Henry Ford
Footballguy
She will eventually be in a leadership position. While she isn’t is the time to be a little passionate about big changes.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Democrats' House Agenda (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hilts
- Start date
Hilts
Footballguy
This should make for a great conservative talking point.
After a 181-year ban, House Democrats aim to allow religious headwear on the floor.
After a 181-year ban, House Democrats aim to allow religious headwear on the floor.
The Commish
Footballguy
It's not going to be from a lack of effort on this administration's part to suppress renewables. The tax credits go away at the end of the year and the tariffs on solar panels are direct shots at the industry in an effort to slow them. They might not be able to ultimately stop it, but they are going to do their damnedest to contain it.
the moops
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Noah Shachtman @NoahShachtman 4h4 hours ago
NEW: @RepAdamSchiff's house intelligence committee is hiring money laundering and forensic accounting experts. This is not good news for Donald J. Trump.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-intelligence-panel-hiring-money-laundering-sleuths
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Really? Civil rights? Gay marriage? Campaign finance reform? Obamacare? Virtually every major change takes place gradually.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
When 70% of Americans want Medicare for all and Pelosi, most Dems and the Republicans won't consider it ask yourself why, not gradual enough? Or bought and paid to be against it. Medicare for all his a huge political vote winner yet most politicians are against it, I wonder why? I guess it is happening too fast, GTFO with the nonsense.
The Commish
Footballguy
WTF are you talking about? You asked for examples of major change that took a decade. All those things took at least that long if not longer. He gave you exactly what you asked for. You seem to want to be talking about why it takes so long. If that's the case, maybe that's the question you should ask
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
You do understand the difference between something vague like “are you in favor of Medicare for All” polling at 70% and actually getting that legislated, right? Come on dude.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Excuses from the corporate Dems playbook. Four more years of Trump because you elitists never learn. But we can go to war and kill innocent people quick, right? But something for the people, must be gradual. No wonder there is so much disdain for the Dem elitiests.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Is that bill law? Oh it’s not? Why not? Because it doesn’t have the votes. Guess who gets votes better than any Congrassional leader in your or my lifetime?
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Tell me the votes she got for the middle class on any issues. If you even say Romney care I will puke.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
One of my best friends here in Ocean Beach California is alive today because of Obamacare. Without it, he would be dead. Does that make you nauseous?
squistion
Footballguy
Adam Schiff says Intel Dems will delve into Trump's international financial entanglements — on the Saudi matter and others.
"There are a whole set of potential financial conflicts ... and emoluments problems that Congress will need to get to the bottom of."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/11/23/democrats-must-hold-trump-accountable-on-saudi-arabia-adam-schiff-explains-how/?noredirect=on
"There are a whole set of potential financial conflicts ... and emoluments problems that Congress will need to get to the bottom of."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/11/23/democrats-must-hold-trump-accountable-on-saudi-arabia-adam-schiff-explains-how/?noredirect=on
Classic Green Lanternism. We could achieve everything we want, with no trade-offs, if only politicians had the will/weren't so cautious/weren't bought off by their corporate overlords.
For the record, I'm all for aiming big. I don't want Democrats negotiating with themselves and limiting their ambitions at the outset. What I object to is the notion that, if we fail to achieve the maximalist agenda, it's automatically the fault of venal, spineless politicians who are being controlled by corporate interests.
I'm sure your purity helps you sleep better at night, but at @tommyGunZ says, people who were uninsurable before the passage of the ACA couldn't use your purity to pay for cancer treatments while they waited for Congress to pass Medicare for All.
squistion
Footballguy
Adam Schiff:
"The President is not being honest with the country about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi … Is his personal financial interest driving U.S. policy in the gulf? ... We don't know but it would be irresponsible not to find out."
(via CNN)
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1066738734517927937
"The President is not being honest with the country about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi … Is his personal financial interest driving U.S. policy in the gulf? ... We don't know but it would be irresponsible not to find out."
