Brutus_buckeye

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35968103/qb-lamar-jackson-says-requested-trade-ravens Maybe somehow signing Watson to all that guaranteed money was a secret plot to get back at Baltimore for stealing the team almost 30 years ago. Lamar likely would have signed if it were not for the Watson deal.

^ Cincinnati does have 2 rebates. The need for commercial was started around 20 years ago in an effort to get more residents downtown and encourage apartment development in older vacant downtown buildings. That has worked very well and it has not been the most controversial. The residential credit was a bit more controversial because it was city wide. It was also needed because they wanted to stop the exodus of residents to the burbs. The controversy was that it applied to all areas equally and there were many wealthier individuals who used it to do tear downs and redevelopments so the complaint was that the tax rebates were going to areas that did not necessarily need the rebate or areas that were not struggling for redevelopment. There is certainly an argument to be made on both ends of the residential issue, but that is the one that has caused the most controversy because unlike commercial, it pretty much applies across the board and also for commercial developments, council etc. has more power to force a developer to build a project in a certain way to qualify for the tax rebate (they can force the developer to add a certain % of affordable units or limit the size and scope of a project, etc. to what council and the community may want in commercial).

Again an ignorant statement on your end by someone who does not know anything about @Lazarus. He is someone who has hustled and saved and searched for opportunities to achieve. He has never had anything handed to him. His perspective is from someone who has had to hustle and work hard his entire life. Before trying to make generalizations about the speaking, maybe learn a little about their background first.

I will agree that the policies certainly had a disparate impact on the African American male community, but if you go back 30 years ago, this concept was not on the radar of policymakers. I do not thinking holding them accountable for failing to realize this is realistic, plus I do not think that such disparate impact is realized unless these policies actually happened and you could study the impact in real numbers and real life examples. I also would argue that even though there happened to be a disparate impact, that is not the same as stating that such a policy amounted to systemic racism because ultimately, you have to have a racist intent when you put the policy in place to have created such a systemic policy. I think the systemic racism term is vastly overused amongst progressives and as usual, they dilute the true meaning of the phrase and its impact. There are a few examples where systemic policies were put in place out of racist intent but those are few and far between today and often relics of the Jim Crow era. Probably the best example I would cite is the design of the interstate system with a lack of interchanges through minority neighborhoods limiting opportunity and growth to those neighborhoods. But again, those policies were put in place at a time (namely the 50s and 60s when such overt racism was still part of society and especially government)

That is a pretty ignorant statement on your end considering you know nothing about me. For starters, I provide housing for a lot of former felons who had drug trafficking arrests when they were in their teens and 20s and have turned their lives around so I see the results of these policies first hand. Regarding the progressive policies of the 1980s. While not progressive now, in the 1980s cities and their mayors got in line and embraced the whole war on crack. Go back in time and in the vacuum it made sense. There were many people, especially minorities in the cities who were suffering watching family members succumb to the scourge of crack cocaine. People were dying, becoming addicted and it was a drug that was preying on the poor. While the false narrative that is being bandied around today is that the war on crack was guided by racist policies that arose out of a new Jim Crow mentality (since you could no longer redline, overtly discriminate) in reality that was not accurate. The crack epidemic was a problem in the 80s and early 90s precisely because unlike cocaine (which was an expensive drug) it was a cheap drug that was manufactured easily and affordable to the masses. Yes, it would have been great if the police and Feds could have gone after the big cocaine kingpins in the US, but those were much harder targets to reach (especially given how due process laws work). There was a cry out on the street for tough policing amongst the people who lived in the poorest neighborhoods to keep the drugs out of their neighborhood because they affected their children and grandchildren the most. Mayors of large cities were fine with these policies because in one sense, it promised to make the streets safer. The tough on crack laws, eventually led to the 3 strikes your out policies that I think were misguided as they ended up incarcerating a bunch of young men for low level drug felonies who saw selling crack as an opportunity and potential way to earn money for their own advancement (it was probably a poorly calculated decision on their end but when you have lack of options it becomes a reasonable one). So yes, the policies went too far, and over time, the results have been studied and society has made changes to redress these matters. Jonboy, even your good friend Donald Trump even signed a bill to provide reforms for some of these policies from the 80s and 90s that failed. So, you have the wisdom of time to allow people to reflect on policies that did not work, but the main foundation for your argument, that these policies were put in place primarily out of racist intent and were specifically designed as a way to further hold minorities, especially African Americans back is a false premise that is perpetuated by progressive politicians who either do not understand the history or want to mislead those susceptible to the false narrative.

