quote:How Foxconn’s broken pledges in Pennsylvania cast doubt on Trump’s jobs planHARRISBURG, Pa. — For some residents of this small city, there was something familiar about Foxconn’s recently announced plan to hire up to 50,000 U.S. workers, one of the many hiring pledges from companies rounded up by President Trump in the first weeks of his administration.The only difference was the scale.In 2013, Foxconn’s chairman sent a jolt through this state capital when he said his company — best known for making Apple iPhones in China — would invest $30 million and hire 500 workers for a new high-tech factory in central Pennsylvania.Locals were giddy. Foxconn had a small office here, but this seemed like the start of an entire new industry. Pennsylvania’s governor boasted about the deal. The Brookings Institution think tank hailed Foxconn’s decision as a sign of U.S. manufacturing’s strength.But the factory was never built. The jobs never came. “It just seemed to fade to black” after the announcement, recalled a local official. It was the start of a mystery, created by a chief executive known to promise projects all over the world that never quite pan out. Yet few people seem to notice. Foxconn and others continue to get credit for deals that never take place. In December, Pennsylvania’s economic development staff was still touting the $30 million factory that never was.What happened in Harrisburg provides a skeptical lens for viewing the waves of corporate investment promises being used by Trump as evidence that he is following through on his campaign pledge to reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing. “I’m delivering on everything we promised,” Trump said last month during a meeting with manufacturing executives at the White House, noting how firms have announced new hiring and factories. “People are saying they’ve never seen so much happen in 30 days of a presidency.”Foxconn, for example, announced shortly after Trump’s election that it plans to invest $7 billion and hire up to 50,000 workers in the United States. Such a hiring spree would catapult Foxconn from a couple thousand U.S. workers to a major employer on par with Chrysler.Other companies, too, including SoftBank, Alibaba, Intel and IBM, have made an unusual display of loudly announcing their intentions to invest in the United States — all with price tags in the billions of dollars and the promise of tens of thousands of jobs — much to Trump’s delight.“Foxconn is going to spend a tremendous amount of money on building a massive plant,” Trump said the day after the investment was revealed, “and probably more than one.”But, as Harrisburg learned, the gulf between these eye-popping announcements and what takes place on the ground can be huge — and frequently overlooked.“They are scrambling to look good,” Mark Selden, senior research associate at Cornell University’s East Asian program, said. “It’s a sign of the pressure that Trump is placing on everyone in the world to deliver on his agenda.”Companies tend to view these announcements as an opening bid in a negotiation, said Alberto Moel, a senior analyst with Bernstein Research in Hong Kong. Firms know politicians like the splashy headlines. And if everything falls into place — the business climate improves, they extract enough concessions such as tax breaks and free land — they might be able to make it happen.“It actually puts the onus on the U.S. in a way,” Moel said. “They are saying: ‘I’m along for the ride. Here’s my proposal.’ ”If the deal falls apart, as it often does, no one is going to talk about it.“The government themselves aren’t going to remind you of that, Trump has no intention of helping you remember that,” Moel said. “What’s the downside?”Trump is far from alone in using corporate announcements as political backdrops. It’s why ribbon-cuttings and ceremonial shovels exist.In 2012, President Barack Obama visited a new $5 billion Intel computer chip plant in Chandler, Ariz., citing it as “an example of an America that is within our reach.” But the facility, known as Fab 42, was never completed. Last week, Intel chief executive Brian Krzanich stood in the Oval Office with Trump to announce a $7 billion investment — essentially, Fab 42 was back on track, with a new price tag and a new president. Trump tweeted his praise.Even before he was sworn in, it was clear Trump placed greater importance on these job announcements than past administrations.Among the first signs came in December when Tokyo-based SoftBank’s chief executive, Masayoshi Son, stood with the president-elect to announce a plan to invest $50 billion and create 50,000 new U.S. jobs.Two days after Trump’s inauguration, Foxconn chief executive Terry Gou told reporters in Taiwan that his company planned to spend $7 billion on a U.S. factory to make computer displays. It wasn’t iPhones — which Trump has said he wants to be “Made in the USA” — but Gou said the factory could create 30,000 to 50,000 U.S. jobs. Details were few, but one clue seized on was the presence of a Pennsylvania state trade representative at Gou’s talk.Foxconn said in a statement that it is “exploring a potential