(via CNN)
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1066738734517927937
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
It's always this same excuse. It is so tired. Bank deregulation, wars, bank bailouts all get sweet quick deals. If getting ACA with a super majority is what you deem as a success so be it. You are part of the problem in my opinion. I know, I know Lieberman and the other bs. Always an excuse and a president that didn't address the nation once to fight for universal healthcare.
But while you worry about my purity, I will wonder why at least 12% of Americans are without healthcare. But they probably don't have cancer, right? But ACA, so we can forget about the rest.
Keep rewarding and backing a corporate agenda and citizens will keep dying early unnecessarily.
Money talks. What the only developed county when you can go bankrupt from medical bills?
Did corporate profits go up or down under Romney care?
Enabling is just as bad as ignoring.
Last edited by a moderator:
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Every spring as the playoffs get underway, a bunch of posters like Weebs that I know from elsewhere on the board venture over to the FFA NBA thread to submit arrogant, poorly reasoned and easily refuted posts about the sport, ignore posts that refute those terrible points, and generally troll and insult the thread regulars. Sometimes I warn my fellow NBA fans about these posters, but other times I just sit back and watch them learn the lesson for themselves. Eventually they always do.
Why I am sharing that anecdote here? Oh, no particular reason.
Why I am sharing that anecdote here? Oh, no particular reason.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
We're really crappy at solving big problems until it's almost too late. One of these times it will be too late.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Also, I love that you have zero rebuttal but "purity" "communism" "maximalist" it's really pathetic.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Your minimal agenda, got a SCJ seat taken away from the Dems and a maximalist agenda got Kavanaugh shoved down your throat. Great job.
Hilts
Footballguy
House Democrats unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal. Democrats will take up voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a lobbying crackdown — all in their first bill of the year.
House Democrats will unveil details of their first bill in the new Congress on Friday — a sweeping anti-corruption billaimed at stamping out the influence of money in politics and expanding voting rights.
This is House Resolution 1 — the first thing House Democrats will tackle after the speaker’s vote in early January. To be clear, this legislation has little-to-no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate or being signed by President Donald Trump.
But by making anti-corruption their No. 1 priority, House Democrats are throwing down the gauntlet for Republicans. A vast majority of Americans want to get the influence of money out of politics, and want Congress to pass laws to do so, according to a 2018 Pew Research survey. Given Trump’s multitude of scandals, it looks bad for Republicans to be the party opposing campaign finance reform — especially going into 2020.
The issue is being spearheaded by Rep. John Sarbanes (MD), a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform who has long disavowed corporate PAC money. Sarbanes and other House Democrats have been working with progressive heavy hitters in the Senate including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), whose own wide-ranging anti-corruption Senate bill was recently introduced in the house by Sarbanes and progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA).
On Friday morning, Sarbanes and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (who is poised to become the next House speaker) will introduced the latest details along with a group of freshmen Democratic members, including Angie Craig (MN), Veronica Escobar (TX), Mike Levin (CA), Tom Malinowski (NJ), Ilhan Omar (MN), Chris Pappas (NH), Dean Phillips (MN), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA), and Susan Wild (PA).
“You’re hearing the same clamor, which is, ‘Let’s fix this rotten system and restore people’s voice,’” Sarbanes told Vox in an interview last month. “You have to show them that you get the underlying issue. You want to, in a sense, clear the decks for democracy to work. That’s why we’re leading with that.”
What this anti-corruption bill aims to do
Sarbanes says the goal is to have a bill, which has many details yet to be hammered out, ready to be voted on by January 3 — the first day of the new session.
There are three main planks the bill covers: campaign finance reform, strengthening the government’s ethics laws, and expanding voting rights.
