President-elect Trump says Sprint will bring 5,000 jobs back to the U.S.

Love him or hate him, it can not be denied that President-elect Donald Trump is getting his hands dirty three weeks before he takes the Oath of Office. Just today, the man who said that he would be "the greatest jobs president that God ever created," announced that Sprint would be bringing 5,000 jobs back into the U.S.

Trump didn't specify from which country or countries the jobs are coming from, but he did make it clear that the return of the 5,000 Sprint jobs to the U.S. was arranged through SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son. SoftBank is Sprint's parent company, having purchased 78% of the carrier for $21.6 billion back in July 2013. SoftBank was engaged in a fierce battle for Sprint with Dish Network.

In a statement, Sprint said that the job openings would be in customer service and in sales. However, a comment made by Sprint has us wondering if somehow it was pressured to open up these positions. The nation's fourth largest carrier said that it would talk with business partners, cities and states to determine where these 5,000 jobs will be available.

Some analysts believe that Sprint would like to be purchased by T-Mobile, and is bringing the 5,000 jobs back to the states in order to curry favor with the President-elect. Trump has already made negative remarks about big mergers after AT&T announced an acquisition of Time Warner back in October. These analysts seem to have things backward since the previous rumors have had Sprint interested in T-Mobile, not the other way around.

source: CNBC



1. aegislash

Posts: 1537; Member since: Jan 27, 2015

What? The end of this article makes no sense...I thought it was Sprint who wanted T-Mobile?

3. Alan01

Posts: 662; Member since: Mar 21, 2012

As true as that is, it appears that some analysts see it the other way around.. Regards, Alan F.

4. warrenellis93

Posts: 560; Member since: Jul 21, 2011

alan has been involved in some erroneous and missplaced stories regarding trump in the past

33. Alan01

Posts: 662; Member since: Mar 21, 2012

Where was there one word about Trump in this story that wasn't true? He announced the jobs, and we never said that he was responsible for them. Alan F.

40. audiblenarcotic

Posts: 114; Member since: Nov 16, 2011

Technically this article reads that he is getting his hands dirty, which implies that he is somehow involved in this decision even though it was originally announced in October before the election even happened. So yes... you are taking part in misleading people.

2. HugoBarraCyanogenmod

Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014

Sorry, most American in blue states don't want jobs, they want free welfare and everything free and then stay in the tent cities. This could be a challenging future

6. thunder18

Posts: 156; Member since: Aug 06, 2009

8. Klinton

Posts: 1409; Member since: Oct 24, 2016

Exactly. The red states are fed up to feed the dem's on the dole in their states. The red states are more.

11. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2525; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

1. You are aware that the majority of federal dollars that go into states is for defense spending, and "red states" tend to have more military bases and defense structures (i.e. missile silos) than the blue states. 2. People tend to move to southern states to retire and collect on social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare - this too counts as federal dollars going to those states. 3. African Americans (12% of the US population) which are overwhelmingly represented in the southeast makeup 32% of the total of recipients of welfare programs. Blame it on systemic racism or whatever you want, but this is just a fact.

18. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

#2 is a blantant lie! Social Security is not Federal Flats, even if the checks are made the Fed. Social Security is your money if you are a taxpayer and is your money taken from your check as a separate tax. That money is placed into an interesting bearing account that is separate from regular tax dollars. Even though by definition it is a govt program, the money is never suppose to be used foe govt spending. Though Republicans have been trying to years to steal the money, they legally can't touch it, without some serious law changes that would have to be approved by . However since it's OUR money, if the dogs try, they will see one of the biggest uphevils in world history of citizens rising up against a government.

19. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Social Security is not welfare. You obviously don't know what welfare is!

25. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2525; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

The article he mentioned uses the Tax Foundation as a source. When you actually read up on how the Tax Foundation gets their percentages they include retirement benefits in the total percentage. And social security is defined as a social welfare program by the Social Security Administration themselves. It's clearly defined on their website. As you probably are aware, Social Security does not just provide for retirees but also those who are considered disabled and no longer able to work and as a supplement for those who do not earn enough. Also, you argue that Caucasians are the largest users of welfare programs at about 40%, but you seem to forget that Caucasians make up the overwhelming majority of Americans at 69%. So, the fact that they are also the majority of welfare recipients is not some alarming statistic. However, the fact that African Americans only make up 12% of the US population but take 32% of the welfare is an alarming statistic and one that should be addressed. As I mentioned, the black population is overwhelmingly found in the southeast, in these same red states. So, to conclude again because you didn't seem to go against my other two points: state spending is largely defense spending when it is outside of retirement benefits, retirement benefits are considered in this statistic unless you look at the raw numbers, and there is obviously racial differences that can account for why a large percentage of federal aid dollars are going to areas with these larger racial populations that have been a result of years of systemic racism. Here is the breakdown of actual federal dollars to the states by what it goes for:


Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015

Perhaps what techieXP is maybe trying to suggest is that social security, that thing we pay for specifically out of out taxes, shouldn't be considered "free money" or welfare as we all know it. Even though it may be considered social welfare, I don't feel the same about social security where a person has paid into the system, retires, and then expects their money back to some degree.

20. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Oh and according to facts, welfare or food stamps for example, are used much more by a larger demograobic...CAUCASIANS. Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American. What you trying to pass off is that when it's comes to welfare, you leave out all the programs and just want to me tion things like food stamps or public housing programs. The fact is, when you consider ALL welfare programs, including corporate welfare, which are programs where corps still get some govt subsidation, it's whites who get the most welfare. Also, less than 20% or about 50M American get welfare. Social Security is not welfare. Those are the real facts vs your political facts. Minorities as a whole may use more welfare as 2 combined groups, but as a single group, whites are actually the welfare queens. In fact just Google. How many Caucasian woman were still illegally drawing welfare for over 3 decades.

21. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Oh and to add. Most businesses have a population that on average is 90% white. Maybe if job creators hired more minorities, less of them would be on federal programs. If certain groups weren't so greedy and selfish, we wouldn't even need such programs. When i started my business I made a defined rule. Where possible we had to have as close to and even split of all 4 ethnic backgrounds. I did find it is easier said than done. At th3 time, even though Chicago has a very large Asian population, finding enough skilled workers was hard. This has changed considerable. I have 20 employees who work specifically for me and I have 5 of each ethnic background. My 2 partners hire who they ease for their groups and it's 80% white. But what can I say, what I do and what they do are not the same. Of course they are Republican. So yeah I would say the blame lies exactly where you said it should be. But the facts is, np matter what govt program you can name, whites benefit from them more than any other group combined...and that is fact.


Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015

It does have to do with past systemic racism. The welfare system was offered as a solution of sorts to those who had disparities in the workforce in the past. The only issue is, is that you couldn't have a man in the house while you were on it. What this essentially did was fracture the family structure, setting a bad example for the next generation. This effectively perpetuated the cycle of welfare families on top of degrading family values and community stability.

13. Crispin_Gatieza

Posts: 3192; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

You should worry less about who gets welfare and concentrate on growing half a brain. Medicare is a "socialist" program that most conservative politicians threaten to eradicate yet their constituents yell at the top of their lungs to protect.

22. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

No we should actually worry more!

24. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Did you go to public school? Because that could also be considered socialist. And I'll guarantee if we didn't have that, there'd be even more idiots in the country than there are now if everyone had to pay for private schooling.

30. tedkord

Posts: 17513; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Except the poorest states are red, and the richest are blue. And those blue states support those red states with their taxes. Ignorant douche.


Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015

Wrong. This is nothing but speculation.

5. DavMor0069

Posts: 266; Member since: Dec 09, 2015

Worst president, Worst carrier

9. Klinton

Posts: 1409; Member since: Oct 24, 2016

May be? May be not. We'll see. I don't like to tell future.

10. HugoBarraCyanogenmod

Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014

You must be butthurt ATT employee, Clinton lobbyists deserves to lose and I'm so happy it happened

14. Crispin_Gatieza

Posts: 3192; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

I'll remember you said that when your daughter gets her pu$$y grabbed.

15. Klinton

Posts: 1409; Member since: Oct 24, 2016

WOW ....Mr Clinton?

23. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Right now u employment which is at 4.7%, is the lowest it's been in 2+decades. Obama alone, create 15M+ New jobs. Now if Trump can equal or beat that, I will be happy. But Obama did it without making BS deals. But I am willing to bet you, that by the time Trump gets into year 4, if he lives that long and he doesn't get assassinated; that unemployment will be roughly double what it is now. Because facts have prove , lowering taxes on rich corps, do not create job. Demand for products create jobs because corps hide with demand increase. So if you lower taxes on rich people, that means poor people carry more weight, mean less disposable income, means less spending which leads to things like recession, higher interest rates, as banks and lenders trying to recoup losing money and bigger financial issues. Which means rich people will them feel that pinch and start crying. Then they vote Democrat for relief and have stuff fixed, only to vote Republican again and screw it all up.

7. yyuu1000

Posts: 260; Member since: Jul 26, 2012

good to see. Hopefully they lower prices and increase coverage

16. user001

Posts: 24; Member since: Sep 16, 2015

The irrefutable fact is ALL of those small (population) red states TAKE far more than they contribute. It is also irrefutable that the big blue state (CA, NY) contribute far more than we get back from federal govt. It is also a FACT that there are more indigent "white" ppl receiving benefits than in large cities. Large blue states aren't afraid of work. In fact, it is the economies of places like NY and CA that provide all the AID money to those dirt poor red states constantly in the way of some hurricane, flood or wildfire. There needs to be a law passed where states can only claim AID up to what they PAID into the federal system. See how fast they change their tune.

17. user001

Posts: 24; Member since: Sep 16, 2015

Last I checked, all the tourists visiting ALL of NYC aren't from NYC. Many are from red states wanting to see more than 3 traffic lights in one location.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless