1. after passing a background check, gun owners should be able to get a CC endorsement right on their drivers license, nationally recognized in every state and territory after passing a 2 week CC course.

2. Abortion legal up to the third trimester.

3. massive infrastructure passed for roads and bridges, allowing states to raise the speed limit to 80 mph + 15-20 miles out from a metro area.

example: once 15 miles away from cleveland on I-71, speed can be 85pmh or unlimited until 15-20 miles away from columbus.

4. infrastructure passed for public transportation, allowing for less congestion in urban/suburban areas. also high speed railways.

5. sex work fully legalized at 21, government regulated like in Germany and the Netherlands.

6. max tax rate of 25% capital gains tax, max income tax of 35%, max corporate tax at 28%, closed loopholes and few exceptions for subsidies.

7. legalized drug use. up the punishment of DUI/DWI and street selling, easy access to licensing for small businesses (obviously keep a ban on heroin and such, but no criminal record for use/possession. up punishment for dealing).

8. community college fully funded for every american, must maintain 2.0 gpa average (C), with STEM degrees fully funded with a 2.5 gpa.

9. federal funding for all law enforcement departments.

10. complete ban on civil forfeiture laws. dismantling of the patriot act.


how about you guys? what would you add/subtract/revise?

I want to see them expand Amtrak and make it more affordable. I have always been envious of Europe's train system.

Train your cold dead hands first and then carry a gun.

i hope so too. it would be a great investment across america

I will turn a chicken in every pot.

to ... a railroad into every airport.

Same here. I was amazed when I went to Alicante, Spain how they had a high-speed train that got to Madrid in 2 hours for 17 euros. That's about a 225 mile distance, too.

1. I think you need to add something about maintaining both the firearm and your proficiency. If you maintain those, you should have 0 hassle maintaining your CC.

3-4. It's my understanding that American drivers, relatively, are really dumb. I can't argue with infrastructure improvements, but I think loosening traffic laws (speed, etc) should go hand-in-hand with a little more requirements in terms of capability of both the car and the driver. We have way too many people that drive irresponsibly and that don't maintain their cars. I also think public transportation and the Amtrak system should be funded in such a way to encourage less car ownership.

6. This. Our tax code can and should be cut in half. Someone has to take ownership and have it blown up and rebuilt.

7. Maybe we're saying the same things, but I think the govt needs to take a moment and get with the times regarding drugs. We've got an opioid epidemic that MIGHT be slowing down, but we still have a president that is scared of MJ. Govt first needs to get its head out of its butt, get what's 'bad' and 'ok' sorted out and adjust laws accordingly. I don't think someone should get jail time just for taking drugs (only hurting yourself), but if they feel they need to punish someone for doing that to their own body, then just fine them.

8. I'm generally not ok with 'free college'. College is not the answer to everyone's questions when they're graduating high school. IMO, college is not something everyone should 'just do' if they don't know in what direction they want to go. They should be equipped with sufficient skills to get a good job, and to me that's means trade schools. Also, if we're hell-bent on paying for college for everyone, that can't happen until we dismantle the racket that is college tuition/student loans ("just having the govt pay for everything" is NOT a solution). I'll say it one more time a little differently. As long as we hear about people that think it's ok to go to Harvard for an English degree and fund the whole thing on student loans and then complain that the only job they can get is at Starbucks.... govt just paying for it is not going to fix the problem (or any problem, for that matter).

That said, I do like the requirement to maintain a GPA.

9. As with many of my previous opinions, increases in funding doesn't come without a catch. I do think police officers should be paid more, trained more, etc... but that should come with a higher standard, and that starts with hiring. Hiring should be much more restrictive, and staying on a police force (at least in a position that interfaces with public) should come with a requirement to maintain training, fitness, professionalism standards. Wages and other benefits should be adjusted to keep applicant pipeline from drying up. Also, officers (at least ones that interface with the public) should have things taken off their plate. I'm talking about mental health calls and things like that. Maybe have them as backup or secondary if a situation might go sideways, but you should have pro's with the proper training responding to situations accordingly.

Note on his College point, he did say "Community College"

I have agreed for many years, that at least 2 year Community College should be free. A great way for many to work and advance their skills to eventually get ahead.

You do realize that if they expand Amtrak (which I am entirely all for) the money will end up coming from the American tax payer.. (Mr. Bezos is safe cause he doesn't pay taxes)

I'm with you there and that's exactly how it is here in Tennessee. I've always said that spending money isn't always a bad thing. At the same time you need to consider the return on your investment. A better educated populace draws in jobs that we lose to other countries because our work force isn't prepared to fill those jobs. It creates an environment that helps build a strong economy.