Campaign finance
Public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. Under Sarbanes’s vision, the federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. “If you give $100 to a candidate that’s meeting those requirements, then that candidate would get another $600 coming in behind them,” Sarbanes told Vox this summer. “The evidence and the modeling is that most candidates can do as well or better in terms of the dollars they raise if they step into this new system.”
Passing the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline (RI) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require Super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.
Passing the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Mark Warner (VA), which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money of political ads on their platforms, and share how much money was spent.
Ethics
Requiring the president to disclose his or her tax returns.
Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases or buy first-class plane tickets.
Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements.
Create a new ethical code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.
Voting rights
Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting and online voting would also be promoted.
Restoring the Voting Rights Act, part of which was dismantled by a US Supreme Court decision in 2013. Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging.
Beefing up elections security, including requiring the Director of National Intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.
Democrats want to “walk the walk”
The anti-corruption reform effort is nothing new for Sarbanes, who stopped accepting PAC money seven years ago and once joined a frigid walk in zero-degree weather across part of New Hampshire to commemorate Doris “Granny D” Haddock, the late activist who trekked across the entire nation to make a point about campaign finance reform.
The influence of lobbying and money has been entrenched for years on both sides of the aisle, but Republicans especially have been in the news for it. Vox’s Tara Golshan and Dylan Scott noted a total of four House Republicans were embroiled in corruption scandals before the midterms — two, Chris Collins and Duncan Hunter, were reelected despite those scandals.
But even though they have a good foil in House Republicans, Sarbanes says his party needs to undergo a serious reckoning of its own.
“Walk the walk, and we’ve got to walk it quick,” Sarbanes told Vox in a recent interview. “A lot of [voters] don’t believe it can happen because the system is rigged. That’s why when you come with a plan for that, too, it sort of caffeinates everything else. It makes them feel like, okay now you’re talking.”
“It’s not until you come here and begin to serve that you understand how woven it is into the fabric of how Washington operates,” Sarbanes continued. The Congress member compared his own refusal of PAC money to putting on “night-vision goggles that have you then see how money flows everywhere here.”
Democrats know they don’t actually have a shot of passing HR-1 through the Senate, nor getting it off the president’s desk. But they recognize they need to get serious about the issue, even if the other party won’t.
This is House Resolution 1 — the first thing House Democrats will tackle after the speaker’s vote in early January. To be clear, this legislation has little-to-no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate or being signed by President Donald Trump.
But by making anti-corruption their No. 1 priority, House Democrats are throwing down the gauntlet for Republicans. A vast majority of Americans want to get the influence of money out of politics, and want Congress to pass laws to do so, according to a 2018 Pew Research survey. Given Trump’s multitude of scandals, it looks bad for Republicans to be the party opposing campaign finance reform — especially going into 2020.
The issue is being spearheaded by Rep. John Sarbanes (MD), a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform who has long disavowed corporate PAC money. Sarbanes and other House Democrats have been working with progressive heavy hitters in the Senate including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), whose own wide-ranging anti-corruption Senate bill was recently introduced in the house by Sarbanes and progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA).
On Friday morning, Sarbanes and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (who is poised to become the next House speaker) will introduced the latest details along with a group of freshmen Democratic members, including Angie Craig (MN), Veronica Escobar (TX), Mike Levin (CA), Tom Malinowski (NJ), Ilhan Omar (MN), Chris Pappas (NH), Dean Phillips (MN), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA), and Susan Wild (PA).
“You’re hearing the same clamor, which is, ‘Let’s fix this rotten system and restore people’s voice,’” Sarbanes told Vox in an interview last month. “You have to show them that you get the underlying issue. You want to, in a sense, clear the decks for democracy to work. That’s why we’re leading with that.”
What this anti-corruption bill aims to do
Sarbanes says the goal is to have a bill, which has many details yet to be hammered out, ready to be voted on by January 3 — the first day of the new session.
There are three main planks the bill covers: campaign finance reform, strengthening the government’s ethics laws, and expanding voting rights.