jonboy - you have always been good at casting blame at everyone else yet letting your own side off the hook. In reality, many of the very cities who rebel against the policies of the 80s were governed by the same progressive class of that day. They were bad policies then but your progressive buddies champion them as good policy and now when they backfire you seek to blame systemic racism or whatever fictitious buzzword that the progressive establishment wants to push at that moment. The fact of the matter is that while there may be bad policies, they are not necessarily there to support "white supremacy", keep minorities in the ghetto, steal and appropriate all ideas created by minorities for the benefit of white people, etc. etc. etc. I know you like to believe this garbage and I am happy to sell you some quality swampland in Florida for a premium because of it, but in reality, the rhetoric from people like Aftab is just not reality.

The largest cities were still run by progressives. The GOP had at least representation on councils in most cities but they were far in the minority. Now they are non-existent. Even in the 80s Cleveland and Cincinnati were run by Democrats. Maybe not at the county level but certainly the city level. New York, LA, DC, San Fran, Boston, etc. all those cities were progressive even back in the day. New York had Rudy back in the 90s but he was more the aberration than the rule. See I would take it the opposite way. Rhino may have been a private company but it was full of former staffers who worked for DeBlasio out of NYC for a number of years before setting out on their own. They understood what city leaders wanted and came up with a program to meet their needs and were allowed to get rich in the process because they were connected with the right politicians and political party. Don't trust government too much because when you get rid of competition and put all your faith in a so called benevolent body of elected individuals to do your interest, they will certainly let you down and they will also take more and more power for themselves. The best solution is always a robust private sector to counter corruption.

So this goes well to my overall point, especially when you relate it to politicians like Aftab. Back in the 1980s when the "war on drugs" started, you had seemingly "progressive" politicians at that time leading the large cities. These were the politicians in their day that claimed to be on the side of minorities and push their cause (just like Aftab claims today). They were the ones who embraced a lot of these policies, some of which looking back upon, we see as unsuccessful and we point to systemic racism and other boogeyman ideas that put them there. And the sad thing is that you have "progressive groupthink" that rallies around these bad ideas when the flaws in them are smacking them in the face. A perfect example in Cincinnati recently was the Renters Choice Initiative that PG Sittenfeld championed 4-5 years ago. This was a disingenuous piece of legislation to try and show his credentials as someone who stands up for renters and helps make rental housing affordable, especially for the minority community who is often boxed out by expensive security deposits. He came up with this idea because he went to a conference sponsored by a company call Rhino that had a product that would serve as an alternative to security deposits that they were pushing in New York. They came up with model legislation to allow cities to adopt this in their rental code and essentially give them a monopoly on the business in such cities. PG did not care about the product, he saw it as good potential headlines to show his progressive chops and act like he is solving an important problem and helping poor renters in the process. IN reality, what he was doing was inviting a company in (and legislating them a monopoly) to prey on poor renters through a product that, in many cases created a system where the resident would pay 2-3 times what a normal security deposit would be and, in the process, they would subject themselves to collections if they defaulted. This was lauded by the progressive groupthink across the country at the time as innovative and a way to level the playing field against "systemic racism" and allow minorities access to better housing. It checked all the progressive boxes, but in reality, it created a predatory scheme to take money from those who could least afford it. That is just another reason why the progressive schtick of systemic racism, the rich not paying their fair share, and all the other BS you hear out of Aftab's mouth is just that, a complete crock of sh*t

The war on crime was created to combat crime. As time went by, we learned a little bit more about what we should be prosecuting and what we shouldn't be prosecuting. If the war on crime was just another creation to apply Jim Crow restrictions in a more subtle way, then you would not have minorities serving in power positions in cities where they supposedly are enforcing such racist rules and regulations. The world is a tough place and there are certainly a lot of inequalities in society and there are some people who have more advantages over others. I get that, however, if you look at all of the problems of society and try and apply it through some lens that society and all structures of society are inherently racist (they aren't) then you will miss opportunities to truly solve the problem or pull yourself out of an environment that is keeping you from succeeding in the first place.

