DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Dream List of American Freedoms/Upgrades

I don’t disagree, at least regarding a lot of the Democrats. Republicans also need to ensure the benefits of a wealthy, corporate elite.

I guess the rest of us are just suckers in between with a practical choice of one or the other.

Ummm, horse crap.

And more horse crap to top the other horse crap.

Seems you are having a bad night tonight.

All's good, we have a game on Sunday. Try to hang in one more day before you have a stroke.

NO. The very nature of conservatives is to retard progress and never let anything change. The nature of Republicans is to put business first in every instance and to push rugged individualism for the rest of us... I know rugged individualism sounds like the ideal way to describe a tough guy BUT what it really means in America is that you are crap out of luck and nobody is coming to save/help you. You are on your own...

Lefties (progressives) want a better life for working people and a lesser slice of the pie on top. The rich will still be rich, businesses will still profit, but the working class could live better.

This new infrastructure bill would be life changing for millions of Americans, but the republicans will call is socialism so they can tank it. And centrist Dem republican-lites will tank it because their real party doesn't want it, and their corporate masters forbid it. But progressives will fight now and most likely later to IMPROVE LIFE FOR ALL AMERICANS with a well thought out safety net... One like the rest of the world's major countries ALL have. I guess that makes us the bad guys.

To me, there’s a difference between conservative, liberal, progressive…and Republicans and Democrats. The first three are various ideals. The latter two are machines that used to be lined up with some of those ideals, but have taken on a much more self-serving, opportunistic mission.

I don’t think anyone - who is genuine in their beliefs - is strictly of one ideal or the other.

That is true, but it isn't the 80% we agree on. It is the 20% we don't.

We/you/me can adjust the percentages to whatever floats the boat.

You and I can be best of buddies and agree on everything except for the fact I want to bed your wife. That is just one thing, but it is a pretty big one thing that would ruin our relationship and one where we probably couldn't reach some sort of middle ground.

I know you understand my point, but for those who want to claim I want to bed your wife, sometimes there are issues with no point of compromise.

I think we are at or near that point.

I don't know. Much depends on what he did to not pay taxes. I don't think he simply gets a tax free card you and I don't get.

I agree that some of the exemptions need to be massaged. If buying a 10,000 acre ranch in Montana somehow exempts him, then no. If funding the building of a childrens wing at some hospital or funding a library somewhere, or something along those lines, then no, I don't have a problem.

I see you have added shoveling BS on dawgtalkers to your workout routine.

I think there are obviously certain social contract issues that have existed for millennia in most societies where you acknowledge things like the example you provided where society as a whole understands there are lines you can’t cross, even if you want to.

The issues with the various ideals and agreeing or disagreeing is the manufactured outrage based on false information. Both parties perpetuate this outrage to their base to activate fight or flight, which suppresses rationality. All you have to do is listen to them talk. This has been going on for decades now, but it has gotten five point where cages have been rattled so long that fight or flight has become the visceral response on so many issues.

So, genuine ideals mean very little to many. They have gone from being built from the ground up and personal experiences to being manufactured and dictated by the political machines. It’s no longer “hey, I have some treatises and ideals, and I think this is how things should constructively change” but rather it’s “This is what X Politician is saying so it must be true! Down with the other side!”

It’s a bunch of strong opinions with no backing. It’s like the thread that GM posted about the donkey. Except now the donkeys have banded together yelling that the grass is blue and are fighting a group of weasels who are yelling that the grass is red. Meanwhile, there are very few tigers left who are sitting there saying, “Can’t you guys see the grass is green, and that you’ve been lied to?”

And then both groups attack the Tigers just because they said something they didn’t like.

Nah. One side just can't get right... yet they are the right...


You have a point Peen about reaching a point of no return or no compromise. Republicans thought they reached that point when a black man was elected... Now the left has reached that point with a fascist bigot elected. I don't know how we go forward without somebody admitting their side messed up... and it needs to be the side that actually did the damage to the country. But GOPers will never do that.

