but gave up.

Indiana's tax rate is low. Personal rate (state/county) is like 5%. $7mil in tax incentives relates to $140mil in taxable income. Those jobs better stay for a long time to make up for that revenue.

Not sure how the incentive for Carrier is structured, but here's a fun anecdote from my home town:

They wanted to entice a large factory to move to town, and provided TIF incentives for 7 years. After 7 years, factory threatens to leave town and is ultimately sold to another company who re-negotiates the TIF incentive. They then proceed to lay off 1/2 it's workforce (sound familiar). Well now 1/2 the workforce is unemployed, with no social structure or safety net to support them because the factory has had a tax break for 7+ years. TIF incentives expired again, and the factory was sold again, automated again, and laid off 1/2 it's work force again.

Even in grade school I could see this was a raw deal for the city. It's not like our town had high unemployment before the factory moved to town, but we sure did after it left. Incidentally, our neighbor was the COO - he retired early to his 2 homes in Florida, a yacht, and a 32 year kid who's never worked a day in his life.

Too many people either don't care or just live for the here and now. You said it the other day, this isn't economic growth. These are rented jobs. Every one of those "saved" employees should be actively looking for work elsewhere before the bubble pops.

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I don't know how else to communicate this, because you're a broken record. A presidential candidate in a democratic society may only be deemed ineligible on legal grounds. In the nearly year and a half since Trump began campaigning, the people and the courts have both failed to prove any substantial link to Trump and illegal activities. If the legal route fails, then it falls on the people to debate and discuss reasonably to reach the outcome they desire by convincing Trump supporters otherwise, and by convincing undecideds/uncarings to decide/care. Non-Trump supporters such as yourself failed at doing this, and your dissatisfaction should only be pointed inwards.

The three threads you were active on prior to the election (and as far as I can tell not a mention of Trump any time prior to the election):
-This is why you can not hate Justin Bieber
-Article: Albums ranked from worst to best
-Binaural Live...Was there a Reason

Maybe you should've given a shit and worked on that reasonable debate and discussion at a time when it mattered, instead of waking up to tell the world why you don't like the outcome and that it should be changed because it hurts your feelings. Know what Germany would have done if a Trumpian candidate was running? Debate and discuss, and convince his supporters that they are wrong about him, like you and all Americans opposed to him should've done WHEN IT MATTERED. This is not done by insulting or belittling his supporters, nullifying their voices, or defining them as morally corrupt and therefore not worth your time or effort. It is done with facts and evidence.

You're wrong on the facts and evidence part. Trump voters were ignoring the facts and voting emotionally. Clinton needed to match this emotional message with her own message that connected on the same frequency. Policy debate wasn't going to shift many trump voters.

Correct.

Trump either knowingly or unknowingly ran a very successful campaign understanding the fact that the simple person's vote counts just as much as any other.

'I'll make your wildest dreams come true"... "Let's make America great again"... and "I'm gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" proved to be very useful campaign tactics.

He's an unabashed master manipulator. Just seems that some people don't mind being manipulated

Almost reminds me of all the "Hope and change" rhetoric of the previous election.

He accomplished much more than you'd ever care to admit. He could have accomplished much more if the Repubs hadn't sat in congress with their arms across their chest.

He could have accomplished much more if the democrats didn't pass Obamacare and get slaughtered in every down ballot election from 2010 onward. His only domestic achievement is about to be repealed while his foreign policy record is one of absolute disaster. His party has collapsed and descended into one that only has identity politics left. A legacy to celebrate for sure.

What about foreign policy is an absolute disaster? I've asked people who claim this to clarify, but they don't come up with much.

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously.

Niall Ferguson sums it up pretty well:

"Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure, most obviously in the Middle East, where the smoldering ruin that is Syria—not to mention Iraq and Libya—attests to the fundamental naivety of his approach, dating all the way back to the 2009 Cairo speech. The President came to believe he had an ingenious strategy to establish geopolitical balance between Sunni and Shi’a. But by treating America’s Arab friends with open disdain, while cutting a nuclear deal with Iran that has left Tehran free to wage proxy wars across the region, Obama has achieved not peace but a fractal geometry of conflict and a frightening, possibly nuclear, arms race. At the same time, he has allowed Russia to become a major player in the Middle East for the first time since Kissinger squeezed the Soviets out of Egypt in the 1972-79 period. The death toll in the Syrian war now approaches half a million; who knows how much higher it will rise between now and Inauguration Day?

Meanwhile, global terrorism has surged under Obama. Of the past 16 years, the worst year for terrorism was 2014, with 93 countries experiencing an attack and 32,765 people killed. 2015 was the second worst, with 29,376 deaths. Last year, four radical Islamic groups were responsible for 74 per cent of all deaths from terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. In this context, the President’s claims to be succeeding against what he euphemistically calls “violent extremism” are absurd. Much opprobrium has been heaped on Donald Trump in the course of the past year. But there was much that was true in his underreported August 15 foreign policy speech on the subject of Islamic extremism and the failure of the Obama Administration to defeat it. The “Obama Doctrine” has failed in Europe, too, where English voters opted to leave the EU in defiance of the President’s threats, and where the German leadership he recently praised has delivered, first, an unnecessarily protracted financial crisis in the European periphery and, second, a disastrous influx to the core of migrants, some but not all of them refugees from a region that Europe had intervened in just enough to exacerbate its instability. The President has also failed in eastern Europe, where not only has Ukraine been invaded and Crimea annexed, but also Hungary and now Poland have opted to deviate sharply from the President’s liberal “arc of history.” Finally, his foreign policy has failed in Asia, where little remains of the much-vaunted pivot. “If you look at how we’ve operated in the South China Sea,” the President boasted in an interview published in March, “we have been able to mobilize most of Asia to isolate China in ways that have surprised China, frankly, and have very much served our interest in strengthening our alliances.” The new President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, apparently did not receive this memorandum. In October he went to Beijing’s Great Hall of the People to announce his “separation from the United States.”

You should really take the time to read the whole thing since the people you speak to "don't come up with much".

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-new-world-order/

So Trump should base his foreign policy on a world that existed 100 years ago? WTF is that? And why shouldn't Obama have treated our "Arab Friends" with disdain? Particularly the Saudis and Pakistanis, who willingly smile and take our largess in the form of money and military weapons systems while willingly and knowingly harboring the terrorists who want to kill us, Osama Bid Laden and Al Qaeda, Pakistan, and the Salafist extremists that spread their hateful ideology in the form of Madrassas throughout the world, Saudi Arabia. Obama finally called them out on it and oops, too bad, we're not subsidizing your shit anymore, sorry. There's a reason the Congress called out the Saudi's for 9/11. That story will come to light but like the neocon Bush's, you'd prefer to spirit them out of the country and ignore the connections of corruption. If I have a criticism of Obama its that he went through with the arms deal for the Saudis but I'm sure a package of that size was begun in the waning days of the Bush Administration and it does create and maintain American jobs.

All terrorism worldwide is the responsibility of the US? Really?

A world in perpetual conflict, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse carving the rest of the world up to be their minions. Fuck Henry Kissinger and his world view. Ask the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians, not to mention the Argentinians, Chileans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans what they think of Henry Kissinger. But I'm sure this is pure glory in your neocon mind. Like moving pieces on a Risk board, simple really.

How's that splendid little war in Yemen working out for you and will Trump invade Yemen too, to make it great again?

Who this to?

BS, but feel free to respond. I fucked up the quote feature somehow. I'm stupid like that but at least the professor gave me a "+" on my F.

josevolution

Really annoying trying to read post when they are all just one long post

bootlegger10

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

hmph....people actually believe this...???

yeah....I was going to respond but gave up.

Indiana's tax rate is low. Personal rate (state/county) is like 5%. $7mil in tax incentives relates to $140mil in taxable income. Those jobs better stay for a long time to make up for that revenue.

$700k a year for 10 years. Saved 1000 jobs. Indiana basically invested $700 per job, per year. Ideally they wouldn't have to do that but they'll get more tax revenue from the employees after "forgiving" the first $700 of tax, and then all the salary being paid will be piped into the local community and will generate more income for businesses that will be taxed.

