What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh. Seems totally normal for a moderate Democrat embroiled in the middle of legislature....

“Ms. Sinema’s office declined to say how long she would be abroad, what countries she was visiting, how the trip was being paid for and whether she was doing any additional fund-raising for her own campaign. “ https://t.co/dkBCFaJlj9
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Serious question. What do term limits actually buy?

im just not convinced they're going to provide the solutions people think they will. If anything, you've got new people more susceptible to corporate bribes.
Click to expand...

Lobbyists that sit in the Capitol who end up writing bills because they're still there when the politicians leave. It's accomplished nothing in Michigan through 30 years.
 
bronconick said:
Lobbyists that sit in the Capitol who end up writing bills because they're still there when the politicians leave. It's accomplished nothing in Michigan through 30 years.
Click to expand...

And the ones that 'retire' end up being on a lobbiest payroll soon after. Anti-Lobby bans are the biggest joke of them all.
 
aparch said:
Huh. Seems totally normal for a moderate Democrat embroiled in the middle of legislature....

“Ms. Sinema’s office declined to say how long she would be abroad, what countries she was visiting, how the trip was being paid for and whether she was doing any additional fund-raising for her own campaign. “ https://t.co/dkBCFaJlj9
Click to expand...

She probably has a fundraiser in Russia...
 
aparch said:
If you're not doing anything illegal, why are you worried? [/conservative talking point when discussing the PATRIOT Act]

Did you know that banks and financial institutions already report interest income greater than ten dollars to the IRS? Now you do.



The language, as it stands, says that the banks/financial institutions would track and submit to the IRS about total inflow AND outflow of every account with a balance of 600 or more at any point in the year, or with at least that much in transactions going through the account all year.

So... pretty much everyone. As it is, they already report to the IRS any transaction over $10k in an effort to combat money laundering.

The $600 amount seems flexible, with banks wanting a much higher number because, as one article quoted the Consumer Bankers Association: "The fact that raw data exists somewhere in a system does not mean it is easily compiled or produced." Potentially some banks would pass the cost of mining this data on to the customers.


I get there are terrible ideas, but if scaring the rich into paying their fair share helps, then why not. Set a high threshold and go from there. Is $600 right? It's probably way too low, but how about some compromise instead of just poo-pooing the idea right out of the gate?
Click to expand...

The Patriot Act was an ultimate misnomer.

The $600 number is so low that it reads like a publicity stunt for attention. It'll ultimately get the full language struck due to public uproar ... which almost feels like its true purpose. (And the rich stroll away happy and untouched, but politicos can claim they tried.)
 
aparch said:
I'd be fine with ~25 years in US Federal elected service (if elected position goes over the ~25 years, they can complete the term).

But, it's a 20 year hard ban on working for a lobbyist in Washington DC. I'd also venture to throw a ban for a few years on them working for *any* entity that has a contract with the US govt or is directly involved in the three branches of government.
Click to expand...

Change your "25" to "20" in two places and I'm in.
 
aparch
In the spirit of "hard ban on lobbying", I propose decentralizing the Executive Branch. And get it away from the Legislative (in DC).

I'd move DOD to Tampa or a mountain in WY.
State goes to NYC (the UN).
Dept of Ag goes to Sacramento.
Energy? Tulsa or Lubbock.
Transportation to Chicago (urban issues and 90 miles away rural issues)
Treasury to ... Fort Knox, KY.

Spread it out, and put logical things areas that make sense.

Thoughts?
 
The Sicatoka said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Why are we so much in agreement as of late yet so far removed politically? Haha.


As for decentralizing government operations, I'm on the fence on that. There was a push under Trump to make that happen with current departments, and in fact the Ag Dept did move to Kansas City in 2019.

The problem is there are still large numbers of vacancies that have not been filled after the move, and those who did move/were hired have less experience than those who quit/stayed in DC with another department. The research department of the USDA has practically ground to a halt after the move. Add in COVID, and it's been a disaster. But they saved a shit ton of money thanks to tax breaks from KC. \_(ツ)_/

The biggest issue, outside of the staffing, I have read about decentralization is that if/when laws need to be changed or modified, they can't just walk up the hill and discuss with lawmakers. Yes, Zoom/Telephone is more prevalent with the pandemic.


I also feel that separating these agencies takes them away from watchful eyes; Yet I feel that, just like you do, there could be good in moving these departments closer to where they actually could benefit from local input.

I just don't know what the right idea is, but judging by the USDA move to KC, it's been a disaster.
 
The Sicatoka said:
The Patriot Act was an ultimate misnomer.

The $600 number is so low that it reads like a publicity stunt for attention. It'll ultimately get the full language struck due to public uproar ... which almost feels like its true purpose. (And the rich stroll away happy and untouched, but politicos can claim they tried.)
Click to expand...

There won't be public uproar. 98% of Americans don't know the $10k rule.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
There won't be public uproar. 98% of Americans don't know the $10k rule.
Click to expand...

Know it? No.
Heard it maybe once and scoffed that it won't affect them. Likely.

The $600 number just seems more like an intentional attention grabber for a big chunk of America.
(That's roughly someone making $20/hr and getting paid weekly, after tax. Why's that account being watched?)
 
The Sicatoka said:
Know it? No.
Heard it maybe once and scoffed that it won't affect them. Likely.

The $600 number just seems more like an intentional attention grabber for a big chunk of America.
(That's roughly someone making $20/hr and getting paid weekly, after tax. Why's that account being watched?)
Click to expand...

Nope. The American public doesn't care about this. Too complex to explain. The same reason Democrats suck at selling good laws is the same reason this won't matter.
 
Ron Watkins has moved from Japan to Arizona and is running for Congress
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top