President Trump mentions Apple's pending US investment in State of the Union address

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    thompr said:

    Apple already said they’ll be hiring 20,000 people. What is the real problem here?
    No, not “hiring.”

    Apple said their investment would “create” 20,000 jobs.  They didn’t provide a breakout, but I imagine many of those jobs will be in the support community — app developers, construction workers for new facilities, etc. All good — I’m not belittling these —but many will not be “Apple hires.”
    That argument is exactly what several articles provided, but it is WRONG.  The quote from Apple also stated that the job creation would occur through hiring at US locations.  Go back and read the actual quote instead of just swallowing the conclusions of the authors that wrote about it later.

    Here is the quote:

    "Apple expects to invest over $30 billion in capital expenditures in the US over the next five years and create over 20,000 new jobs through hiring at existing campuses and opening a new one,” which will initially “house technical support for customers.”"
    Thanks for the quote -- you and Carnegie are right.  Thanks for correcting my understanding.
  • Reply 42 of 53
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sdw2001 said:

    comment said:
    SpamSandwich said:

    And the benefits, regardless of party affiliation, will be across the board.
    Yeah, but so will the negatives.

    I don't live in the US, so no affiliation to either political party. But this tax plan puts an awful lot of hope and stock in the fact that these kind of investments will counter the fact that it makes the deficit skyrocket even further. Risky politics at least, some would argue that it just short-term politics (I'm inclined to think the latter as well, also considering the other actions of this administration).

    On-topic: it fits Trump to take full credit for this, and any other president would probably done at least partly the same. Of course, another president would have done this in a more subtle manner, but hey, subtility isn't Trump's middle name (and I think everyone knows that by now...   ;) ).

    Every President takes credit.  Obama took credit for everything too, perhaps even more.  He practically spiked the football when we killed OBL and injected himself into practically everything.  

    But as to the fiscal situation:  Tax cuts do not cause deficits.  Deficits are a function of expenditures vs. revenue.  It's almost impossible to predict the deficit impact of any spending bill or tax bill, because it's only half the equation.  We do know that tax cuts result in a short-term revenue decline, one that is often temporary once the stimulative effect of the cut (depending on its nature and size) kicks in.  Ronald Reagan reduced taxes massively (lowering the top rate from 70% to 28%) and yet revenue doubled during his presidency because of economic growth.  However, spending was not controlled, so deficits persisted.   

    I'm not sure what you mean by "investments."   That's often how politicians refer to spending.  The other think they do is conflate spending with tax cuts themselves.  We often hear about "spending money on a tax cut" or "the rich get most of the tax cut."  The problem with that is 1) It's not the government's money, it's ours and 2) People keeping more of their own money is not the same as the government spending it.  




    Yeh, that's the spin that was used to justify it.  But pretty much every economist said it was bull.

    And, Ryan proved it:  within a week of it being passed he announced he wanted to gut Social Security and Medicare in order to fund the $1.5trillion deficit the tax scam created.   But, he was told to wait until after the midterms.  They don't want to lose either the house or the senate.  They like their democracy to be autocratic...
    jony0
  • Reply 43 of 53
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    ... the only way they could get even some Republicans to vote for it was to bribe them or threaten them.

    ... which is basically what "negotiation" in DC is: bribes and threats.

    So Trump only "negotiated" with the Republicans in Congress.  Since they are in the majority, that's all he needed to do.  It would have been a monumental waste of energy to negotiate with the Democrats, who are neither likely to meet him halfway nor are necessary to achieve his goal.
    tallest skilSpamSandwichanton zuykov
  • Reply 44 of 53
    Except that...  There was no negotiation.   The tax bill was designed in secret, behind closed doors and then rammed through with zero debate or bipartisonship.   In fact, the only way they could get even some Republicans to vote for it was to bribe them or threaten them.
    So just like Obamacare.
    But, in the end, they got what they really wanted:   $400,000,000.00 from the Koch Brothers.
    Always good for a laugh.
    gut Social Security and Medicare
    Good. And? Fuck your backdoor marxism. Fuck your unconstitutional bills passed by the traitor FDR. Fuck your historic threats to the Supreme Court to stack it with 20 socialists unless they voted the way FDR wanted. The good news for you is that Ryan doesn’t actually want to cut any of those unconstitutional programs. Ryan’s a neocon; he doesn’t care about the republic or its laws. He’s one of your greatest assets.
    They like their democracy to be autocratic…
    No, Americans don’t like democracy. That’s why your “two party” oligarchy has replaced our republic. For someone so obviously further left than the law allows, I’m surprised you’re even falling for the two party scam… Shouldn’t you know better? Like, can’t you see what the Republican Party actually is?
    edited January 2018
  • Reply 45 of 53
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,428administrator
    And, there's another purge of over the line comments.