Those are not from new barriers created. Those were because the those barriers were there 60+ years ago. The barriers are not there anymore. That does not mean it is not still challenging to overcome the neighborhoods. It is not like redlining and Jim Crow went away and other race based barriers took their place. The barriers were removed for achievement, however, the results are not going to be noticed overnight. Go back 40 years and tell me there have not been results and achievement. Yes, there is still a ways to go, but it is not from institutional racism and barriers but rather economic conditions that are holding people back.

I agree there are clearly lingering results, but at the end of the day, you really cant go back and fix the sins of the past, you can only make sure that those impediments no longer exist in the future. This does not mean that many minorities are starting from a point of disadvantage, that is true, but at the same time it means that the barriers are removed to prevent them from seeing success. In the next generation or 2 the playing field will look vastly different provided people take the opportunity they have and move forward instead of trying to re-litigate the wrongs of the past.

Using the 1970s as a starting point, we are at 50 years + now which is about 3 generations ago. Today a child born will not have the restrictions faced by their grandparents to great grand parents in opportunities to find, grow and develop wealth. This does not mean that it will still not be harder for some who start from an underprivileged starting point that have some other non-systemic factors that keep them from being able to possibly rise to the same level as someone who was born higher on the economic ladder, but it means that many of the institutional impediments that have held people back generations ago no longer exist. If this were the 1950's and 1960's the cry of institutional racism and systemic barriers that hold back achievement and the ability to develop wealth would be very valid. However, today, to continue to use the crux of institutional racism and systemic racism is disingenuous of many politicians and does not reflect actual reality of 2022 and these politicians are attempting to try and live in the 1960's again.

Not to play devils advocate because I am a real estate guy but, not all homes are going to appreciate in value and if you buy at the wrong time and the wrong price, simply paying down your mortgage is not a wealth building tool and can even be a wealth losing tool. Yes, it creates some forced savings as you cannot access those funds, but you also lose potential investment power to invest in other vehicles to build wealth. If you own a house for 30 years in the wrong area, yes, your mortgage may be zero but there is no guarantee it would have appreciated over that time (especially if the house is not cared for, or neighborhood goes into blight). In this case, the homeownership because an albatross around the homeowners back as they are stuck in a situation where they lose money over time or that any gain is still way below inflation. Regarding the redlining comment, I think we need to move beyond that at this point. Yes, there was a time before all of our lifetimes where there was redlining going on and it negatively impacted certain neighborhoods and people. Yes there were a lot of people that suffered in poverty because of items like redlining and deed restrictions. However, these items have been gone for at least 70 years now, almost 4 generations. Yes, there are still lingering results, but there has been significant progress. The thing about Aftab which is very tiring is the fact that he needs to rely on these past tropes as if they are still in existence today and act as if the problem is not getting better. The way Aftab talks, it is if we are still living in the 1950s and 1960s from a racial standpoint and to that he is either disingenuous, lying or just refuses to recognize the progress that has been made.

TBF he was not necessarily saying anything about teacher pay. I was just referencing that as an anecdotal issue that school funding proponents cite. The problem I see with that is without drilling down deeper, you are just throwing money at something looking to solve a problem without any metrics to see if that is effective. It is akin to the problem you see in politics. Politicians pass a bill to address a perceived problem, they pat themselves on the back and take a victory lap, and in reality their bill really does nothing to actually address the problem and creates additional problems to be solved. To your point, certainly, there are some teachers that need more pay, some districts need to hire more specialists and staff to handle more challenging students, but it that true across the board? I would have my doubts on that. The one thing you do not see in education (albeit, it is challenging to get good data) is good metrics to measure where the money actually needs to be spent and what yields the best results.