Campaign finance
Public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. Under Sarbanes’s vision, the federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. “If you give $100 to a candidate that’s meeting those requirements, then that candidate would get another $600 coming in behind them,” Sarbanes told Vox this summer. “The evidence and the modeling is that most candidates can do as well or better in terms of the dollars they raise if they step into this new system.”
Passing the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline (RI) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require Super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.
Passing the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Mark Warner (VA), which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money of political ads on their platforms, and share how much money was spent.
Ethics
Requiring the president to disclose his or her tax returns.
Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases or buy first-class plane tickets.
Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements.
Create a new ethical code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.
Voting rights
Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting and online voting would also be promoted.
Restoring the Voting Rights Act, part of which was dismantled by a US Supreme Court decision in 2013. Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging.
Beefing up elections security, including requiring the Director of National Intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.
Democrats want to “walk the walk”
The anti-corruption reform effort is nothing new for Sarbanes, who stopped accepting PAC money seven years ago and once joined a frigid walk in zero-degree weather across part of New Hampshire to commemorate Doris “Granny D” Haddock, the late activist who trekked across the entire nation to make a point about campaign finance reform.
The influence of lobbying and money has been entrenched for years on both sides of the aisle, but Republicans especially have been in the news for it. Vox’s Tara Golshan and Dylan Scott noted a total of four House Republicans were embroiled in corruption scandals before the midterms — two, Chris Collins and Duncan Hunter, were reelected despite those scandals.
But even though they have a good foil in House Republicans, Sarbanes says his party needs to undergo a serious reckoning of its own.
“Walk the walk, and we’ve got to walk it quick,” Sarbanes told Vox in a recent interview. “A lot of [voters] don’t believe it can happen because the system is rigged. That’s why when you come with a plan for that, too, it sort of caffeinates everything else. It makes them feel like, okay now you’re talking.”
“It’s not until you come here and begin to serve that you understand how woven it is into the fabric of how Washington operates,” Sarbanes continued. The Congress member compared his own refusal of PAC money to putting on “night-vision goggles that have you then see how money flows everywhere here.”
Democrats know they don’t actually have a shot of passing HR-1 through the Senate, nor getting it off the president’s desk. But they recognize they need to get serious about the issue, even if the other party won’t.
Johnnymac
Footballguy
#### big business. They have had a nice long run of basically running roughshod over people's lives. #### em!
squistion
Footballguy
Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 18m18 minutes ago
Rep. Elijah Cummings, ranking member on House Oversight Cmte., has sent 51 letters to the White House, multiple federal agencies, and others "insisting on full compliance" with previous document requests.
"These are documents that even the Republicans ... believed we needed."
Rep. Elijah Cummings, ranking member on House Oversight Cmte., has sent 51 letters to the White House, multiple federal agencies, and others "insisting on full compliance" with previous document requests.
"These are documents that even the Republicans ... believed we needed."
Sand
Footballguy
I'd retire the day this passed. Since means testing in this country is income based there's no financial incentive to keep working. The government teat will do.
The US isn't in charge of this train. And, in fact, has had a huge drop in emissions lately. Perhaps India and China need to take the lead here. I'd say they were restrained by the Paris Agreement, but they were exempted. Which shows you how effective that thing is/was.
Too high - the graphic in that article is superb. If you look at the history the inflation adjusted sweet spot is ~$10 an hour. From there index it to inflation and let states and localities tag on what they want.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnnymac
Footballguy
Oh yes, we certainly can't cut into profits, right? I mean, the bottom line is all that seems to matter anymore. Employees used to be called assets. That went away a long time ago.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'd appreciate it if you'd unpack this, I think I must be misunderstanding. Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't work gets some sort of government dole in this country?Sand said:
Sand
Footballguy
Based on a couple things. Workers in the US would bear a much larger tax cost to implement MFA - taxes would have to go up. And I'd expect that this program would be means tested like the ACA - the ACA has a subsidy cliff that highly penalizes those just above it in income.