investment that would represent an expansion of our current U.S. operations.” But the company could not confirm “the number of jobs that might be created.”Foxconn is a coveted hardware manufacturer because of its size. Last year, it reported $136 billion in revenue. It has more than 1 million employees, mostly in China. A single factory making iPhones or LCD screens can employ tens of thousands of workers. When Foxconn says it will invest in a new plant, the decision can transform a region. That’s why countries all over the world are eager to lure Foxconn to their shores.Gou, Foxconn’s founder, for years has described the United States as a “must-go market.”In 2014, as the Pennsylvania deal was quietly dying, Gou teased the opening of a LCD display factory in the states. His company talked with officials in Colorado and Arizona. Nothing happened.That same year, the company signed a letter of intent to invest up to $1 billion in Indonesia. That investment still has not occurred.Foxconn said it would invest $5 billion over five years in India as part of an ambitious expansion in 2014. The deal would create up to 50,000 jobs, Gou said. But Foxconn’s investment in India has amounted to only a small fraction of what it originally promised.Similar results were seen in Vietnam, where Foxconn committed to a $5 billion investment in 2007, and in Brazil, where Foxconn spoke of a $10 billion plan in 2011. The company made its first major foray in Vietnam only last year. In Brazil, Foxconn has an iPhone factory, but its investment has fallen far short of expectations.“There’s a pattern here,” said Moel, the analyst.Gou’s plans for Harrisburg were revealed in 2013 while he was in the United States on a tour with other Taiwanese business officials to, in part, drum up support for Taiwan’s bid to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as TPP. (Coincidentally, Trump pulled the United States out of the trade treaty in his first days in office.)It was a surprise when Gou said Foxconn planned to invest $30 million over two years in a factory to make technology equipment and servers. Gou noted his company’s history in Harrisburg. He said the goal was to create “high-precision, high-tech, high value-added manufacturing in the U.S.”Gou also said Foxconn would donate $10 million to Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh for robotics research.“IPhone maker Foxconn to invest $40 million in the US,” wrote the China Post. “Foxconn to build plant in Pennsylvania,” CNN said. Local media quoted state officials as saying Gou would sign a memorandum of understanding and the company was busy scouting sites.“There was this intense buzz,” recalled David Black, president of the Harrisburg Regional Chamber.“Lots of us were excited by the opportunity,” said Bub Manning, who at the time co-owned a local construction firm. “Anytime something of that size comes along in central Pennsylvania, that’s a big deal.”For years, Foxconn has maintained an office with about 50 workers in Harrisburg, a hub of the computer connector industry. The office is in an old brick warehouse. On a recent visit, the building was filled by a half-empty warren of cubicles. A worker declined to comment to a reporter with The Washington Post. According to local government officials, Foxconn has not done any permitted alterations to the building in 15 years.Manning recalled how his firm tried to chase down information about the planned $30 million factory.“It felt like I was grabbing Jell-O. It never got any traction,” Manning said.The $30 million factory faded from view.Foxconn said its $10 million donation to Carnegie Mellon was “moving forward very successfully,” with half of the funds having been spent four years later. The school declined to comment.None of this has stopped the praise for Foxconn’s investment in Pennsylvania. Recent stories have referred to the phantom factory as a sign of Foxconn’s U.S. beachhead. A state economic development official wrote about Foxconn’s $30 million factory as evidence of foreign companies that operate in the Keystone State. (The piece was fixed after The Washington Post inquired about it.)State officials toured potential sites with Foxconn representatives, the state Department of Community and Economic Development said in a statement. “Unfortunately, a project did not come to fruition.” Foxconn attributed the failure to “material changes to the business and operating climate at that time.”“The proof is always in the pudding,” said Scott Andes, a senior policy analyst at Brookings.The assumption is that companies follow through on major announcements. “But it is important to be skeptical,” Andes said. “I would hope it’s not just smoke and mirrors with Foxconn or any other of these companies.”Feeling burned by the fate of the $30 million factory, some in Harrisburg are cautious about getting their hopes up again.“We learned something from that,” said Black of the Harrisburg chamber.But, Manning said, it would be hard to not be seduced by the size of Foxconn’s ambition, real or not.“If you smelled a project like that,” he said, “you’d get excited even though you know better.”