It has and is working wonders here in Tennessee. At one time the main jobs being drawn here were low tech jobs. Some paid a decent wage but not nearly what tech jobs and white collar jobs pay.

That's all changing now and the dividends it's paying is phenomenal. To compete economically on the world stage, we must have a workforce prepared to attract those jobs. A strong economy is the return you get on that community college investment.

I mean people are right about not everyone is ready, able or wants to go to college. But then nobody is forcing you to get a four year degree or even a two year degree at Community college. But I also believe people need to stop and think about something. Our cars, our appliances and more things we use every day are computer driven. A two year degree or at least technical training is needed for a lot more jobs now than ever before that one may not have considered in the past.

Of course. Where else would it come from?

There are many problems with a national railroad service.

We are a very spread out country, most living in suburbs, so you have to drive and park at the station, so why not drive?

Services in regional areas might be possible, but nationwide would be difficult. Figure in the cost alone, much less acquiring the land rights, political issues, ridership, make it near impossible.

Here's a good video on some of it

I've given this some thought and the only logical way it would seem to work in America would not be a west coast to east coast line. I could see a west coast line going from north to south and an east cost line going north to south though with tributaries running somewhat to the interior on both lines.

ie. Chicago going east to the east coast line with other stops and connectors along the way.

I though the link should have been to......

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Agreed, smaller regional areas makes more sense. Most people are going to fly if going cross country.

I think they should have a high-speed rail that makes it from Mason, OH to Cleveland Browns stadium in one hour, for free.

And you are ok with Mr.Bezos not paying taxes?

How is this related to Amtrak?

It's not. But, look who you replied to.

If you want to turn it into a tax thing (daman), you probably ought to look at the people that write the tax code: Congress.

I'm sure Bezos hasn't broken any laws. Followed the tax code. If someone wants to gripe, go to the people that write the code.

Course, those people only care about money coming in to them, so they can get re-elected - as 'public servants'.


Just today I saw an article about the new tax plan the........well, it doesn't matter what party came up with it - but it would raise the tax 11% of on those making a million or more. Great headline. Bet there are loopholes galore in that bill though.

Problem with the tax argument by many is they are going by the medias stated net worth, not what the person actually earned.

I know I sure as heck don't want to pay taxes based on my net worth every year, that would surely negate any advantage of saving or investing.

For me, I just want to see a push in the right direction. Whether that's building up regional public transportation and then expanding to longer-distance routes, or the other way around makes no difference to me.

As for flying being dominant, the airline industry is a necessary evil only because it basically has a monopoly. You won't convince me otherwise that competition would be a good thing when it comes to domestic travel.

It's a 'Dream List', and part of the list is de-screwing our tax code.

Between this being a pie-in-the-sky exercise, and it including cleaning up the revenue side of things... I think we've wasted money on far worse things than what's listed here.

No doubt some high speed rails would be beneficial, especially for shorter travel. NYC to Chicago. Cleveland to Atlanta, NYC to Miami all seem feasible if the cost savings over air make it tolerable.

And that is a big part of success. If I can take a train from NYC to Miami (1300 miles), in maybe 9 hrs(assuming minimal stops and 200+ mph speeds), then it needs to be priced competitive to getting there in 3 hrs by air. And I know TSA and all that, but even for rail I would bet there would be early arrival times and security checks that require you don't show up 10 mins before the train leaves.

As for cross country, most people are not going to take a 18+ hr train trip to get from NYC to LA when they can do it in 7 by air. Sure some would, but not enough to warrant the cost. Even if it did become available, I would bet it would be multiple trains/lines with many extra stops making it more like a 24+ hr trip.

Why? I'm trying to find a decent flight from Cinci to Vegas in Nov, and my options are to overpay for a reasonable flight, or be traveling for 10+ hours. Perhaps this is an isolated incident due to the labor/route shortage going on right now, and is probably exacerbated by the route I want to take (Cinci airport doesn't really seem to 'go anywhere' vs when I lived in Southern California and had decent route options).

The math shifts in favor of air the longer travel distances get, and the urgency in which you need to get there. I think the airline industry is LONG overdue for some legit competition, and I think there's room.

Traveling during COVID doesn't help either. I've noticed that CVG cut off a lot of their direct routes.

FWIW, pre-COVID I used to fly Delta a lot out of CVG. I found - for whatever reason - their flights out of there were always cheapest to book on a Friday about 2-2.5 months out (which is your window right now).