To your point, too often the answer you hear about education is that we need more money to fund the schools so that we can attract and retain good teachers. Now, I do not want to argue whether teachers are paid well enough or not, but if it were simply about paying teachers the results should already be much better than they are and to date, I have not seen a study directly correlating teacher pay to student results. If you use the Catholic schools as an example (and again, it does not exactly correlate) most people would argue that children in the Catholic school system tend to achieve pretty good results overall. However, if you compare facilities most public schools have better facilities than most Catholic Schools and if you look at teacher pay, teachers on average earn about 30-40% less than what is paid by the comparable public school. At my children's school, one of the working groups I have been on has been working to adjust teacher pay so that it can at least get to 75% of what the comparable public school teacher in the peer public schools that our school pulls students from would earn, and our school pays their teachers more than many of the other schools in the archdiocese. With that being said, yes, every year, some teachers, especially in the 3-5 years of experience range will leave to go to public schools, but at the same time, they are able to attract new teachers who are qualified and good, and often times they will attract some of those public school teachers back in 3-5 years too who are willing to take the pay cut to do so. I am not saying teachers do not earn their pay or if some are underpaid, but for those who argue that teacher pay = results, I do not think that necessarily correlates.

What you propose is an extremely heavy lift. Not saying it cant be done but extremely difficult politically and you would have factions on both sides coming at you with knives out. Sometimes better ideas cause strife across all political spectrums. To your points 1) in many areas on average 55-68% of property taxes are allocated toward schools. The rest is allocated to other matters like the Zoo levy, libraries, Parks, etc. From a general funding standpoint the county/city gets very little. Cities, county and townships feast off the income tax, the income tax feeds their coffers. I would imagine flipping the funding between the various parties would be extremely hard and run into constitutional issues but assuming it could be done. 2) Also, regarding simplifying corporate rates, etc. - Ohio has a very convoluted tax structure and a lot of it has to do with the income tax. with so many different municipalities in the state who can levy their own income taxes Ohio is a difficult state to do business simply due to the tax code. Service companies like Janitorial, construction, etc. who place employees on job sites for a short period of time, or move them around to numerous job sites in the same county have a myriad of income tax reports they need to file with each municipality that they do business. This is what really complicates things. Having to file a tax return and withhold taxes for a 3 week job employees perform in say Dublin and then another 3 week job in UA or Westerville is highly burdensome and the amounts due to these small cities are often very diminimus. If Ohio really wanted to clean up the tax code and make things more efficient, they could start by abolishing municipalities to levy income taxes at the local level. Start at the county level or force the merger of many small municipalities. I think Kaisich was trying to spur this when he was in office and it helped some but still had a long way to go. 3) the other question about the state income tax issue is (assuming you substitute the funding from property to income and vice versa for cities/townships/etc.) does the state income tax in its current setting generate enough to fund the schools? Or how much would it need to go up in order to fund the schools.

While I would personally love to eliminate property taxes to fund education (as you mention, they are not the best means to create the equitable education system) I do not think that the income tax plan is palatable for a number of reasons. Assuming you are no longer using property taxes to fund schools, then you figure property taxes are reduced significantly. Practically speaking income taxes would have to rise significantly to offset the loss in funding. That is fine as many people would ultimately see it as a wash because while their inocme tax would go up, they would save a ton on property taxes. However, I think you would have a good number of those in the progressive camp unhappy with such a plan because the income tax (at least the initial withholding of it) would hit a lot more lower income individuals, many who may not pay tax but nonetheless still need to withhold the money, would not be paid as much by wealthier people who often have considerable wealth and assets tied up in real estate (which would be getting a huge tax break in this scenario). Just politically, I do not see how you could overcome these challenges, even if your funding proposal would the best way to fund the schools.