I for one would love to get back to when Congress worked together and could compromise. And I have no issue with the other side, whoever it is, watering down the legislation to reach a compromise. What I have problems with is not doing enough for those who need help the most and things like medical care being unaffordable for much of the country... I don't really give a damn if somebody is rich, famous, political, etc... Everyone should be completely equal when it comes to basic needs. If a treatment is not available for a poor person, it shouldn't be available for a rich person. Every person deserves food, housing, clothing, education, modern communication tech, and quality medical care. It doesn't have to be free and things like homes don't have to be equal in quality or size, but there needs to be a basic level of dignity, peace of mind, and quality of life that we strive for every American to obtain or just have. Now if we had a safety net like that, then I would be good with compromise on many other topics. But I don't think I have much room for compromise if being rich or living well means others must suffer. That model just doesn't get it for me anymore. I don't want anyone to go without basic needs so I can feel better about my life. I would hope most people feel the same, but it's obvious they don't or we would already have it.

How so? Sounds like you are the one with a shovel.

What did I say that is offensive to you?

I clearly explained situations where I would be against him getting breaks and situations where it wouldn't bother me at all.

I realize many of you give very little to charity, but believe it or not, some people do and it is a necessary way for many organization's to raise funds.

I would rather see rich people giving their money to various causes that are good for the public rather than see it fall directly in to the government cesspool.

I agree that the Republicans have a lot more culpability right now (it’s actually not even close in my mind), but you yourself know and proclaim from time to time how the Democrats - at least some of them if not the controlling force - don’t actually strive to achieve what you mention below.

True.

It isn't offensive "to me". It's just down right offensive.

Let's look at the facts.

It isn't the Deomocrats that have kept the federal minimum wage at $7.25 since 2009.

Which also means it isn't the Democrats that have kept those wages so low that millions of working people qualify for federal and state benefits for food, housing and medicaid benefits for their children while corporations line their pockets with billions in profits. You are the party that supports workers make poverty wages.

It isn't the Democrats who stomp their feet and complain that if wages go up they will have to pay 50 cents more for a cheeseburger. You would much rather keep actual working class people drawing tax payer benefits and line the pockets of business rather than those workers make a living wage.

It is you and your kind that promote second class citizens to serve you.

It is you and the party you support that promotes corporate welfare.

At least be honest about it.

BTW- Who the hell do you think you are to judge and claim "many of us don't give much to charity"? It's that naive superiority complex that makes otherwise attractive people quite ugly.

There is a lot in there that I agree with. Very surprised you didn't even touch on healthcare or the minimum wage.

College kids whine a lot and this issue gets a lot of attention. If you really want to help the most vulnerable parts of society, focus on free daycare, getting kids through high school, and vocational training. But it all starts with the first 5 years.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-long-term-impact-of-the-head-start-program/

Indeed. Where 90% of the brain is developed at this point. If a child isn't prepared for Kindergarten and they fall behind from the jump, they will always be behind....normally.

And the value of education starts at home with the family. But unfortunately, that sometimes means educating a parent(s) on its value and consistent child attendance throughout.

I agree. Preparing a kid for the future doesn't happen after high school.

I don't have a problem with free community college. We do that here in Tennessee. The reality is the biggest impact happens long before a person goes to community college.

The adults who seem to have the most problems are the ones who don't qualify for community college or can't get through.

More voc/ed is the way to prepare people to become productive adults. Not everybody is college material. You are just wasting your time and their money. Train them in something that leads to a decent job and they show a interest.

All the brotherhoods are looking for apprentices. There is nothing wrong with being a plumber, electrician, or trained in the culinary arts, etc. All can lead to a rewarding career.

There is a reason why Dr.'s make a boatload of money. It isn't the job. It's because there aren't all that many people with the brains able to perform the job. You can take that with pay scales right down the line.

When you say "college material" you do know that many jobs that used to only take vocational training are now more complicated and take an associates degree, right?

My brother actually had to take a two year course in college in order to be a fully accredited mechanic due to all the computers and new electric cars coming out.