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 11:29 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:[..]Dat was gisteren toch al bekend en gepost? Of vergis ik me?
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 14:41 schreef Re het volgende:[ afbeelding ]
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 14:54 schreef Reya het volgende:[..]4/10.
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 14:22 schreef antiderivative het volgende:Trump agenda vandaag:* Intelligence briefings* Meeting with Vice President, Mike Pence* Meeting with Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson* Meeting with Chair of the FCC, Ajit Pai* Signing of Executive Order on travel restrictions/refugees/terrorism* Gathering of the President's National Economic Council* Meeting with Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. David Shulkin* Meeting with Director of OMB, Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of HHS, Tom PriceNieuwe CoS geinstalleerd, cruciale positie inzake Obamacare:Chief of Staff of Health and Human ServicesLance Leggitt* Partner and Chair of Federal Health Policy at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz* Fmr. Senior and Principal Health Policy Advisor at the White House* Fmr. Counselor to the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services* Fmr. Principal Advisor to the Governor of Virginia on Health and Human Resources and Public Safety* Fmr. Assistant Attorney General for Virginia* B.A. in Political Science from the University of Georgia, J.D. from Mercer University's Walter George School of LawKristin Skrzycki als Deputy Chief of Staff
SPOILEROm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.Gesprek met Mulvaney en Price gaat uiteraard over repeal & replace
"Marco Rubio is a choke artist, sweating all over the place. He was soaking wet, like he just came out of a swimming pool. We can't have that as a president". -Donald Trump
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 15:06 schreef invalidusername het volgende:De discussie met Pai gaat over het vermoorden van netneutraliteit en het bannen van onwelgevallige media.
quote:White House spokeswoman: Trump doesn't believe Comey that Obama didn't wiretapPresident Donald Trump does not accept an assertion from FBI Director James Comey that former President Barack Obama did not order an illegal wiretap of Trump Tower during last year’s presidential campaign, a White House spokeswoman said Monday.Trump leveled the explosive accusation on Twitter over the weekend, delivering it without any evidence. Through a spokesman, Obama has flatly denied the charge, as has James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence under Obama. White House officials have yet to offer any proof to back Trump’s claim, instead suggesting that the matter should be investigated.And while Comey has not publicly addressed Trump’s allegation, multiple media outlets have reported that he asked the Department of Justice to knock down the president’s accusation because it suggests that the FBI broke the law by carrying out the alleged wiretap.Asked by ABC “Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos if Trump was willing to accept the denial of his FBI director, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said he was not.“You know, I don't think he does, George,” Sanders said. “I think he firmly believes that this is a storyline that has been reported pretty widely by quite a few outlets. The wiretapping has been discussed in The New York Times, BBC, Fox News and we believe that it should be looked at by the House Intelligence Committee.”As he would wind up doing multiple times throughout their interview, Stephanopoulos interjected at that point to tell Sanders that what she had said was incorrect and that none of the media reports to which she referred actually backed up Trump’s accusation. All told, the “Good Morning America” anchor stopped Sanders five times to correct her over the course of their five-and-a-half minute interview.Asked if Trump had reached out to the FBI or anyone else in the intelligence community, of which he is in charge, to verify his claim that Obama illegally tapped his phones, Sanders said she did not know.The president, Sanders said, is the victim of a media-double standard that allowed continued reporting into ties between close associates of Trump’s and the Russian government while simultaneously casting doubt on the accusation of an illegal wiretap. The difference, unstated by Sanders, is that there has been a near constant trickle of revelations tying Trump associates to Russia while there has not, to this point, been any proof of the accusation leveled by the president over the weekend.“Frankly, George, I think if the president walked across the Potomac, the media would report he can't swim,” Sanders said. “This is a constant battle we're having to fight. All we're asking is that the double standard be washed away and we allow the Congressional committee to do their job.”
