The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: JGS1980 on November 08, 2018, 04:13:00 PM
-
So the 2018 Midterm Elections are Over. Democrats took back the House of Representatives, and the Republicans strengthened their hold on the Senate.
My question is: What bill do you think can pass or should pass with the current split congress.
What I'm really looking for here is good ideas. How do we make our country better, stronger for everyone?
Here's my first Legislation idea: If technically feasible, pass a bill to STOP ALL SPAM CALLS FOREVER. Whichever congressman or senator puts this bill up for a vote would get my own personal vote in perpetuity.
So whatcha think anonymous internet people?
JGS
-
An infrastructure bill is the obvious one. Trump claimed he wanted to do something like that on the campaign trail but then seems to have forgotten about it.
-
I don't think much passes at all.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
YES!!!!! Sweet Jesus, this!
-
What???
Huge daylight savings time fan here. It helps me maintain my circadian rhythm in the winter and allows me to enjoy more leisure time during summer evenings.
If they got rid of daylight savings, I'd be pissed. Royally pissed.
-
What???
Huge daylight savings time fan here. It helps me maintain my circadian rhythm in the winter and allows me to enjoy more leisure time during summer evenings.
If they got rid of daylight savings, I'd be pissed. Royally pissed.
Nobody's preventing you from getting up an hour earlier/later to keep yourself happy. You shouldn't force this on others though.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
YES!!!!! Sweet Jesus, this!
HELL YES. One of my favorite things about living in Arizona was they didn't do that stupid crap.
Alternatively, we could just keep daylight savings all year round. That would be fine too, esp for northern climates. Whatever, just STOP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH.
-
I don't think much passes at all.
Agree. Every time Dems propose a bill for something Trump formerly supported (like infrastructure), he will refuse it b/c they are investigating him. Or he will tack on some extreme immigration element. Or something.
Also, Dems will request his tax returns, and Trump will refuse to turn them over. Eventually, the issue will be decided in courts, but that could easily take more than two years.
And Trump is currently executing what looks like the beginning of a slow mo Saturday Night Massacre at the justice department, so the Mueller investigation will be hamstrung from here forward. Hopefully Mueller has farmed out most of his findings by this point.
Don't get me wrong, nothing getting done is better than before, but it won't satisfy the hopes of the left at all.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
YES!!!!! Sweet Jesus, this!
HELL YES. One of my favorite things about living in Arizona was they didn't do that stupid crap.
Alternatively, we could just keep daylight savings all year round. That would be fine too, esp for northern climates. Whatever, just STOP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH.
Florida voters approved this a couple years ago (but their legislators have not yet implemented it), and California just voted to do the same. Please, please can we just switch to DST year-round??? I hate getting home at sunset for 5 months out of the year.
-
What???
Huge daylight savings time fan here. It helps me maintain my circadian rhythm in the winter and allows me to enjoy more leisure time during summer evenings.
If they got rid of daylight savings, I'd be pissed. Royally pissed.
Nobody's preventing you from getting up an hour earlier/later to keep yourself happy. You shouldn't force this on others though.
Not as simple as you might think. There are serious implications in terms of energy usage, safety, and international business. Going to full time daylight savings would probably be my preference but there are issues with that too.
I'd recommend Seize the Daylight by David Prerau if you're interested in reading a whole book on something that most people consider a side note :)
http://www.seizethedaylight.com/index.html
-
What???
Huge daylight savings time fan here. It helps me maintain my circadian rhythm in the winter and allows me to enjoy more leisure time during summer evenings.
If they got rid of daylight savings, I'd be pissed. Royally pissed.
Nobody's preventing you from getting up an hour earlier/later to keep yourself happy. You shouldn't force this on others though.
Not as simple as you might think. There are serious implications in terms of energy usage, safety, and international business. Going to full time daylight savings would probably be my preference but there are issues with that too.
I'd recommend Seize the Daylight by David Prerau if you're interested in reading a whole book on something that most people consider a side note :)
http://www.seizethedaylight.com/index.html
No, I think it is that simple.
Daylight savings time wastes more energy (https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429 (https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429)), causes more car accidents, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11152980 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11152980)) and even heart attacks (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914912024435 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914912024435)). If international business can figure out how to deal with China (one time zone where there should be at least three and no DST since '91) I'm pretty sure they can figure out how to not randomly set clocks an hour ahead/behind for North America.
Most importantly, DST fucks with my son's and dog's sleeping schedule which then fucks with my sleeping schedule.
:P
-
I think the TCJA correction bill has a good chance. Fix the unintended mistakes of rushed legislation and lots of lobbyist backing it.
-
I know we are only a few posts in, but surprised to not see some legislation protecting the Special Counsel investigation. Trump has been trying to block that from many angles now for 1.5 years, obstructing justice along the way. This could even get done with the current Congress, I see Flake is on board.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
Completely agree, except I would personally rather keep DST but rename it standard time because I prefer DST.
-
What???
Huge daylight savings time fan here. It helps me maintain my circadian rhythm in the winter and allows me to enjoy more leisure time during summer evenings.
If they got rid of daylight savings, I'd be pissed. Royally pissed.