I do however agree with you that not everyone is ready for community college. That's why a minimum GPA requirement is used here in Tennessee and should be tied to any free community college opportunity. There's no use wasting money sending a kid to college that can't keep at least a C average in high school.

I also think there should be a choice for extended vocational training or community college.

Agreed. Problem is, IMO, too many want the desk job. Don't want to 'work', and sweat and need to do some travel.

Classmate of mine - electrician for his ex father in law for years, moved to Arizona and is now in .........let's just say a 6 figure job. He shows up, knows what he's doing. The company pays him very well. No college, whatsoever.

My mentee - work ethic. Sr. at a voc/ed school. He'll graduate and start making very, very good money as an apprentice.

Construction work - specifically road construction. Local company guarantees $50 grand your first year. They do the training. They can't get employees, and in fact a friend .........well, at the Ohio Construction meetings, that's the biggest topic: How do we get people to consider a construction job? (he's been the president of that in the past).

Granted, in those positions, there IS travel time, which they get paid for, and they get a per diem for food and lodging as well if it's over a certain distance from their home. Yes, time away from home.

Friend, 40. Foreman. $160,000 a year, plus he's union, so retirement will be no problem. He's sacrificed time, but the company has always worked with him on giving time off to attend his kids sporting events. he'll be retired, with not 1 cent of college debt ever incurred, by the time he's 52 if he wants to be.

College is not a necessity for many good paying jobs. For other jobs, like medical, etc, it is a must, of course.

You also realize that you don't learn anything in community college to actually help you do these jobs that you couldn't learn as a paid apprentice on the factory floor, right?

Going to community college isn't necessary, it's just a way for the companies to pass the cost of training their employees on to the government instead of absorbing it themselves.

I didn't know that auto makers trained mechanics and had paid auto mechanic apprentices on "the factory floor". First I ever heard of it. The "factory floor" is for auto assembly, not training mechanics last time I heard.

Maybe you should send a memo to the Republican governor and Republican state senate of Tennessee. It seems they understand that community college is a great investment for the economy of their state. You know, if you wish to attract all of those high paying jobs you need a work force educated enough to fill those jobs. That may also work on a global scale.

I'm sure that nit feels adequately picked now. Automakers don't want to train anybody, why should they if the government is going to pay to do it for them.


You mentioned twice that they are Republicans, I don't care. And they are correct, Industry wants to move where they have plug-and-play workforce that is already trained.. and since they have the carrot of "jobs" to bring to the area, tax payers are willing to pay to train their employees for them. That's the way the system is now set up, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

They're called "assembly plants" for a reason.

Nobody said you had to agree with. But arguing the system needs to change does nothing to solve the problems as they exist.

You have always seemed to promote cities and states giving corporations huge tax incentives to move there for jobs. Now you suddenly use who is training them as your sticking point? I guess since maybe it's the citizens getting an education that they can use their entire life rather than 100% of the benefit going strictly to the corporations, maybe that's the issue.

None of us have much authority to solve any problems as they exist.. that really never stops us from arguing about what needs to change and how to change it.


No, I have not promoted it. I have accepted it as a necessary evil since states/cities are in competition with each other for these jobs so the politicians can brag about bringing in jobs in their re-election campaign.


You frequently guess you know how I feel. To date I'm pretty sure you are 0 for 57.

When I said college material I was speaking more towards a 4 year degree.

I agree that community college is required for many jobs. More people can attend because in at least some ways they tend to be a bit easier. I am not saying easy, but there are a lot of requirements involved in most 4 year institutions that aren't required for a 2 year certificate. The course work tends to be geared more towards whatever the student is studying.

Being interested in what you are studying has a large impact on being able to pass the class.

Many of the apprentice programs I mentioned are indeed taught in, or at least partially taught in community colleges.

Again, the point isn't in the words we use here and how we might disagree on vocabulary. The point is we need to do a better job of identifying the students that are falling behind for whatever reason and steer them in to programs and classes that will help them once out of school. Insisting these students pass a strict STEM program to get a diploma is foolish. Some people just don't get it...and that is fine. What isn't fine is to pretty much cast them aside and not teach them anything that will be useful to them the rest of their life.