    There are a bunch toeing up against it, so dial back the inflammatory rhetoric, please.
  • Reply 46 of 53
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 236member
    comment said:
    SpamSandwich said:

    And the benefits, regardless of party affiliation, will be across the board.
    Yeah, but so will the negatives.

    I don't live in the US, so no affiliation to either political party. But this tax plan puts an awful lot of hope and stock in the fact that these kind of investments will counter the fact that it makes the deficit skyrocket even further. Risky politics at least, some would argue that it just short-term politics (I'm inclined to think the latter as well, also considering the other actions of this administration).

    On-topic: it fits Trump to take full credit for this, and any other president would probably done at least partly the same. Of course, another president would have done this in a more subtle manner, but hey, subtility isn't Trump's middle name (and I think everyone knows that by now...   ;) ).

    Actually, your buying media myth in some of your comment.  Supply side economics does work.  Can't wait to see our deficit shrink from the boom that's just getting started.
    SpamSandwichentropys
  • Reply 47 of 53
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 236member
    comment said:
    SpamSandwich said:

    And the benefits, regardless of party affiliation, will be across the board.
    Yeah, but so will the negatives.

    I don't live in the US, so no affiliation to either political party. But this tax plan puts an awful lot of hope and stock in the fact that these kind of investments will counter the fact that it makes the deficit skyrocket even further. Risky politics at least, some would argue that it just short-term politics (I'm inclined to think the latter as well, also considering the other actions of this administration).

    On-topic: it fits Trump to take full credit for this, and any other president would probably done at least partly the same. Of course, another president would have done this in a more subtle manner, but hey, subtility isn't Trump's middle name (and I think everyone knows that by now...   ;) ).
    But there ARE benefits:
    -- The rich will get richer
    -- Corporations get to increase their stock buy backs & dividends with our money
    -- Paul Ryan will get to justify gutting Medicare and Social Security using our additional $1.5T deficit.
    -- Private industry will get to buy up national infrastructure now that we can't afford to maintain it.
    -- The middle class gets to feel good about the pennies that DaffyDon threw to them...
    Awesome job at repeating liberal talking points and platitudes!

    /S
    tallest skilanton zuykovSpamSandwich
  • Reply 48 of 53
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Except that...  There was no negotiation.   The tax bill was designed in secret, behind closed doors and then rammed through with zero debate or bipartisonship.   In fact, the only way they could get even some Republicans to vote for it was to bribe them or threaten them.
    So just like Obamacare.
    But, in the end, they got what they really wanted:   $400,000,000.00 from the Koch Brothers.
    Always good for a laugh.
    gut Social Security and Medicare
    Good. And? Fuck your backdoor marxism. Fuck your unconstitutional bills passed by the traitor FDR. Fuck your historic threats to the Supreme Court to stack it with 20 socialists unless they voted the way FDR wanted. The good news for you is that Ryan doesn’t actually want to cut any of those unconstitutional programs. Ryan’s a neocon; he doesn’t care about the republic or its laws. He’s one of your greatest assets.
    They like their democracy to be autocratic…
    No, Americans don’t like democracy. That’s why your “two party” oligarchy has replaced our republic. For someone so obviously further left than the law allows, I’m surprised you’re even falling for the two party scam… Shouldn’t you know better? Like, can’t you see what the Republican Party actually is?
    Even aside from the more obvious falsehoods, your obscenities expose the fallacious nature of your post.

    Is that all the right has to offer?   Lies and intimidation? 
    singularityjony0
  • Reply 49 of 53
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    toddzrx said:
    comment said:
    SpamSandwich said:

    And the benefits, regardless of party affiliation, will be across the board.
    Yeah, but so will the negatives.

    I don't live in the US, so no affiliation to either political party. But this tax plan puts an awful lot of hope and stock in the fact that these kind of investments will counter the fact that it makes the deficit skyrocket even further. Risky politics at least, some would argue that it just short-term politics (I'm inclined to think the latter as well, also considering the other actions of this administration).

    On-topic: it fits Trump to take full credit for this, and any other president would probably done at least partly the same. Of course, another president would have done this in a more subtle manner, but hey, subtility isn't Trump's middle name (and I think everyone knows that by now...   ;) ).
    But there ARE benefits:
    -- The rich will get richer
    -- Corporations get to increase their stock buy backs & dividends with our money
    -- Paul Ryan will get to justify gutting Medicare and Social Security using our additional $1.5T deficit.
    -- Private industry will get to buy up national infrastructure now that we can't afford to maintain it.
    -- The middle class gets to feel good about the pennies that DaffyDon threw to them...
    Awesome job at repeating liberal talking points and platitudes!

    /S
    Republicans hate truth like vampires hate the sun.
    singularityjony0
  • Reply 50 of 53
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    toddzrx said:
    comment said:
    SpamSandwich said:

    And the benefits, regardless of party affiliation, will be across the board.
    Yeah, but so will the negatives.