My point is, you obviously do not agree with the religious take on abortion/etc. But instead of recognizing it as a viewpoint that you disagree with, in many cases, those on the progressive side (and I do not want to necessarily implicate you directly) act like the other side's viewpoint, which they disagree with has no merit or value and must be shut down. They preach diversity and in the next breath try and shut down thought diversity. Very much of what you rail against on the conservative right, is celebrated by the left when they shut down that viewpoint. The point is that both viewpoints can coexist but much of the progressive side does not actually believe in the tolerance and diversity, they claim to espouse. Criticism and dialogue are great tools to foster the conversation. It is when you seek to try and shut down the other side by demagoguing them and seeking to diminish their humanity. I agree that there are a lot of people on the right who clearly do not understand many of the issues that happen with immigrants, violence against gay individuals and racism in society. At the same time, treating their perspectives as inferior because they do not agree with your viewpoint only shows your own closemindedness and inability to coexist with different viewpoints. For example, Maybe, just maybe, some of the AA studies classes should not be taught in public schools? Maybe they should? Maybe there is matter that is inappropriate and some of the conservative activists you lambast are justified in their opinions? To act like there is no debate in the matter clearly shows a lack of understanding on a complex issue and to completely dismiss the group standing against it as a bunch of dumb bigots just glosses over the flaws of your own argument. This is actually a policy position. The problem too often, both right and left, is that too many people are trying to equate a moral component to a policy matter. That stokes anger and emotion. It is good for politics but bad for policy. I think there is certainly an argument to be made around funding in public schools. To one extent, schools and teachers have become de-facto parents and babysitters in some areas, especially inner city districts. Teachers are being asked to get more and more involved in their children's lives because the parents are absent or indifferent. To that end, surely funding is something that should be discussed. There are many more services schools are being asked to provide beyond traditional education but they may not be funded to serve that purpose. On the other hand, there is certainly a policy decision that, at least for some districts, they receive more and more money but they are not producing the returns and outcomes desired. Maybe money may not be the answer and trying something different is the answer. One thing about the public school system, good/bad/ or indifferent is that it is pretty homogenous. While there are variations between states, most districts teach children the same material and the same way (yes, some offer Montessori programs and such, but overall education is fairly homogenous). Not all children respond the same way. Public schools in general, are not set up to change methodology quickly or easily. There is a lot of red tape in the process. There is certainly a legitimacy to the argument that throwing more money at public schools is not the answer and providing funding for other options like private, catholic and charter schools makes a lot of sense since not every student learns the same way, and AFTER ALL, isn't the goal about creating the best outcome for the child? If it is about the child's best interest, then shouldn't the education money spent on them actually be tied to them? It seems like the child is what often gets lost in the whole education debate. To your point, certainly, there is a lot of hyperbole in the conservative argument. However, the perception often comes out of frustration from an entrenched bureaucracy. When you completely dismiss the argument and debate, groups like the teachers unions often miss valid points and overlook areas where they are failing. Oftentimes, especially in bureaucracies, there is an air of infallibility amongst leadership. When you convince yourself that everything you do is perfect and right, you often set yourself up for a hard fall later on. Many unions, by completely dismissing some of these groups instead of trying to engage in dialogue are making matters worse and missing parts where they can find common ground and actually seek to create better results.

You say this, but your actions and other statements contradict that. "Again its not atheists threatening gay and trans rights. Its not atheists leading the charge against abortion rights. Its not atheists outrages over pronouns or gender identity" as you state. But in reality it is. You say this, but someone who does not seem to agree with your point on gender pronouns needs to be shouted down into oblivion. Someone who does not agree with saying certain matters are better taught in the home than in a general school setting is treated as a racist or homo=phobic without even considering the context of their viewpoint. In one breath you or others who claim to be progressive speak of the wonders of diversity but as soon as someone has a diverse opinion that is contrary to their own, they get shot down. Getting back to schools, can you see why there are a lot of parents who are upset? Do you understand why some, even very educated and mainstream individuals who would not be considered "fringe right wing" by normal people have lost faith in the educational system and choose (via vouchers or their own means) to educate their children in a different environment. The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. The goal of society is to create an educated group of people who are capable of some level of problem solving and analytical thinking and can come to their own conclusions from their perspective. The one argument I hear from those who are big proponents of the public schools are often from teachers unions who are seeking to consolidate power. The more monopoly power they have the more they can influence the debate. That should not be what the goal of education is about and it is unfortunate that it has been coopted the way it has in a way that at times is detrimental to the children.