Sorry if you knew all this already.

I did not. Thanks!

Isn't that what I said like 2 or 3 times now?

Regional travel trains would be good, even coastal NYC to Miami, but cross country will still be better by air, UNLESS, the price is so ridiculously low that people will put up with the longer travel times. Again, that takes into account urgency, as you said, as part of the equation.

Now granted if I'm taking a 2-3 week vacation out west and again, time is not an issue, I might consider a nice train ride to save money, as well as the comfort of more space to move around.

But If the demand isn't there, those trains will run far less, and possibly restrict your travel days. It's why your Cin to Vegas flight is so restricted, the demand for that flight is not there.

Amtrak is the national rail system... Didn't you know that.. Did you just learn something from me..

Geez.... Is that you want to start from scratch with Rail service?

What a non-answer.

Again, what does Amtrak have to do with Bezos?

(Do I need to write it in crayons for you?)

Do you actually know what Amtrak is? As I explained to Eve, it exists as the premier rail system in America.

Are you suggesting we scrap it and start from scratch.

As for Tax issues,, It's ALWAYS AN ISSUE WHEN THE WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS GET TAX BREAKS TO THE POINT OF NOT PAYING TAXES AT ALL

Are you OK with Bezos and others like him and major corporations NOT paying taxes? Do you like that? Do you want to pick up the slack? Is that really your stance?

Are you stupid or just reaching really hard? Everybody knows Amtrak is run by the govt. This is a thread about *gasp* upgrades wishlist for our Govt.

Buy a clue.

What are you rambling about??? Really.

CAN YOU READ, AND understand the written word?

Uh, yeah, I know what amtrak is, probably used it more than you.

What does Bezos have to do with it? Perhaps you missed my freaking post about taking up his tax situation with the people that wrote the tax code? you had to miss that. Trust me, if Bezos was cheating the system, the IRS would've been all over him.

Get a grip.

Did you just admit that the Government runs AMTRAK? If so, how the hell can you and Arch for that matter, not think that Amtrak belongs in this conversation.

How in the hell can you not see how we can't do stuff to fix it without collecting tax from EVERYONE.

If you can't understand a hole in the tax code, you are beyond any reason.

WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION???????

Did Bezos cheat the system? If so, show links. If not, shut it.

Because Damon is lost, here is my actual first post in a thread about Govt upgrades. I am the poster who brought up Amtrak. GEE I WONDER WHY AMTRAK WOULD BE DISCUSSED IN A THREAD ABOUT GOVERNMENT UPGRADES.

I honestly think you need psychiatric help. Or have your Dr increase your meds or something.

I wish I lived in a country with the major media controlled by the pentagon and the government. When I turn major CBS programming "big brother" tv show, and the network, show, and host Julie Chin Moonves, don't celebrate how the game players,
openly, in a racist way, conspired to only keep black people in the game.
and then celebrate their ways.

They didn't even make any mistake about the reason they chose how they did, was the color of their skin, but openly proclaim it.

I wish I lived in a country that didn't discriminate against people for the color of their skin, but as long as it's against the whites, it's celebrated. White children who have to grow up in this constantly discriminatory country always claiming white people bad, black people good. The message is clear, it's getting worse.

The democrat leftist model, cannot exist economically without a permanent underclass of uneducated people to oppress. So we are in a situation like Cuba, or North Korea, no matter whether they give everybody 2 years or 4 years or whatever.
You can't have a rising tide lifts all boats, with the democrats. It has to be the republicans or some new unyet created philosophy.
The democrats, only ... worse things than

No doubt Dems need and seek to keep a underclass in this country.

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.

On an individual basis I really don't care either way. But I do have trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that a lot of families struggling to make it have to pay nine and a half percent sales tax on their groceries trying to feed their families.

Can see that and agree. Just pointing out that would save me money over what I currently deal with in Ohio.

Paying salaries is not 'investing'. Sending that employee to a training or something like that is investing.

JMHO, education is just like everything else- it's a racket in lots of ways. College has been broadens to include almost everything. The hard sciences- mathematics, medical fields, etc...a degree in physical education, music education, basket weaving, anthropology, and really business administration- do you really need professors telling you how to run a business- unless they've run successful businesses themselves. Colleges collect money to provide degrees in general knowledge so people can feel good about themselves- I've got a degree.
Public education helps the brightest how to learn and the rest are pushed thru....many should be in trade schools much earlier but are just numbers pushed thru system, if they can't read or write, just push them thru. they get attendance certificates. They get out of high school with no/ little chance of being productive adults.
How many college students would stay in school if they were grilled orally about each course they took by their teachers like in the old, old days. And passed or failed according to what they really knew, not what they crammed for and forgot a week later. There is value in the old reading, writing, and arithmetic...how many "American adults" can't read a contract and don't understand interest and payments, and get hosed because of it.....tons. Peace.