Personally I believe it moot as I don't think the ACA is going anywhere.
If you look into the Seattle experiment it was a net negative for employment in that wage range. Slightly negative, but still negative. More people lost jobs or got cut back than those that reaped the rewards of the higher salary. And these days you're competing against automation. The thought that the market will simply absorb the $15 is unfortunately wrong. Employers will make adjustments to this and it's entirely possible, as with Seattle, that we see a net negative effect. In fact, given that Seattle was already a pretty HCOL place and a Federal law would affect places that are much lower on the average income scale, we're very likely to see a significantly more pronounced negative outcome.Johnnymac said:
Last edited by a moderator:
the rover
Footballguy
The same researchers that released the study that said that raising the minimum wage in Seattle was a negative last year revised their conclusions about a month ago. You're relying on incorrect and stale data to form unsupported conclusions.
Sand
Footballguy
Looked it up for you.
The study revisited noted a couple things - the results were variable among different groups and that the criticisms on their work still hold. In the conclusion from the NYT:
That's a tepid conclusion, by all accounts, and nowhere near the inference of your condemnation of what I wrote.
The biggest criticism is a hugely significant - this experiment was undertaken during the best booming jobs market of our lifetimes; the jobs market was absolutely smoking in Seattle during this time. So you really think that the results of this revisited study, that it helped a bit for some and hurt for others in as good a job market as this was instituted in, would hold during normal times or a recessionary environment?
This just affirms what I was saying. In other less robust job markets in the country, particularly those where the wage jump would be much larger on a percentage basis, instituting this would be very, very likely be deleterious to the very population it purports to assist.
I still believe a reasoned, middle of the road approach of a $10 federal minimum wage that's indexed to inflation is the most likely to maximize results for young/low skilled workers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Far and away the biggest unknown cost in retirement is medical expenses. My job related health benefit is the anchor holding me down.
the moops
Footballguy
OK cool. I would also like to leave my job, but my health benefits are stageeringly good. So...shouldn't you be advocating for the passage of this?
Sand
Footballguy
I worry more about what will be good for my kids than what is in my naked self interest.
squistion
Footballguy
The incoming Ways and Means chair plans to request copies of Trump's tax returns from Treasury.
He believes he has the authority under an obscure 1924 law — 26 U.S. Code § 6103 — which was passed to monitor conflicts of interest in the executive branch.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-want-use-obscure-law-grab-donald-trump-s-tax-n949286?cid=eml_nbn_20181220
He believes he has the authority under an obscure 1924 law — 26 U.S. Code § 6103 — which was passed to monitor conflicts of interest in the executive branch.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-want-use-obscure-law-grab-donald-trump-s-tax-n949286?cid=eml_nbn_20181220
the rover
Footballguy
Hilts
Footballguy
Democrats are introducing a bill that will ask for the last ten years of a candidate's tax returns. Link
Pelosi to the president: "We can go through the back and forth," the incoming House speaker told NBC News in an exclusive interview. "No. How many more times can we say no?" Link
ETA the tax return portion will never pass, but if it did would that mean Trump would have to do it if he ran for re-election? What happens if a candidate simply ignores the law and decides to run without releasing it? After this potus I really worry about the power of these laws if a corrupt charlatan gets back in office - there don't appear to be enough ways to slow their roll if they're just willing to say eff it. That's a problem.
Pelosi to the president: "We can go through the back and forth," the incoming House speaker told NBC News in an exclusive interview. "No. How many more times can we say no?" Link
ETA the tax return portion will never pass, but if it did would that mean Trump would have to do it if he ran for re-election? What happens if a candidate simply ignores the law and decides to run without releasing it? After this potus I really worry about the power of these laws if a corrupt charlatan gets back in office - there don't appear to be enough ways to slow their roll if they're just willing to say eff it. That's a problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
