Companies Are Recycling Their Old News to Avoid Being Blasted in a Trump Tweet

[GMDino]

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/companies-are-recycling-their-old-news-avoid-being-blasted-trump-n707921

Quote:It's a "first strike" approach to jobs.


Companies eager to avoid becoming the target of the next attack by President-elect Donald Trump are preemptively — or retroactively — announcing U.S. job creation plans.

"When automakers such as Toyota announced their new strategies in response to the so-called Trump risk, the industry was nervous and asked 'Who's next?'" Kim Jin-woo, an analyst at Korea Investment & Securities Co. told Bloomberg after Hyundai-Kia announced it would invest $3.1 billion in the U.S. over the next five years.
Play


The risk is that Trump will include your name in a negative tweet, spawning a PR crisis and a temporary stock price ding.

He's gone after automakers like Toyota for making cars in Mexico, Lockheed for cost overruns on the F-35 fighter jet program, and drug companies for high prices and anti-competitive behavior.
[/url]

After campaigning on pledges to make U.S. companies bring jobs back, Trump has announced he's been successful at doing so before he's even president. So on Tuesday as business returned following the Martin Luther King federal holiday, a bevy of companies announced they would be adding jobs after the inauguration on Friday.

Put down automaker GM for 1,500. Add 10,000 from Wal-Mart. "Thousands" for Hyundai. And Bayer said it would keep 9,000 jobs and add 3,000. That is, if the government gives it the regulatory approval to merge with Monsanto.

Amazon didn't mention Trump in its press release announcing 100,000 U.S. jobs, mostly in fulfillment warehouses, but CEO Jeff Bezos attended a meeting of the tech titans at Trump Tower with the president-elect just before Christmas.

Related: Trump Summons Tech Titans to Trump Tower

"Pretty much everybody is dreading being the subject of a tweet," Kristin Dziczek, a spokeswoman for the Center for Automotive Research told the Guardian. "Getting hauled out into the court of public opinion with virtually no warning is not something anybody wants to get engaged with."

They join a small but growing list of companies with recent job creation or preservation announcements tied either explicitly or implicitly to the PEOTUS, including Amazon, Carrier, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, and Sprint.

Not So Fast

But peel back a layer and the promises come with some caveats. A company's plan to increase capital expenditures, which include jobs and facility improvements, are typically years in the making. Some of these "announcements" are old news in a new hat.


GM said its plan was approved before the election, but told Bloomberg it was "accelerated" under pressure from Trump, for example.


Related: GM's Newly Announced $1B Investment Plans Likely Date Back to 2014


Wal-Mart's job creation plans are in line with its normal annual increase, and come after it has closed 269 under-performing stores and cut thousands of jobs.


The combined Bayer-Monsanto U.S. R&D spending pledge is roughly what the two companies are already spending, CNBC reported.


And Sprint's jobs were part of a previously announced commitment by its parent company to create 50,000 jobs in the U.S.


"This is the normal course of business," independent auto industry consultant Maryann Keller told Bloomberg of the moves by GM and other automakers. "All they're doing is announcing investments that they would have made anyway."

President-elect Donald J. Trump responded to NBC News' coverage of this story in a series of tweets Wednesday to reassert credit for the job announcements.
[url=http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_03/1869096/donaldtrumptweet_7163cb20db1487ae318e893a60a126f1.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg]

PEOTUS Trump tweets in response to NBC News' coverage of this story.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Spin Spin Spin, both sides will do it to show their favor.
It really doesn't matter to me as long as the job count keeps growing.

But Wait, are you saying that Obama didn't create any because those companies that created the jobs were going to already?

[GMDino]

(01-18-2017, 03:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Spin Spin Spin, both sides will do it to show their favor.
It really doesn't matter to me as long as the job count keeps growing.

But Wait, are you saying that Obama didn't create any because those companies that created the jobs were going to already?

I'm saying the economy has been growing (albeit slowly) for most of Obama's time in office.

And the right ran on "America is awful".

Now those exact same numbers and growth are being co-opted by the PE to say that he along made it happen.

I am fully aware that the POTUS has a limited ability to control the economy.  He gets too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go bad.