I just wanted to expand on something I said yesterday. I was a little short on time.



When I said....

You see, if all business taxes went down to those levels, it would mean one of two things. Either there would be a drastic raise in the tax rate and property taxes workers and homeowners pay or services would drastically be reduced. Police, fire departments and road work would be slashed. Citizens would not be happy.

But in a world where cities feel the need to bribe businesses to move there I guess anything is possible.

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise. But what is the alternative? Let all the corporations leave and watch local unemployment rise, property values fall, and overall tax revenue (from corporate, personal income, and personal property) tank?

My point is that no matter what legislation is passed the underlying forces that lead to negotiating, scarcity and competition, will be present.

There will always be another city that would love to have the business.

Place tariffs on all imports so they get no competitive advantage by moving jobs out of the country and make it more fair for other businesses currently in the U.S.

And watch as inflation runs wild.

Maybe your ideal is for everybody to fall under government care, mine isn't.

We can't just keep printing money. Well, we can until it is worthless around the globe. When and if or currency isn't viewed as the gold standard around the world, we will have big problems.

Tariffs have a place, but you can't simply start taxing all imports.

And your alternative is to promote Americans work for wages below the poverty level. Try coming up with something better than that.

But you aren't thinking. Everybody in poverty is a foolish answer.

The difference between you and I is that you blame a persons failure on the system and I blame the failure on the person.

Sorry, it just doesn't work when everybody gets the same sized piece of pie.

I am not here to provide the answers, so don't expect me to do so, but I am here to point out the flaws in answers such as yours.

Just a question here. How many fail because of the "system" or how many fail because they weren't prepared to compete?

No doubt there is some of both. I just want to get a feel for where your head is on that....and anybody can reply.

Oh...I don't care to debate what failure is or means. It is a word I used. Not necessarily a reflection on any individual as a person any more than it can be used as a reflection on the system, so we don't need to go down that path.

Any American who works 40 hours a week should make a living wage. Not get rich. Not have a huge savings account. Not be able to afford to buy a home. Not be able to afford a new car.

That's what the minimum wage was created to accomplish. If you're talking about "success" on a grander scale it's up to a person to invest in an education or learn a trade that pays far better than minimum wage. Minimum wage is a "starting point".


If the system isn't providing this be the minimum standard for wages in America, the system is failing.

If you wish to talk about our economy, we have a consumer driven economy. The more people that can make a living and have an income which allows them to feed the economy, the stronger our economy becomes. Your economy will not thrive unless and until more people have more purchasing power.

As of now it takes propping up business with zero percent loans, huge tax breaks and other subsidies that give the appearance of a strong economy. You can make anything appear good if you throw enough money at it.

How many kids should my living wage allow me to support?

I think you have come up with the perfect solution. Put up a road block to as to why people shouldn't make a living wage. In one thread you talk about how partisanship is a bad thing. In the next thread you use a standard partisan one liner.

It's not a roadblock, it's a valid question. Anytime someone brings up something you can't refute, you just accuse them of wanting people to live in poverty. Deplorable.

You keep saying people should earn a living wage. Well, that amount is different for everyone. Number of kids they have is one of those factors. That's the problem with liberals, you think there is a one size fits all solution to everything. There's not.

How do you define a single living wage for everyone when that amount will not work for everyone?

No, it's the standard roadblock that's always used as an excuse why it can't be done. To an extent you're right about there's not a "one size fits all" in what a living wage should be according to family size. It's also true that the cost of living varies from location to location.

But the minimum wage is a starting point. It's not a one size fits all answer. It's not going to solve every problem. Since the 1930's that's what it has been. Do you think that the people making minimum wage in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's and so on all had the same cost of living no matter where they lived? Do you think they all had the same family size?

Of course not. Yet now suddenly it's some excuse why the minimum wage should have been frozen since 2009?

Any time you can't refute something you continue to support working people to live and work for below poverty wages. Deplorable.

This has been covered ad nauseum many, many times. You just don't get it though.

McDonalds is not hiring at minimum wage. $11 an hour, here in n.w. Ohio.

