re: Trump doesn't know what he's doing guys! Bernie Sanders denounces Carrier

This is the breakdown of business conducted by the parent company...

United Technologies Products:

Pratt & Whitney: Commercial, military, business jet and general aviation aircraft engines, parts and services, industrial gas generators, sold to a diversified customer base, including international and domestic commercial airlines and aircraft leasing companies, aircraft manufacturers, and U.S. and foreign governments. Pratt & Whitney also provides product support and a full range of overhaul, repair and fleet management services.

UTC Aerospace Systems: Aerospace products and aftermarket services for commercial, military, business jet and general aviation customers worldwide. Products include electric power generation, management and distribution systems, flight control systems, engine control systems, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, engine components, environmental control systems, fire protection and detection systems, propeller systems, aircraft nacelles, and interior, actuation, landing and electronic systems.

Sikorsky: Military and commercial helicopters, aftermarket helicopter and aircraft parts and services.

Otis: Elevators, escalators, moving walkways and service sold to customers in the commercial and residential property industries around the world.

UTC Climate, Controls & Security: HVAC and refrigeration systems, building controls and automation, fire and special hazard suppression systems and equipment, security monitoring and rapid response systems, provided to a diversified international customer base principally in the industrial, commercial and residential property and commercial transportation sectors.

Contract revenue from US Government dealings is almost $7Billion

LINK

Trump, or any decent negotiator should have and would have told UTC that they would lose future Gov't contracts if they allowed Carrier to move jobs to the US. No way UTC says goodbye to $7Billion in revenue to send 800 jobs to Mexico.

Sorry sir, you are focused on the wrong part because I am saying this deal should have never been necessary. No leverage or incentive should have been needed to keep those jobs because we pay UTC $7Billion a year in government contracts. That represents 10% of their overall revenue which I am certain they wouldn't be willing to give up for the sake of allowing the smallest portion of their company to move 1000 jobs to Mexico. You guys have to wake up because you are being deceived. No one with such leverage should ever give up such a public position which will prompt other businesses to expect similar reciprocity. See trailing data below.

In fiscal year 2014, the United States government paid out an astounding $444 billion in federal contracts. That’s equivalent to almost forty percent of the federal discretionary budget for 2014.

Who got all that money, and what for? Here’s a rundown of the top 10 federal contractors in 2014. Hint: all of the top 10 contractors are for-profit companies, and all of them owe their status to military spending – something worth keeping in mind as Congress engages in battle over government spending levels for the Pentagon versus every single other priority, including health care, education, and job creation.

10. Huntington Ingalls Industries, $4.7 billion.
Huntington Ingalls describes itself as “America’s largest military shipbuilding company.”

9. BAE Systems, $5.0 billion.
BAE Systems traffics in “defence, aerospace and security solutions” (and yes, they are a British company with significant operations in the U.S.), with products ranging from amphibious combat vehicles to “hyper velocity projectiles.”

8. L-3 Communications Holdings, $5.8 billion.
L-3 bills itself as a “prime contractor in aerospace and national security solutions.” Its products include explosive detection systems and holographic weapons sights, among others.

7. United Technologies Corporation, $6.0 billion.
UTC is a parent company for defense contractors Pratt & Whitney, UTC Aerospace Systems, and Sikorsky. Pratt & Whitney is the maker of the F-35 jet fighter engine, among others, while Sikorsky is the maker of the Black Hawk helicopter.

6. McKesson Corporation, $6.2 billion.
On its face, health care solutions company McKesson appears to be the lone non-military contractor among the group. But even McKesson would not be where it is without our country’s penchant for Pentagon spending: it gets $4.2 billion in contracts from Veterans’ Affairs, and an additional $1.6 billion directly from the Department of Defense.

5. Northrop Grumman Corporation, $10.3 billion.
Northrop Grumman bills itself as providing “unmanned systems, cybersecurity, C4ISR, and security” solutions. Northrop Grumman makes the Air Force’s A-10 Thunderbolt II (also known as the “Warthog”), among others.

4. Raytheon Company, $12.6 billion.
Raytheon’s business includes missile defense, electronic warfare, precision weapons, and more, including Tomahawk and Patriot missiles.

3. General Dynamics Corporation, $15.4 billion.
General Dynamics provides aerospace, combat systems, marine systems, and more, including Abrams tanks, MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles, and nuclear submarines through its Electric Boat division.

2. Boeing, $19.6 billion.
Boeing specializes in fighter jets, rotorcraft, advanced weapons, and missile defense, including Minuteman missiles, the V-22 Osprey aircraft, and the F-15 aircraft.

1. Lockheed Martin, $32.2 billion.
That’s 7% of all federal contracts, and the equivalent of three percent of discretionary spending in 2014, to just one company.

That company saw over $5.5 billion in profit, and paid its CEO more than $34 million in 2014. And the $32 billion it received from the U.S. government made up more than seventy percent of its total sales.

And Lockheed’s signature product? The F-35 jet fighter, which despite being in development since 2001, and being billions of dollars over budget, is not yet combat ready. The F-35’s top initial selling point?

Affordability.

quote:

---

The us pays 5 billion a year to this company? If true you may have a point. Do you have a link to this figure?

---

LINK

$7Billion...sorry

The contracts were not won based upon them keeping jobs in the U.S. in another business sector. If Obama was putting pressure on a company based on its government contracts, the right would (and should) have a fit. It's not how the government should do business.

quote:

---

Sorry sir, you are focused on the wrong part because I am saying this deal should have never been necessary. No leverage or incentive should have been needed to keep those jobs because we pay UTC $7Billion a year in government contracts. That represents 10% of their overall revenue which I am certain they wouldn't be willing to give up for the sake of allowing the smallest portion of their company to move 1000 jobs to Mexico. You guys have to wake up because you are being deceived. No one with such leverage should ever give up such a public position which will prompt other businesses to expect similar reciprocity. See trailing data below.

---

The companies are leaving to make more money. So your response would be to reduce their revenue by an additional 10%? And what would be the net effect of that genius move? Said company moves ALL its production overseas to compensate for the loss? Brilliant!
The point you are missing is that it's time to solve the problem of high operating costs by demonstrating that we appreciate our American companies and want to work together to keep them. So what if they want lower taxes, maybe taxes need to be lowered! Your anger towards the entities which employ milllions of people is very telling.

quote:

---

If Obama was putting pressure on a company based on its government contracts, the right would (and should) have a fit. It's not how the government should do business.

---

Obama's EPA was/is intentionally trying to bankrupt businesses through tyrannical regulations using illegal means.

Hey Ebb-
Here's some very good therapy for your bitter tears-go soak in them.
And you obviously don't understand the concept of "work".

quote:

---

Bottom line, if we pay you $5Billion dollars annually we should not have to negotiate you keeping your business (1000 jobs) in the US. Trump is a Chump on this one.

---

Trump isn't the one giving tax incentives. That's the congress of Indiana.