However it's a good example of Trump's inability to recognize it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-18-2017, 03:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm saying the economy has been growing (albeit slowly) for most of Obama's time in office.

And the right ran on "America is awful".

Now those exact same numbers and growth are being co-opted by the PE to say that he along made it happen.

I am fully aware that the POTUS has a limited ability to control the economy.  He gets too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go bad.

However it's a good example of Trump's inability to recognize it.

Well after he has a meeting with them, and they announce jobs (whether they were going to or not), I'd say he should get partial credit for that.

Make up your mind, I thought you all said that "Make America Great Again" means make America White again. No where did the Right ever say that "America is Awful", that's just your spin. To me it means bringing back jobs and boosting the Economy.

Obama had 8 years to get the Economy moving, and the best Obama could do was go on record for being the first POTUS to not have a single year of economic growth better than 3.0%. His Annual Average will finish @ 1.55%, where as Reagan had 8 years with an Annual Average of 3.5%. Both inherited an economic recession early in their terms.

[Au165]

I have more of an issue with the fact he is on social media acting like a complete jackass. It is embarrassing.

[GMDino]

(01-18-2017, 04:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well after he has a meeting with them, and they announce jobs (whether they were going to or not), I'd say he should get partial credit for that.

No. No he doesn't get "partial credit". I visited a friend who's wife told me they were pregnant so I took partial credit cause I talked to them before the announced it but after my visit.

(01-18-2017, 04:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Make up your mind, I thought you all said that "Make America Great Again" means make America White again. No where did the Right ever say that "America is Awful", that's just your spin. To me it means bringing back jobs and boosting the Economy.

Well I'm not sure I ever said that...I'm sure it was said since no one seems to know what time America was "Great".

Also plenty on the right still think the economy was worse under Obama than it was.

(01-18-2017, 04:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Obama had 8 years to get the Economy moving, and the best Obama could do was go on record for being the first POTUS to not have a single year of economic growth better than 3.0%. His Annual Average will finish @ 1.55%, where as Reagan had 8 years with an Annual Average of 3.5%. Both inherited an economic recession early in their terms.

And inherited them almost three decades apart. Different economic times...different world economics. Hell, different political climate where the current POTUS was stopped at every turn by the other party. And the economy STILL improved. Imagine if the GOP had tried to work with him and reach some compromises?

However, none of that changes the fact that PE Trump wants to take credit for plans made two plus years ago. And you'll give him "partial credit" for going to a meeting before it was announced.

[GMDino]

(01-18-2017, 04:37 PM)Au165 Wrote: I have more of an issue with the fact he is on social media acting like a complete jackass. It is embarrassing.

None of his supporters care about that.  They think it makes him look/sound tough and all they care about is the image of the tough guy American.

[Au165]

(01-18-2017, 05:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: None of his supporters care about that.  They think it makes him look/sound tough and all they care about is the image of the tough guy American.

I'm not even looking at it from a partisan view. If the president of the company you work for did that kind of stuff online you'd be embarrassed for your company, this is the same thing at a much larger scale.

[GMDino]

(01-18-2017, 05:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: I'm not even looking at it from a partisan view. If the president of the company you work for did that kind of stuff online you'd be embarrassed for your company, this is the same thing at a much larger scale.

I totally agree. But millions of people seem to think it's okay.

And they vote.

I don't think they think things through...but they vote.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-18-2017, 05:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: No. No he doesn't get "partial credit".  I visited a friend who's wife told me they were pregnant so I took partial credit cause I talked to them before the announced it but after my visit.  


Well I'm not sure I ever said that...I'm sure it was said since no one seems to know what time America was "Great".

Also plenty on the right still think the economy was worse under Obama than it was.


And inherited them almost three decades apart.  Different economic times...different world economics.  Hell, different political climate where the current POTUS was stopped at every turn by the other party.  And the economy STILL improved.  Imagine if the GOP had tried to work with him and reach some compromises?  

However, none of that changes the fact that PE Trump wants to take credit for plans made two plus years ago.  And you'll give him "partial credit" for going to a meeting before it was announced.  

Oh now comparing Pregnancy to a company creating jobs. That's a wonderful analogy.    