Factories are starting people out at $12 to $20 an hour. They still can't fine employees. Well, those that show up anyway.

If you take a job at minimum wage, you have zero ability, zero desire to improve yourself, and zero skills. Heck, even running a cash register at a gas station pays $10.

Livable wage, at $10 or 11? No. But the people taking those jobs (which is few and far between) aren't looking for that.

If you want a livable wage, get a job that pays it. What's livable here is different than in NYC, obviously.

Heck, even part time production jobs, on Sat. and Sunday, are paying $20-25 an hour around here.

I'm the one who doesn't get it? You yourself admit many of these jobs do not pay a living wage. I stated and have proven what minimum wage was designed to do that very thing from the beginning. And it was designed to include "all of business".

All you have done is come up with excuses as to why it shouldn't. And once again you use the term "around here" like it represents the entire nation. It certainly does not.

so is anybody gonna actually post their individual dream list? or is this just another "thanks y'all" thread?

I’m dreaming more and more of one day becoming an expat. Does that count?

Incorrect. No part time job was meant to be a livable wage.

Check out jobs. NO ONE is starting a full time job at minimum wage. And "around here" applies to the country, son.

But, as I stated, this topic has been covered so many times it's not worth having a discuss.........a lecture from you.

If you work full time and do not make enough to live above the poverty line, the minimum wage isn't high enough. The minimum wage should meet that standard. Even making well above the minimum wage does not accomplish that at this time.

You keep harping about how few people actually make minimum wage. But that really isn't the point at all. The point is even that $11 and $12 dollar an hour job doesn't get you above the poverty line. You even admitted such in your own post.



Are you getting the point now?



Facts are not a lecture except for people who wish to put a negative light on the facts.

"Son"? Now that's rich considering you're the one having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept.

Okay Burger king.

Have it your way.

Tell us all, oh guru of economics. What is the magical minimum wage you seek? Keep in mind, part times jobs are not, nor never WERE designed to be livable wage jobs.

And tell us, in what areas of the country, state by state, county by county, would be the minimum wage?

Then tell us why?

Also, tell us, oh economic guru, why every company out there is hiring, at WELL above min. wage for a full time job, with benefits, yet can't find employees.

Also, tell us about inflation.

Ah, your personal attack against anyone who you disagrees with. And you wonder why we can never have a productive conversation. I should have known better than to try and engage in a debate with you. Once again, someone who can grasp a simple concept is not a guru.

You can tackle it in several ways. One way would be to take the standard and cost of living in each state or county and set the living wage accordingly in those areas. Just make a set of parameters that each location must use to determine that wage so it can't be manipulated by localities or politicians.

Now, without resorting to calling you names I have responded. Let's see if you can step up to that level of decency.

It's not my job to be your answer boy about everything you're not willing to look up and answer for yourself.

Let's be clear. You're talking full time jobs, correct?

You want some 1000 to 3000 different minimum wage jobs?

Oh, you forgot, nobody makes minimum in a full time job.



If I remember correctly, you are retired, or on disability and retired, due to your back - if I have that incorrect, I apologize.

Let's talk inflation as well.

First let's recap. Minimum wage was set up and supposed to be a living wage. I have provided the information and quote from FDR himself who came up with the legislation which establishes that. So what the actual stated minimum wage is currently has no impact on what the minimum wage is supposed to be. Stating people make well above the minimum wage doesn't change anything. And yes, I'm speaking about a wage that full time employment would put you making above the government poverty level.

Honestly I think you would object no matter how it's set up. If I suggested a minimum wage for the entire country you would object because the cost of living around the country is so different it is a bad idea. I've actually seen you do that. If I suggest it be set according to living standards of the communities themselves you say it's a bad idea because it's too confusing. There's always some excuse why people working full time jobs should not make a living wage.

So throw out your " nobody makes minimum wage in a full time job " and let's address the actual issue. "How many people are working full time that make wages below the poverty level". Because that's the actual topic here and the threshold which minimum wage was established to address.

And what my income is and how I make my money isn't of your concern. Let's just say I'm willing to pay a little more for the things I purchase so the people that supply me those things don't get paid below the poverty level while working full time. Apology accepted.

And you can talk inflation all you like. I understand that angle too. As I said, I'm willing to pay a little more so working people can earn a living.

Who are these people, and where are these people, that are making minimum wage at a full time job?

Thanks in advance, as I can't find any.