I don't claim to know at what point you might steer them in a non-traditional direction. By the end of 8th grade you might have an idea. By the end of the 10th grade you probably do.

I am sure there are cases that cast question on what I am thinking, but I'd say the cases are far and few between where a student had struggled all the way through the 10th grade then all of a sudden becomes a solid B student.

Holding students back only works a time or two. Probably only once. You can't have a 14 year old sitting in a class with 11 year olds. If you start holding kids back once they are 15-16, they just quit going and hit the streets.

Actually I tend to agree with you far more than I disagree. That's exactly why I think community college should be free. A student can at that point decide whether they wish to use those two years towards a job skill or towards getting credits to apply towards a four year degree.

So you accept that but you refuse to accept that educating your citizens will do as much or more than those tax incentives. I see.....

Now suddenly you want businesses to teach people rather than our education system. I've never seen you expect businesses pay out anything. Only reap benefits.

Wrong again Swami. I think educating the citizens is a wonderful goal which would pay deep rewards in the end.. the question is, who is funding that education, either directly or indirectly...

I've worked in the construction industry for 30 years, the mantra has been the same for a long time now.. not enough qualified people in the industry. And I'm talking management, superintendents, estimators, foreman, skilled trades, all the way down to laborers.. and the problem just keeps getting worse. And what do these construction companies do that are doing $6-10 BILLION a year in construction? They throw their hands up and say "Woe is us, we can't find good people"... Have they made any gesture to help fund the education of young people to get them into the industry? No, most of them have not. It's easier to whine and blame the government or, better yet, blame young people for not being willing to do hard work. Heaven forbid they should bring some young people on, pay them a decent wage, give them some OJT, and pay for them to get the education.... that would just be horrible.


I want industry to teach people what they need to know about that industry and I want them to participate in educating the workforce that they desperately need.. yes.


This is BS and I won't even dignify it with a response.

So when have you ever expected business to invest in the tax base? On one hand you have always said that tax breaks both state and local are fine to attract jobs to your area which lets them off the hook for investing in those economies by not paying their fair share. I call that corporate welfare and you advocated doing it. When I asked about it earlier in this thread you said the reason is because you learned to accept it because that's just the way things are.

Now, when I address community college and trade schools being tuition free because business doesn't educate them, I say that's because, "that's the way things are" and you don't accept it.

Maybe we should revisit business paying their fair share of state and local taxes again since you now suddenly wish to hold business accountable.

I'm seeing commercials advertising certain companies beginning to offer more open tuition assistance and things like that to pull in new labor.

When their backs are up against the wall for long enough they really have no choice. When there's no other choice they'll do the right thing. It will certainly not happen a moment before that.

You see, I don't disagree with DC in principal. I just know how business is. They aren't going to spend a dime training workers on their own unless desperation kicks in.

In most cases that will probably be a very long time. Sitting back and waiting for "business to act" is not a logical answer. And I'm quite sure people like Peen and others would consider trying to force businesses to train their own people would be communist.

Holding business accountable on almost any level, be it paying taxes to paying American workers a living wage to helping train their own workers isn't something most Republicans have ever endorsed.

They're more in favor of giving them huge tax breaks to bribe them into moving there. No environmental regulations so they can trash the environment. Not having to pay Americans a wage that provides a family a living and on it goes....

I mean just ask them. Anything else just wouldn't be Murican!

Business does invest in the tax base. In fact, it's the reason there even is a tax base. Businesses pay people, people pay taxes on their income, people go out to eat, people buy homes, clothes, cars, and gasoline. All of that is taxed.

I have also long advocated that business should invest in training their own workforce, that is not a new position for me because we are in a labor shortage... I have held that position for quite a long time.

I have also held the position for quite a long time that business should increase wages and increase benefits, especially at the bottom end. Again, not a new position for me.


They are paying their fair share, they are paying what the state and local governments struck a deal with them to pay. Politicians are elected, in no small part, to grow their local economy, to do that they have to play the game. Businesses will locate the places that meet their needs and then begin negotiating the best deal they can get to figure out which one to choose.