America was great when we had jobs and companies were re-investing their dollars back into our economy. That didn't happen on Obama's watch, which is why his unemployment rates went up and now we are just back to where it was when he started.  Obama did nothing to stop the flow of jobs leaving. In fact, he told people there was nothing that could be done about it right?

Bi-partisanship takes 2 to tango, Obama never showed that he was willing to work with Republicans, you know the "I've got a pen and a phone" method.

Both (Reagan and Obama) inherited an economy suffering from Unemployment and a year of no growth. However, Reagan's had inflation in the double digits and Prime interest rate at 21%. Obama inherited an economy where inflation was dropping (we're reaching a point now where we are considering calling it deflation) and the interest rate was also very low.

Reagan had a Democratic Majority in the House for his entire term and a Republican Majority in Senate until 87, then it was a Democratic Majority for the rest of his term. Somehow he managed to get everyone to the table and it took him the first 2 years to get the Democrats to pass any of his economic plans.

In contrast, Obama started with a Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate. Republicans got the Majority back on the House in 2011 and regained Senate Control in 2015. He had plenty of time to get things done with a Democratic Majority in his first 3 years.

So imagine what Obama could've accomplished in his first 3 years with a Majority in Congress, if he had really wanted to focus on getting the Economy moving?

[GMDino]

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh now comparing Pregnancy to a company creating jobs. That's a wonderful analogy.    

Ok, I was in my boss's office before they announced the purchase of another company.  A deal they worked on for two years.  I took credit because they talked to me before the told anyone else.  Better?  

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: America was great when we had jobs and companies were re-investing their dollars back into our economy. That didn't happen on Obama's watch, which is why his unemployment rates went up and now we are just back to where it was when he started.  Obama did nothing to stop the flow of jobs leaving. In fact, he told people there was nothing that could be done about it right?

Well, no.  That's wrong.  He and the Democrats tried several times to get job bills passed or bills to get companies back in America.  The G-No-P blocked all of them.  All of them.

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Bi-partisanship takes 2 to tango, Obama never showed that he was willing to work with Republicans, you know the "I've got a pen and a phone" method.

Which came after years of Republicans trying to make him a "one term President".  You can try all you want, but the wall won't talk back.  That's what Obama was facing from day one.

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Both (Reagan and Obama) inherited an economy suffering from Unemployment and a year of no growth. However, Reagan's had inflation in the double digits and Prime interest rate at 21%. Obama inherited an economy where inflation was dropping (we're reaching a point now where we are considering calling it deflation) and the interest rate was also very low.

Reagan had a Democratic Majority in the House for his entire term and a Republican Majority in Senate until 87, then it was a Democratic Majority for the rest of his term. Somehow he managed to get everyone to the table and it took him the first 2 years to get the Democrats to pass any of his economic plans.

In contrast, Obama started with a Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate. Republicans got the Majority back on the House in 2011 and regained Senate Control in 2015. He had plenty of time to get things done with a Democratic Majority in his first 3 years.

Like I said, it was a different time.  Different economy, different ideas on working with the other side.  Reagan also started the continuing gap between workers and owners.  Along with the destruction of unions.  And many other ideologies that have led to where we are today.

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So imagine what Obama could've accomplished in his first 3 years with a Majority in Congress, if he had really wanted to focus on getting the Economy moving?

Well since it wasn't three years...or two....I guess we'll never know?

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress-1.332977

Quote:Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months.
From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

tl;dr: Obama could get things passed with the GOP for 4 months our of eight years.  The rest of the time they stonewalled everything he tried.

Carry on.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-19-2017, 02:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ok, I was in my boss's office before they announced the purchase of another company.  A deal they worked on for two years.  I took credit because they talked to me before the told anyone else.  Better?  

Yes, better, but were you in a position of power to possibly have an influence on the decision?

(01-19-2017, 02:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, no.  That's wrong.  He and the Democrats tried several times to get job bills passed or bills to get companies back in America.  The G-No-P blocked all of them.  All of them.

Which came after years of Republicans trying to make him a "one term President".  You can try all you want, but the wall won't talk back.  That's what Obama was facing from day one.