$25 an hour with auto incremental increases tied to the inflation rate should do it. That is an actual living wage. And you are wrong about part time jobs, they were created by business to avoid paying mandatory benefits for full timers. Hell, Walmart got caught several years ago trying to put all their managers and long term full timers onto a 36(?) hour work week to dodge benefits.

That's no damn different than hiring "independent contractors" for a regular job instead of employees to avoid paying matching social security, workers comp, and benefits to real employees.

And honestly, I think businesses and employees should negotiate wages and cut these deals themselves. BUT since we spent the last 40+ years doing nothing but bolstering big business and the elite, while working people took all the hits from the elites' job killing sellout to China, India, and other (what used to be) third world economies. Now the well to do elites feel entitled to profits from treating workers like medieval surfs that must serve the nobles on their terms or die.

The fact is that if you take the median wage of the working poor from 40 years ago and increase it at the same rate of inflation/price increases, well it would be between $25-$28 dollars per hour.

This is how much the elites have diminished the buying power of the dollar and American middle class. They are erasing the middle class and blaming it on programs that help the poor and working class so they can take those away too.

But you go ahead and take the side of the elite in this one because if your side knows how to do one thing right, it is to vote against your own self interests.

However, I think you are smarter than that. I'm sure you care about your bottom line because you have a family to feed. So, please explain to me, how you working for less helps them? Or how inflation caused by putting more money in the hands of the middle and lower classes to spend with small businesses like yours will hurt you? Think of it as trickle up spending to counter all the trickle-down BS we were sold from Reagan until about 2016 when it was finally exposed for the self-serving elitist transfer of wealth agenda that it is?




The base of $25 and hour everywhere with those areas that have a higher cost of living able to adjust UP with State laws, but not DOWN. And consider this a leveling of the playing field or a reversal of the last 40+ years of austerity economics for the middle class and poor. Between a livable wage and tax reforms we can restore the middle class and reset the bottom to top wealth transfer that has been going on since the 80s. Of course, the elites will cry because they do not get 90% of the pie, but they will still be rich and hurt for nothing.



The employee shortage is multifactor arch. Some decided to stay home and not re-enter the work force due to the ongoing covid pandemic, childcare expenses, holding out for better pay, or some other change in their lives that causes them to not want to work or prevents them from working.

I mean as of today 700,000 people are DEAD from covid. And who knows how many are suffering debilitating long term effects? Since covid was so politicized and changed the financial situations of most middle class and poor Americans, who knows what other issues are keeping people from running out to work for these companies struggling to find help. You do realize the labor shortage is GOOD for laborers and their families, right? When was the last time you saw un-negotiated pay increases being offered across the board because working people took a stand? Seriously, if you cannot get behind this, then you do not care about laborers. Did you celebrate Labor Day?



Well I'll answer this trap question for you...

There are basically two types of inflation being conflated in most of these conversations. The first is sudden inflation where prices skyrocket while wages and opportunities stagnate. The other is inflation triggered by and everybody doing well and pricing adjusting accordingly. The latter is what we are facing now, not so scary but never ideal.


This is how I would answer your questions, even though I'm no financial guru but just a guy on a fan board like you.

Hey arch I'm calling BS on your statement that there are no minimum wage full time jobs. There are tons of jobs in offices, factories, retail, and menial labor jobs that start out at minimum wage with extremely low incremental raises... like a dime per hour per year... big whoops. Or at least, pre pandemic, this is how it was.

But now most of that has changed because people like me are fighting for people like you and I to have more in life; more wealth, more opportunities, and a better overall standard of living.

But please do stick by your guns and demand that nothing change and that we keep just making the elites richer until the rest of us eventually die off so they can have it all. And this isn't an argument or a shot at you, this is an effort to get you to think about what you are saying.

I appreciate your response. Not 1 bit of it makes sense, though.

It wasn't but a few months ago you wanted $15 an hour, even for kids working at McDonalds (and before you go there, those are part time jobs)

You apparently have no economic background. Jack pay to $25 an hour and watch what happens to inflation. Just saying.

You and pit can pay that.

$25 an hour for new hires? Dang, that makes the 20 year employee worth about $50 an hour, not?

And people on social security? Screwed. But, oh well, right?

I know this was for the snark, but you will be hard pressed to find it today unless you look at the mom-and-pop outfits like yours struggling to remain competitive during this whole living wage transition. But when you later get to increase prices, pay living wages, and still profit more than you ever did before all of this, then you will be lucky you got drug through it.

We all know what we had before is on life support. Elitist greed, a failing medical system, disappearing middle class, financial insecurity, food insecurity, and forty years of Reverse Robin Hood Economics has all but destroyed the American way of life. And that was all before Trump and on BOTH Parties.