This is quite amusing. You take one extreme example of some small off the deep end group that does not really relate to main stream people, and you try and demagogue an entire unrelated group with such false narrative. For someone who always talks about science and data you seem to rely a lot of misinformation in formulating your beliefs Essentially, doctors who may not share your set of beliefs are anti-science. A doctor who believes in God is anti-science in your opinion?? That makes a lot of sense. I get you are an atheist, good for you. But you seem to look down on those who do not share your viewpoints. Based on your prior writing, you seem to feel that doctors who believe in God are anti-science and should not be held to the same esteem as doctors who share your atheist viewpoints. This is a pretty dangerous viewpoint. It almost seems as if you had the power to do so, you would castigate any doctor who believes in God out of the medical profession because in your view, that is not science.

Dealing with college students, the worst damage was when they would go home for the Xmas break and turn off the heat in the house and then come back 3 weeks later to broken pipes and a flooded 1st floor and basement Although the dumbest college kid damage I had (although it was dumb on my end to install hardwood floors in the house) was a group of kids that had a party during a rain storm. They put the keg inside the house and kids were going in and out with wet shoes on and spilling beer all over the wood floors. The next day after the party, instead of cleaning the floors, they just let the puddles soak into the wood and it warped a bunch of floor boards. Instead of calling the landlord and letting us schedule floor people to re-sand the floors, they ripped the warped boards out of the floor necessitating the need to now replace the entire floor. Of course, when we called mom and dad about their damage, they said "well the floor was not brand new from the beginning so why should we pay for an entire new floor," not understanding that you could not fix the floor given the type of damage they did.

You're right. My kids are all in the k-8 range so our school is working off the $5500 number.

What is ironic about this, is that all the things you claim that Catholics and Christians are "doing" are fabricated in your mind and the people and media you associate with. Is it a problem that Catholics are anti-Abortion? You may disagree with their position but it seems like your position is to try and beat that into submission and eliminate any right they have to hold such views and function in society. Are books really banned?? Books are not being banned. Yes, concerned parents may feel that certain topics are not suitable for their children's education or maybe are better discussed in the home environment instead of the classroom. As far as I am aware, none of the books that the so-called conservative activists complaining about actually banned. You can go on Amazon and get them readily. You can go to many (not all) libraries in town to get the book as well. Yes, your kid may not be able to get the book in their school library, but if it is important for them to read, they can read it. That would not be a book ban, so lets keep things in perspective. You point to the Catholic Church attacking gay people. Again it is another ignorant statement that shows a lack of understanding about the beliefs. Now, I am not saying the Church does not have a ways to go when it comes to discussing such issues, but it is important to recognize that at no time have they ever disavowed the humanity of the individual and advocated for disrespecting and invalidating the existence of a certain group of people. Yes, they have doctrinal rules that you may or may not agree with, but the principles of dignity and respect of others are universal. So again, this shows a lack of understanding about the catholic schools and the Catholic Church. What is ironic is that you want to take your personal beliefs and use that as the baseline that all others need to conform too. You want to make everyone, whether they see things the same as you or not conform to the standard that you set and believe in no matter what other opinions may exist. So while you tend to claim you are aggrieved by various groups and parties, when given a position of power, you would show no mercy to anyone who would dare think differently.

The most common voucher is the Edchoice. I know there are a lot of Catholic schools in the city limits and inner ring suburbs that rely heavily upon them. The high schools typically take them but they only offset tuition, whereas many of the elementary schools cover the full cost. We do not qualify because the district I live in rates highly, but the school pulls from some areas of town where they qualify. The other key thing is that if your district did receive a failing grade and kids qualified for a voucher but the next year is no longer failing, you still can continue receiving the voucher as long as your child remains in that same school (which is reasonable, you do not want to yank kids in and out of school every year depending on the grade of their school district). The voucher is only up to $5500 (give or take) so to go to a school like Walsh or Hoban, you are still having to pay about 2/3 out of pocket, but $5500 is still a good benefit if available to you.

Right now vouchers are not means tested, you can qualify for them if you live in a district with a failing school. At my children's school, there are some families who live in fairly tony subdivisions who qualify for vouchers because their local public school received a failing grade.