yep

That isn't accurate, as its a bit more complicated. Non-union EV's would qualify for much of the proposed EV tax credit, but not all. Really, the only car that currently qualifies for both the American made and Union made is the Chevy Bolt.

US made - $2500 credit
union made - $2500 (senate version) or $4500 (House version)

I'm not sure I like the union subsidy though...I like unions, but I don't think it is the governments place to encourage unionization. They should stop efforts to bust unions, but encouraging...IDK.

they government should not discriminate against Non union workers either.

I don't know that I agree...but I don't strongly disagree either.

The one thing that makes it less/non-discriminatory in my mind, is that people can unionize. It isn't like its "F you, Texas." Its also a point that currently only one car qualifies for both credits. Why aren't more cars built in the US with Union labor? I guess for those companies it will be a decision - would unionizing cost me more than that credit will earn me?

Yeah it is kinda is a like "F" you red non union states , you rejected our union campaign supporters and donators now we are going to subsidize with your tax dollars your competition. Start kicking back cash to Fat Tony and the guys at the union hall and we will support you also.

If it was a bunch of blue states getting the benefit, but we are talking about one plant in Michigan.

So, with a sample size of one car model, one manufacturer, and one state, yes it has skewed blue. But Ford uses UAW labor and is already hiring up and investing to build the Ford E-Transit in Kansas City Missouri. Its the same plant that makes the F-150.

I'm not arguing at this point, I'm just saying it is a little more gray than a red/blue split. As far as union/non union...yeah, I suppose I would be hard pressed to argue that it is fair, but I think we'd be better off if workers were generally unionized, so I'm biased. Yes I know there have been union corruption scandals and the like, but we don't toss the baby out with the bath water.

Side point - I really don't like the red state/blue state thing. The reddest state has a lot of blue, and the bluest state has a lot of red. Wyoming is the reddest with nearly 70% R 16.5% D. The bluest is NY at 50.4 D, 21.8% R. We ignore a lot of people when we characterize a state so simply.

its being used as club to try and force Unionization among the manufacturers that are open shop

Maybe. Or it's a 🥕 to the unions for voting Democrat.

Yep carrot for the unions...... club for the open shops

Would that it weren't so, but that's the system. Tons of coal and oil subsidies and tax breaks too. Some of them probably even have a justifiable reason for existing.

If that tax credit ends up getting ford to build here instead of Mexico, was it worth it? Because it isn't just union vs non union is it?

Not if they import Mexicans to make the cars in Michigan

Even so we would gain, though not as much. Someone living and working here is going to be paying taxes, rent, etc. here.

" But we pay more now per person and as a percent of our GDP than them." Agreed but why I suspect when we get prescription reform here Canada will have to start toting their end of the research note and not get subsidized anymore they also benefit from tort reform up there

I mean, we are way out of bounds at this point. Honestly, there is no point in debating this other than to correct misconceptions till we have congress and a Whitehouse that will put out a bill to make it happen. The devil is in the details after all.

I don't mean to move the goal posts on you , my point is we need a system like Canadas where only people that can pay to stay get citizenship they can afford socialized medicine because they do not import 2.5 million poor people every year,

Pay to stay...I mean, I'm not inherently against some basic requirement or a probationary period prior to full citizenship. I would think that there would need to be exceptions, though I honestly don't know exactly what those would be.

M4A - But we pay more now per person and as a percent of our GDP than them.

2019, the US paid 3.9 trillion / $11,582 per person / 17.7% of our GDP

Canada paid 265.5 billion / $7,063 per person. / 11.5% of their GDP

So, if we managed to implement Canada's plan with no improvements or lessons learned, we would pay 2.3 trillion. That's a 1.6 trillion savings.

Now that said, it probably isn't quite that simple. I imagine the first years there would be additional costs to roll out the new system. I know Bernie Sanders proposal also had money set aside to pay for training and extended unemployment for people displaced - one of the reasons its cheaper is that a single payer system has much less overhead for insurance billing...but still. How can we not afford something that is cheaper everywhere it has been tried? Its not like we would be trailblazers on this.

Schools, Medicare, SSN, free college, extended family leave, elder care, debit service contrary to what is the current rage its not free

I feel like the goalposts of this conversation are moving...

Who thinks its free? Taxes have to pay for it. People say free as in not out of pocket. We have toll roads and non-toll roads. As toll roads are the exception, we add the label to the toll roads and the default is just a road. Taxes still built that non-toll road. At the moment, college is an out of pocket expense. A public/free college is therefore labeled 'free' to differentiate it.

Medicare "Residents of the U.S., including citizens and permanent residents, are eligible for premium-free Medicare Part A if they have worked at least 40 quarters (10 years) in jobs where they or their spouses paid Medicare payroll taxes and are at least 65 years old. Legal immigrants who are age 65 or older who do not have this work history can purchase Medicare Part A after residing legally in the U.S. for five years continuously."

If you mean Medicare for all / universal healthcare -> we are one of the last countries not to have universal healthcare, yet we pay more total and per capita than any other country for our medical care. And while some countries have worse care for sure, quite a few that are close to us in wealth and quality of life are as good or better. It honestly upsets me every time I think about the people in the US who have to file for medical bankruptcy. And that doesn't even include the ones who go all-but bankrupt paying those bills. And other countries don't have that as a problem. I really don't like that.

SSN - Same 10 year requirement for them to draw SSI, with exception. Apparently we have agreements with 25 countries that allow work experience to transfer (I did not know this before just now.) Pretty cool. You work 10 years in Australia and move here and work 10 years. Combine the two to get benefits based on all 20 years. I guess you can also move to one of those countries after retirement. I wonder how many people know about this. It might be nice to live a few years in Spain or the Netherlands at/before retirement. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030816/immigrants-over-65-and-social-security-benefits.asp

As far as other programs...I would imagine we can come up with sensible requirements to qualify for them.

"Someone living and working here is going to be paying taxes, rent, etc. here." problem is 60% of all Americans consume more in government services than they pay in taxes, if they have children its even more out of whack.

Most such programs are means tested, so I'm guessing those wouldn't be the ones with good paying union jobs. And while there are apparently exceptions for refugees, people here on a work visa or who naturalized don't qualify for most services until they've been here 5 years. Exceptions would be at the local state level. I think there may be exceptions for children and pregnant mothers via WIC, but its been a while since I researched that.