So, for people like Joe Manchin and Mitch McConnell who only want tear-free-for-the-elite band-aids, well life is about to change drastically. And working people should just enjoy the ride and vote PROGRESSIVE. Hope that helps.

What? Who said I was struggling? A year and half ago, when EVERYONE (that had a job) was struggling, yea.

Today? Uh.............just last week, maybe 2 weeks ago, priced myself against 2 national chains. 40% less. Me. I was 40% less.

Perhaps you should speak of what you THINK you know, as opposed to what you absolutely don't have a clue about?

lol, hell arch, I'm not rich but I am self-made and middle class just like you. And you simply don't get to be my age, with my experience, and not understand the economy or how most of this works.

Yes, I called for the $15 dollar minimum a few months back BECAUSE THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS ON THE TABLE. It was already a compromise at $15, to recover the losses of 40 years of trickle down for the middle class, the actual adjusted minimum wage should be between $25-and $28 an hour. This means that somebody working for minimum wage in January 1980, would make the equivalent today at that rate. Is this idea too big for you to grasp or is it too far from everything you've been conditioned to believe is possible?

Well actually I never said anything about you struggling because you are right I don't know. But I did say "unless you look at the mom-and-pop outfits like yours(,) struggling to remain competitive". The way I meant for it to read is in white, should have put in that comma in parenthesis before the word 'struggling'...

But to be honest arch, just from my personal business acumen, the mindset that makes you think undercutting a national competitor by 40% to snag some work isn't something I would brag about. I mean think about it this way, you just told me you left 40% on the table because you feel, think, or reasoned (not sure which if any) that bidding on the job meant you had to take less to overcome their reputation, service, guarantee, or whatever makes you feel your work/product is worth less than a national competitor... but what I see is a guy who just left 40% on the table without being asked to do so. In sales, that is called dropping your pants for a deal.

I don't say that out of meanness or spite. Let me explain, I used to do that too and was happy because I felt that I was getting all I needed to get for the work and earning a fair profit for the work involved. But at some point, I stopped thinking like a guy selling his labor hourly or by the job and started thinking in terms of what the market could/would bare/allow and maximizing profits...

That is why I sold water softeners with RO systems for 5K-6K on average, during 1-2 hour in home sales calls, when people didn't even know they wanted the equipment I sold before I or my sales team got there. Major companies (Lowes, Home Depot< etc.) sell the same equipment for DIYers as minor home improvements for anywhere from 4-5 hundred and up to about 2K. Or my other national competitors like Rainsoft, Kenetico, or Hague water treatment companies sold in about the same price range with various sales models. And other national competitors like Culligan sold for less than us, in the same niche.

Along the way I learned to build value in my propositions with a company story, building Trust, showing expertise, defining the problem, discovering the problem in their home, getting on their side as a hero, then saving the day by offering common sense solutions with affordable payments that are fully guaranteed EVEN IF I GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

Long story short, I went from a few thousand a month in profits to thousands daily (6 days a week), sold way more equipment, had many more employees, and definitely was not mistaken for a mom-and-pop operation... although we were very much still a small business.

And, umm, this all cost next to nothing to develop and put in place upfront. We paid for the improvements and growth as we grew. I just had to get an inside look at the national competitions business systems to build mine to compete.

Again, not bashing you, just pointing out that you are leaving money on the table. And if you ever want to implement a profit driven business system similar to the national guys, I'd be glad to help you BECAUSE I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm no expert on everything business, but lead generation, marketing, sales, contracting, business systems development in both real life and in code, most things web coding related, identifying and resolving system issues, tracking everything to the ridiculous (for the data to make decisions), and just general business related ANYTHING are all things I excel at when I roll up my sleeves and go to work.

I've told my story of how I lost that business during the 08 crash and the series of health issues that followed; but none of that diminished my acumen or thought processes required to understand "how it all works". So, yes, I don't have what I used to have, but I damn sure still know what I know.

Is the fact that no person wanting a full time job makes minimum wage completely out of your comprehension? I think so.

You, and pit, are talking two different conversations. You keep harping about minimum wage. Cool. NO ONE working or wanting to work a full time legit job is making minimum wage. None. Here, or there.

You two conflate minimum wage with ................eh, you 2 aren't even worth my time, or prps bandwidth.

1. Abolish life without a chance for parole. If we remove that chance, we remove any incentive to redeem. I am not saying a murderer should go free in 10 years or anything like that. Maybe set it at 35 years before being eligible.