Yes, there are a lot of things in this world that are not the way I wish they were. Some I have learned to accept, others I think are worth fighting to change... I would imagine most people are like that.


Hold them accountable? That implies that they are doing something wrong. They are playing within the rules that the governments are negotiating for them (at least most of them are)... You can't hold somebody accountable for doing what you told them they had to do because after the fact you think you negotiated a bad deal...

So I would ask this about corporate tax incentives... what is the alternative? How would you fix this problem? State and local governments could stop offering incentives, but that would take a commitment from all 50 states to do that and that's not going to happen since it eliminates their ability to compete for industry. What other solution is there? The feds could make it illegal to offer corporations tax incentives, that would be a huge overreach by the feds and would likely get squashed in court. So what is your plan to "hold them accountable" and make them pay "their fair share"?

So your theory for businesses paying taxes is that they get huge tax abatements while it's actually their EMPLOYEES who pay the taxes. Those aren't the same thing.

Once again, you seem fine with how the game is being played in terms of corporate welfare depriving local and state economies across this nation of billions in tax revenues. Meanwhile the burden is shifted to the workers. But when it comes to how other games are played you want to change those rules. Sounds to me like you have decided to pick and choose corporate welfare as a game that's just fine. If depriving local communities and states by bribing businesses to move there is fine with you it's easy to see the only people you hold accountable to pay their fair share is the American worker.

So getting businesses across the nation to train their own workers you want to change but giving billions to corporations in tax breaks, legal tax breaks is fine. Why is it you think changing the tax laws and making it illegal for states and local government to bribe companies to move there is impossible but forcing corporations to train their own workers isn't?

And yes, local officials are elected to bring jobs to those communities. And current circumstances dictate they bribe them. But if we're looking to change something, let's start by taking the heat off of those officials by making illegal to bribe corporations in the first place.

It's funny how you consider forbidding that places to bribe corporations is a huge federal overreach but forcing corporations to train their own employees isn't. How does that work again?

You want the feds to make it illegal for states to negotiate their own deals?

And I'm not saying force corporations to train their own workers, it's just something they should do.


Bribery is illegal, negotiating is not. Did we bribe John Johnson to sign with the Browns verses any other offer he may have had? We made him the best offer and he accepted it..

Did the Browns allow Johnson not to pay any taxes in Cleveland or his state of Ohio income taxes to play for the Browns? See, the Browns are spending their money, not the taxpayers money.

What I want is the power taken out of politicians hands to take tax money and use it as leverage as a part of any deal with corporations, yes. I mean the abuse of power was brought up by you and I don't see why this wouldn't qualify as such.

Assume for a second that the federal government outlawed the ability for states and municipalities to negotiate taxes with companies on an individual basis. States and local tax rates vary widely across the country. If City A has a local corporate tax rate of 10%, while City B has a local corporate tax rate of 3%, and all the companies in City A decide to relocate to City B as a result - is this the outcome desired?

Additionally, what’s to stop City A from just reducing their tax rate to 1.5% (or even 0%) across the board to keep (and/or attract new) corporations?

I’m not sure what banning negotiating of incentives accomplishes in the end aside from potentially hurting the subject city itself. Outlawing negotiation doesn’t remove the competition from other states/cities.

You make a pretty good point actually. The thing is it's all pretty much a shell game of sorts. As an example I live in Tennessee. There is no state income tax here. Instead they simply have a high sales tax of nine and a half percent. Even on groceries. Which is much better for those who make a lot of money and would pay a lot in state taxes. But harder on the poor trying to feed a family who wouldn't pay any state taxes in many states that have state income taxes due to their income being so low.

I guess what it all boils down to is how much BS voters are willing to put up with in lining the pockets of corporations while they pay all the bills.

I'd much rather pay additional sales tax. There is no way my family consumes more (sales tax wise) than I would pay in State taxes otherwise. Sales taxes here are 6.5-7.5% average depending on locality. But large purchases like autos would suck more.