I know the company will claim the tax credit and not the employees, but I am just looking at what Indiana invested in (people). I think Indiana will still net more tax dollars than if Carrier left, and 1,000 people are going to be still employed. Is the true cost really even $700? If Carrier left and the employees could not find work, how much would state and charitable organizations potentially have to pitch in to assist them? Could be a lot more than $700. Hell, the US government might have had to pay out earned income tax credits, so some government was going to have to pay regardless (so why not pay to keep the jobs).

Does it set a bad precedent? Maybe. States have been handing out tax credits for a long, long time. Nothing new. It's why we see Target and Best Buy move every 10 years. The abatement is gone.

CM189191

.

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

Jason P said:

$7M is a small price to pay considering you make zero tax revenue from option B: a shuttered Carrier and 1000 unemployed people and their families.

hmph....people actually believe this...???

yeah....I was going to respond but gave up.

Indiana's tax rate is low. Personal rate (state/county) is like 5%. $7mil in tax incentives relates to $140mil in taxable income. Those jobs better stay for a long time to make up for that revenue.

I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised. Just another red state free-loading off the backs of us more productive citizens. For shame.

97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states.
9 out of the 10 poorest states are red states
Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes
But tell me again how Republican policies grow the economy?

vaggar99

^^^job of Republicans is strictly to lie and fuck stuff up for Democrats to fix. Its a fine codependency.

Degeneratefk

HughFreakingDillon said:

so I'm watching CNN on my lunch. who's on? Mike Pence. at a Carrier press conference. Trump just spent $7m on tax breaks to save 1000 jobs. I was awe as he spoke about not even really considering saving Carrier jobs in the first place, thinking "that ship had sailed". But he mentioned it at one point, which he admits he didn't recall until seeing the video. Now, he's watching the news, "but I won't say which one, I can't stand them, I tell you, I can't stand them, so I won't give them the credit", and he sees an employee of Carrier saying "Trump is going to save my job". He openly admits that the only reason he did this deal was because of the faith of this ONE GUY. He is spending millions of tax payer dollars to appease ONE GUY who said he had faith in him. He said after seeing that on the news, he got on the phone with Carrier's CEO and said "we've got to make a deal".

how many other companies are going to see that and go "hmmm.....I want tax breaks, let's threaten to ship some jobs abroad".

he is single handedly going to bankrupt the US in record time.

and then he'll blame it on the democrats.

What happened to the penalties trump was going to levy against companies that moved to mexico? Carrier made out good in this deal. Not only do they get to move half of the indy plant to mexico, but they get tax breaks for keeping the other half in indiana. Plus, the parent company for carrier, United technologies, "holds billions of dollars in government contracts through the Defense Department and other agencies, contracts over which President Trump would have influence."

What's stopping any company from threatening to move?

CM189191

vaggar99 said:

^^^job of Republicans is strictly to lie and fuck stuff up for Democrats to fix. Its a fine codependency.

bootlegger10

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so I'm watching CNN on my lunch. who's on? Mike Pence. at a Carrier press conference. Trump just spent $7m on tax breaks to save 1000 jobs. I was awe as he spoke about not even really considering saving Carrier jobs in the first place, thinking "that ship had sailed". But he mentioned it at one point, which he admits he didn't recall until seeing the video. Now, he's watching the news, "but I won't say which one, I can't stand them, I tell you, I can't stand them, so I won't give them the credit", and he sees an employee of Carrier saying "Trump is going to save my job". He openly admits that the only reason he did this deal was because of the faith of this ONE GUY. He is spending millions of tax payer dollars to appease ONE GUY who said he had faith in him. He said after seeing that on the news, he got on the phone with Carrier's CEO and said "we've got to make a deal".

how many other companies are going to see that and go "hmmm.....I want tax breaks, let's threaten to ship some jobs abroad".

he is single handedly going to bankrupt the US in record time.

and then he'll blame it on the democrats.

What happened to the penalties trump was going to levy against companies that moved to mexico? Carrier made out good in this deal. Not only do they get to move half of the indy plant to mexico, but they get tax breaks for keeping the other half in indiana. Plus, the parent company for carrier, United technologies, "holds billions of dollars in government contracts through the Defense Department and other agencies, contracts over which President Trump would have influence."

What's stopping any company from threatening to move?

States have always given incentives. Nothing new.