quote:Special elections spark Democratic hopesRecent contests have been marked by high turnout and unusually strong performances by local Democrats.Nine special elections, all for state legislative seats, have taken place since Donald Trump was elected president in November. In seven of them, Democrats ran ahead of Hillary Clinton’s performance.In party circles, those results are raising hopes that Democratic fortunes are poised to surge after six weeks of polarizing policy proposals, angry town halls and White House chaos. But the special elections are also reviving the discussion over a sore subject: the question of whether Clinton was a worse candidate than many Democrats thought.The nine state legislative elections aren’t exactly a representative sample — they’ve taken place in just four states. They’re not even all Democratic wins — the party won five of the contests, and Republicans captured four. But the common denominator was unusually high Democratic turnout, as well as a spike in Democratic performance over past elections for those seats.It’s leading some to question whether the party brand is as damaged as some have feared — or whether the Democratic presidential nominee was the problem.“Our message and our policies are absolutely sound and truthful and will resonate when delivered by credible messengers,” said former Maryland governor and 2016 presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley.O’Malley, who traveled to Iowa and Delaware to campaign for three Democratic candidates in recent special elections, recalled seeing Delaware state Senate candidate Stephanie Hansen's headquarters packed with hundreds of volunteers at 9 a.m. one day.“I think we can sometimes overanalyze our loss in the last presidential election,” he said.Added veteran party strategist Lynda Tran: “There’s no question that when you look at the straight numbers, there are significant challenges facing the Democratic Party next year, and in all likelihood for the years to come. But it’s a significant and shortsighted mistake to assume that because we lost in 2016 we did everything wrong."Democrats believe anti-Trump animus is also clearly driving grass-roots enthusiasm. The Trump factor has undoubtedly advanced the cause of those who have insisted the party doesn’t need a gutting and rebuilding. While Democrats traditionally see desultory turnout in off-year elections, for example, voter participation shot up in February's Delaware state Senate election, which allowed Democrats to keep unified control of the state’s government.Hansen, who got some campaign help from former vice president and home state hero Joe Biden, won by a comfortable margin of 58 to 41 percent to beat a Republican who had lost the seat by just 2 points in 2014.In Iowa in December, Democrat Jim Lykam won his state Senate race by 48 points — 31 points better than Clinton’s performance there just the month before, according to district-level data compiled by the Daily Kos Elections site. The Democratic candidate running to replace Lykam in the state House won his old seat by 45 points in February — 34 points better than Clinton’s margin. National Democratic leaders cheered further on Tuesday as they took two of three contests in Connecticut, winning a state House and state Senate seat on their way to keeping unified control there.“In my city of Davenport, we’ve had many groups arrive since the election, organizing on local issues and state and national issues," said Monica Kurth, the teacher elected to replace Lykam in the Iowa House in January. "People have been pretty laissez-faire for a couple of years, and now it’s like, ‘Whoa.' The most frequent question I got when I was door-knocking or on the phone was, ‘Are you a Democrat?’ When I said yes, they said, ‘OK, I’ll vote for you.’ They didn’t need to hear anything more."Some of the rebound may be attributable to the absence of Clinton atop the ballot: The margins are largely closer to the results in the 2012 presidential election than 2016. Plus, Clinton ran significantly behind Barack Obama's numbers in all four states where there have been special elections so far.To Democrats trying to carve the party's path ahead, that suggests their lot may improve considerably now that they don't have an unpopular figurehead whose negative ratings may have dragged down other candidates nationwide.Optimistic partisans digging through the data have even found reason to cheer some of the special election defeats: In one of the Democratic losses, a race for a Connecticut seat held by Republicans for more than a century, the GOP candidate won by 10 percentage points, compared with a 22-point GOP victory margin in an election for the same seat just three months earlier.In a February Minnesota state House victory, the Republican margin of victory was just 6 points — 23 points lower than Trump’s 61-32 percent margin in the same seat in November.To many Democrats, the wins are evidence that the party should be reorienting toward local races — rather than undergoing a comprehensive rebuilding — at a time when it has unified control of only six states and holds just 16 governor’s mansions.For months, many of them have refused to make that case out loud for fear of being called out of touch, but the sentiment is now peeking into the open.