2. I agree. Legalize brothels. State supervised. It will cut down on STD's and generate income.

3. Have truck (18 wheels) free hours on the major roads in cities. Say 6am to 8:30 am and similar at evening rush.

4. I could see raising speed limits to 75mph.

5. Maybe rather than add more laws, maybe we should take a serious look at clearing many off the books? That ought to add to our freedoms. Many Federal laws restrict states. I am not talking about important things like civil rights...take speed limits. That is under federal regulation. Many states had no speed limits set years ago. You could be going 90 and go by a trooper. If the roads were clear and mostly straight, the trooper wasn't going to bother you. If the road was crowded and you were weaving through traffic or riding someone's ass, you would get a reckless driving citation if not simply hauled off to the cooler.

I think the road signs on highways read "Speed Limit reasonable and proper".

Oh, dear Lord: that is what you took from my post?????

Seriously>

I won't go any further other than .......nah, you're not worth it.

Sorry, had to edit this: YOUR personal business acumen?

You suggest raising prices - the guy that is anti capitalism? You want me to raise my prices so the poor cant afford me? Talking out of both sides of your mouth, I see. You want everyone to do with less, but higher wages, yet you care about the poor by mandating they get higher wages for doing..........what?

John, you speak out of both sides of your mouth. (John is my brother. Retired at age 56. Long story. Just got off the phone with him. He lives near .......

No, not at all on my part. I understand what you are trying to say, I just think your reasoning is flawed. None of this is really about minimum wage, it's about a living wage. I think you are wrong about no full-time jobs paying minimum wage, but for expedience's sake let's assume you are correct. Even today with the help wanted signs in every business window and the higher starting wages, raising the minimum wage is still very important! Over the last 40 years, employers have taken labor's share of the profits. Those great paying jobs from the good old days have all but disappeared. And all along the way, minimum wage has set the floor for what is legally acceptable as a low wage. This is to keep the new robber barons of old from dropping wages even further during the lean times.

But starting mostly in the 80s corps and corporate raiders started cutting all costs to the bone, forcing wages either down or to stagnate and not grow at a rate to keep up with inflation. This used to be a strategy for lean times but was exploited during boom times and made most corporations follow suit to both stay competitive and maximize value for shareholders.

So, when you factor in the sellout of America by it's CEOs, most people, including you, are probably working for less than what True Minimum wage should be. As a matter of fact, anyone making less than $25 an hour is working for less than minimum wage. But that requires critical thinking to see and comprehend, are you up to the task?

BTW - we can have convos with or without the snark, but we can't be nice to each other with the snark. I have all the sky is falling game day thread posters on ignore and would prefer we got along. We can debate and talk without all the shots. We both know no matter who starts it, the other will respond and escalate it... I'm not going to be banned for that during the season. Hope you feel the same.

And when wages get stupid, jobs go over seas. Period.

Even your own job can be done by someone in taiwan.

LMAO, here's a list:

-Legal Drugs
-Legal prostitution
-Legal abortion
-true equal rights and equality
-a strong social safety net
-scarlet T's tattooed on the forehead of everyone that voted for Trump in 2020.
-relocating the political center back to true neutral political center instead of calling the moderate right or true right the center. The center has moved right since Nixon was removed. In any other major modern country in the free world, American Progressives would be considered moderate left.

A couple other items for my list:

-Prison reform
-Judicial reform
-Balance the Supreme Court
-A review and updating to every law on the books at every level. (Visit https://www.stupidlaws.com to see why)
-Programs to end hunger, homelessness, and illiteracy.

You mean where are these people making less than a living wage which is what minimum wage is supposed to and was created to be?

Being purposely obtuse isn't helping your side of this debate. It's actually quite disingenuous.

Only one problem. I never said that. But don't let that stop you. Carry on.

I actually like your list. Couple areas we may differ on the overall benefit/effect, but in general I think you covered most of what is needed to get this country back on track.

But first and foremost, we all need to quit fighting amongst each other, it is exactly what they all want.

Barkley hit it on the head.

Sounds like you were a predator capitalist.

You know, the thing you rail against all the time.

I prefer to be fair with my customers, not rake them over the coals. It's weird how many jobs I get because of that attitude.

I ran a small business for some time. It helps a lot when you keep your overhead low. Larger businesses have a business location/shop they work out of which costs them. Employees where they have to pay into unemployment and other costs associated with that.

I too was able to keep costs down and still make a good profit margin.