    I don't live in the US, so no affiliation to either political party. But this tax plan puts an awful lot of hope and stock in the fact that these kind of investments will counter the fact that it makes the deficit skyrocket even further. Risky politics at least, some would argue that it just short-term politics (I'm inclined to think the latter as well, also considering the other actions of this administration).

    On-topic: it fits Trump to take full credit for this, and any other president would probably done at least partly the same. Of course, another president would have done this in a more subtle manner, but hey, subtility isn't Trump's middle name (and I think everyone knows that by now...   ;) ).

    Actually, your buying media myth in some of your comment.  Supply side economics does work.  Can't wait to see our deficit shrink from the boom that's just getting started.
    That depends on what you mean by "work".   The last time it took us from a prosperous, stable economy with a balanced budget heading towards surplus to a trillion dollar deficit and near Depression.
    singularity
  • Reply 51 of 53
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    thompr said:
    ... the only way they could get even some Republicans to vote for it was to bribe them or threaten them.

    ... which is basically what "negotiation" in DC is: bribes and threats.

    So Trump only "negotiated" with the Republicans in Congress.  Since they are in the majority, that's all he needed to do.  It would have been a monumental waste of energy to negotiate with the Democrats, who are neither likely to meet him halfway nor are necessary to achieve his goal.
    Yeh, well...  That's how Republicans do it...
  • Reply 52 of 53
    maestro64 said:
    macapfel said:
    Tim Cook helping Trump is the worst thing I've ever seen.
    And regarding the money coming back to the US: what do you think Apple invested its overseas money in? A lot of it in US bonds and the like. Hence, the money has already been invested in the US. There won't be a real gain in money. The only one who wins is Trump. And Apple helped him. After 2017 was filled with bad news, 2018 kicked of with this bad news from Apple.
    This is bad for Apples image and reputation.

    You actually bring up a good point. We all know Tim did not like Trump as person, and does not like any thing Trump (Republicans) and the people who supported him stand for. His views and politics of the world are completely different so he says. He has put his money where his mouth is, he gave widely to those who he was aligned with. He also allocated Apple money to things he believed in which were for the better good. However at the end of the day he felt it was more important to bring the money back at lower tax rate then paying a higher tax rate and letting the government use(waste) the money for the benefit of people of the US.

    Yes the Money is siting in Banks in the US, but held by entities outside the US. The physical money will not move, but the ability to do what they like with the money will significant change. Apple will no long need to take out Bond (the bond they has are not US bonds they are all over seas bonds) They can bring the money home and invest it in the US, and also pay some nice dividend to those who believed in Apple. I can not wait to get my increase Dividend checks, my be time to buy more stock.

    However, Tim did not help Trump, Tim help the people of the US, Trump will be gone, but the net effect of this change will continue long after Trump and the people of the US will benefit, I feel apple will do far better things with this money than if it had gone to the government. I just hope Apple will begin moving their investments outside Calf the rest of the US can use the help.
    maestro64 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Love or hate Trump, you really can’t spin this in such a way that it didn’t have anything to do with the tax bill. And the tax bill is directly a result of Trump pushing for it.
    Sure you can: Apple could already get free money without repatriating their overseas earnings through bond sales. The rock bottom federal interest rates guaranteed that the return on the bond would always be higher. Thus, repatriating the money was not actually necessary for any future investments. It's also the type of scenario that is not available to the average citizen. 

    Most of the Bonds were done out side the US, so apple is paying interest on the Bond (which they write off their taxes in the US) and that interest is people paid to people out side the US so the US does not get to tax those Bond interest payments. This is far from simple to understand, take a few finance course then you will begin to understand. Trust me any CFO worth his salt will make the Right time value of money decision about this kind of money and Apple would not have decide to bring it back it made more sense financially to keep doing what they were doing.
    What causes you to believe the parts that I bold-ed? And what do you mean when you say they were done outside of the U.S. or are overseas bonds?

    Certainly, at any given time, some of Apple's debt securities are owned by foreigners. But I'm not sure why you would conclude that most of them are. The vast majority of Apple's term debt is U.S.-dollar-denominated and, typically, when it does debt offerings the bulk of the (underwriter) allotment goes to U.S.-based banks. The securities, at least most of them, are also listed on the NYSE. So, while it would still be possible that most of that debt ended up being owned by foreigners, I'm wondering whether you have particular information which makes you believe that is the case.

    Also, when it comes to the taxes Apple pays on its foreign cash holdings and the deductions it gets for its outstanding debt... It's mostly a wash between spending its foreign cash to do something or borrowing money to. Even before the recent tax law changes, Apple had to pay U.S. income taxes on the interest income it generated from its foreign cash holdings. So either that amount of income goes down because Apple uses some of that cash, or Apple issues debt and the interest it pays on that debt is effectively deducted from its interest income (which remains the same because Apple didn't use part of its cash holdings). 
  • Reply 53 of 53
    These stories which mention Trump never go down well on this page :#
Sign In or Register to comment.