“We had a great candidate who really connected with the voters, and I think that connection is important because it speaks to what Democrats are missing nationally, and in particular during the presidential election,” said Delaware Gov. John Carney, noting the intense anti-Trump enthusiasm obvious at Hansen’s campaign events. “These are the kinds of voters that the Democratic Party nationally needs to be appealing to, and the national party can take a lesson from that."The efforts to get Democrats to turn their attention — and money — to local races is already underway, between the launch of a redistricting group led by former Attorney General Eric Holder and a new investment from major donors in the State Innovation Exchange group (known as SiX), which works with state legislatures.“There was a lot of attention put on [the Delaware race] because Joe Biden and a lot of other people got in on it, but what made the difference was the get-out-the-vote operation driven by volunteers getting out there and mobilizing the base. So to me that means there is an energy, people want to get involved, they’re mad,” said SiX executive director Nick Rathod. “The party needs a broad rethinking, but that thinking needs to start locally, and that’s where all of this grass-roots energy is. That’s where there’s a lot of opportunity to make changes."Swinging a state legislative seat with an influx of money and manpower is relatively easy compared with swinging a U.S. House or Senate seat, he said.Because these races are typically so inexpensive and involve persuading and turning out such a small electorate, it might not take a massive expenditure of political capital to set the party on the track toward winning back the local seats it hemorrhaged during the Obama era.“You lose that top office and people don’t pay attention to other things: We won more seats in the House, we won more seats in the Senate,” said Adam Parkhomenko, a party organizer who worked for the Clinton campaign before serving as the Democratic National Committee’s national field director during the general election.It’s a mistake, he said just days after a trip to Delaware to campaign for Hansen, to view the party as mired in its deepest hole in a century. “A lot of the concerns that people have in terms of where the party is right now are primarily due to a lack of infrastructure over the last eight years. We’re in 2005 all over again."
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 11:33 schreef Monolith het volgende:Enige realiteitszin bij de hosannastemming omtrent het marketingtrucje van bedrijven om banen in de VS toe te zeggen:[..]bron
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 16:35 schreef nostra het volgende:De nieuwe EO:President Trump is preparing to sign a new executive order Monday that White House officials hope can withstand legal scrutiny that will ban travelers from six majority-Muslim nations seeking new visas from entering the United States for 90 days, according to a fact sheet the administration sent to Congress. https://www.washingtonpos(...)m_term=.e087959fca8d
quote:“The United States has the world’s most generous immigration system, yet it has been repeatedly exploited by terrorists and other malicious actors who seek to do us harm,” the fact sheet stated.
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 16:36 schreef Monolith het volgende:Ondertussen zien ze bij de Democraten goede voortekenen voor de komende tijd (het zal Elfletterig deugd doen dat O'Malley er ook bij betrokken is):[..]bron
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 16:54 schreef Monolith het volgende:Ik ben ook wel benieuwd in hoeverre deze EO de bezwaren tegen de vorige omzeilt. Uit het beknopte stukje informatie blijkt dat niet echt.
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 16:56 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:[..]Dat is wel het minste dat je zou mogen verwachten, met een idioot in het Witte Huis.
quote: Op maandag 6 maart 2017 17:01 schreef Monolith het volgende:[..]Mwoah, dat is de vraag. De midterms hebben doorgaans een hele beroerde opkomst. De vraag is ook altijd in hoeverre er een relatie is tussen opkomst bij midterms en de vraag wie er in het Witte Huis zit.