Like I said, it was a different time.  Different economy, different ideas on working with the other side.  Reagan also started the continuing gap between workers and owners.  Along with the destruction of unions.  And many other ideologies that have led to where we are today.

Yes he started the Gap between middle and upper class, but from the start to end of Bush 1, it started going back towards the middle class, then along come Clinton, who pushed it right over the edge by allowing companies to outsource jobs. the Gap Tripled under Clinton. Then was flat again during Bush's term. Then Whoops!! The Gap between Middle and Upper class reached a high under Obama at 6.6 times the middle class on 2014.

(01-19-2017, 02:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well since it wasn't three years...or two....I guess we'll never know?

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress-1.332977

tl;dr: Obama could get things passed with the GOP for 4 months our of eight years.  The rest of the time they stonewalled everything he tried.

Carry on.

Well then, he had ample time to get bills ready for that 4 month window. Or maybe he should've learned how to work with them instead of against them (Republicans that is). Pass a few of ours, we'll pass a few of yours etc.

Didn't seem to stop Clinton either and the Republicans had the Majority in Congress for his entire term.

[Griever]

(01-19-2017, 04:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes, better, but were you in a position of power to possibly have an influence on the decision?


Yes he started the Gap between middle and upper class, but from the start to end of Bush 1, it started going back towards the middle class, then along come Clinton, who pushed it right over the edge by allowing companies to outsource jobs. the Gap Tripled under Clinton. Then was flat again during Bush's term. Then Whoops!! The Gap between Middle and Upper class reached a high under Obama at 6.6 times the middle class on 2014.


Well then, he had ample time to get bills ready for that 4 month window. Or maybe he should've learned how to work with them instead of against them (Republicans that is). Pass a few of ours, we'll pass a few of yours etc.  

Didn't seem to stop Clinton either and the Republicans had the Majority in Congress for his entire term.

i think it had more to do with the republicans refusing to work with him

hell he had a supreme court justice die and the republicans stole the ability to nominate from him (when he put up a pretty moderate option)

[GMDino]

(01-19-2017, 04:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes, better, but were you in a position of power to possibly have an influence on the decision?

Doesn't matter. Decision was made long before I knew..I just get "partial credit" for attending the meeting.

(01-19-2017, 04:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes he started the Gap between middle and upper class, but from the start to end of Bush 1, it started going back towards the middle class, then along come Clinton, who pushed it right over the edge by allowing companies to outsource jobs. the Gap Tripled under Clinton. Then was flat again during Bush's term. Then Whoops!! The Gap between Middle and Upper class reached a high under Obama at 6.6 times the middle class on 2014.

yeah...just because I say you can do something doesn't mean you have too.  I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility?  

Weirdest thing though...it starts going back up right about the time the GOP took over congress again during Clinton's term and then again two years into Bush's first term. Strange.

(01-19-2017, 04:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well then, he had ample time to get bills ready for that 4 month window. Or maybe he should've learned how to work with them instead of against them (Republicans that is). Pass a few of ours, we'll pass a few of yours etc.  

Didn't seem to stop Clinton either and the Republicans had the Majority in Congress for his entire term.

Yeah, that's called compromise. I suppose it might have been worth a try if the GOP hadn't announced they wouldn't support anything he offered.

If I TOLD you that would say no every time you wanted something, and then followed up by doing that, when would you stop trying to "compromise" with me?

That didn't happen to Reagan, either Bush or Clinton.

[Rotobeast]

(01-19-2017, 04:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Didn't seem to stop Clinton either and the Republicans had the Majority in Congress for his entire term.

Bubba handed out tickets to Epstein's island, for compromise.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Benton]

(01-19-2017, 01:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  America was great when we had jobs and companies were re-investing their dollars back into our economy. That didn't happen on Obama's watch, which is why his unemployment rates went up and now we are just back to where it was when he started. 

Eh, both major parties are to blame there. Go back to Reagan taking out labor's ability to negotiate with management, then skip forward nearly two decades to Dems & Republicans working together with Clinton to pass NAFTA. And just like Obama saying there was nothing he could do about it, McConnell said creating jobs wasn't his job.

Both major parties talk about job creation in the same way a guy compliments a drunk girl.