Nobody's preventing you from getting up an hour earlier/later to keep yourself happy. You shouldn't force this on others though.
Not as simple as you might think. There are serious implications in terms of energy usage, safety, and international business. Going to full time daylight savings would probably be my preference but there are issues with that too.
I'd recommend Seize the Daylight by David Prerau if you're interested in reading a whole book on something that most people consider a side note :)
http://www.seizethedaylight.com/index.html
No, I think it is that simple.
Daylight savings time wastes more energy (https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429 (https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429)), causes more car accidents, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11152980 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11152980)) and even heart attacks (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914912024435 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914912024435)). If international business can figure out how to deal with China (one time zone where there should be at least three and no DST since '91) I'm pretty sure they can figure out how to not randomly set clocks an hour ahead/behind for North America.
Most importantly, DST fucks with my son's and dog's sleeping schedule which then fucks with my sleeping schedule.
:P
And here's a study done the same year suggesting that there is about a 0.5% energy savings for the whole of the US.
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/analysis/pdfs/epact_sec_110_edst_report_to_congress_2008.pdf
Again, I'm not arguing pro or con on the basis of any one thing, but it's definitely not simple. If you want to find one study to support your opinion on any given topic you can probably find one.
-
I know we are only a few posts in, but surprised to not see some legislation protecting the Special Counsel investigation. Trump has been trying to block that from many angles now for 1.5 years, obstructing justice along the way. This could even get done with the current Congress, I see Flake is on board.
I don't see a path for bipartisan support for this. Republican voters have made it quite clear that they don't want to know the truth, and their elected representatives are not interested in bringing the truth to light.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
YES!!!!! Sweet Jesus, this!
HELL YES. One of my favorite things about living in Arizona was they didn't do that stupid crap.
Alternatively, we could just keep daylight savings all year round. That would be fine too, esp for northern climates. Whatever, just STOP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH.
Florida voters approved this a couple years ago (but their legislators have not yet implemented it), and California just voted to do the same. Please, please can we just switch to DST year-round??? I hate getting home at sunset for 5 months out of the year.
The issue with year round daylight savings is that more people are commuting to work in the morning darkness. On the other hand early dusk means more people are driving home in darkness.
I think the only real solution is to reduce hours worked in the colder months. Congress, get to work. I want 7.... let's make that 6 hour workdays from November to March.... make that October to April, just to be safe.
-
I'm going to run contrary to most here and say there's the potential for more legislation passing now than there was in the previous congress - after all that's not a very high bar to clear.
Three potential bills:
1) infrastructure. This would be a no-brainer in any other congress as there's widespread support on both sides. DJT's bats*!t crazy proposal to have private industry shoulder almost all the cost and risks was almost universally rejected, but a real infrastructure spending bill giving money to both red and blue districts should fly through
2) protecting pre-existing conditions. GOP failed to 'repeal and replace' and seem to have lost their appetite for trying. They even flipped this election and ran ads saying how they were the ones trying to protect people with pre-existing conditions. Whatever, a deal could be struck here
3) raising the federal minimum wage. Dems in the House will push this, and it will cost the GOP political capital to vote against, particularly among their blue-collar supporters. It's a potential win-win issue for the Dems; either they get a wage increase or they make a bunch of Trump's supporters pissed off at the GOP for choosing corporate profits over their own paychecks.
-
R's dig in, don't budge on any position, and blame the D's for not being able to get anything done.
This is just a continuation, after a brief pause, of the R's strategy under Obama, which was incredibly successful.
It will again be successful, with Trump easily winning reelection.
Compromise is no longer understood in politics. It is considered failure.
-
R's dig in, don't budge on any position, and blame the D's for not being able to get anything done.
Wouldn't that be a double-edged sword? GOP has control of the Senate but will have to defend 21 (of 33) seats in 2020. If they are perceived as getting 'nothing done' it could be good for retaking the house where they are in the minority but bad for retaining control of the Senate, no?
Also doesn't really help DJT - the self-proclaimed 'great dealmaker' - to constantly cry that he couldn't cut a deal with the Dems, couldn't pass legislation with control of both houses, couldn't get it down with a split legislature. Not much left to try (other than completed Dem control)...
-
R's dig in, don't budge on any position, and blame the D's for not being able to get anything done.
Wouldn't that be a double-edged sword? GOP has control of the Senate but will have to defend 21 (of 33) seats in 2020. If they are perceived as getting 'nothing done' it could be good for retaking the house where they are in the minority but bad for retaining control of the Senate, no?
Also doesn't really help DJT - the self-proclaimed 'great dealmaker' - to constantly cry that he couldn't cut a deal with the Dems, couldn't pass legislation with control of both houses, couldn't get it down with a split legislature. Not much left to try (other than completed Dem control)...
I hope you are right, but R's are master of spin. Just ask Trump about how successful this mid-term was. You know the one that saw the largest House swing in a mid=term since Nixon.
When they can stall a supreme court appointment for 400 fucking days, and still come out smelling like a rose, I see no reason why they will not succeed in that strategy again.
-
I'm going to run contrary to most here and say there's the potential for more legislation passing now than there was in the previous congress - after all that's not a very high bar to clear.
Three potential bills:
1) infrastructure. This would be a no-brainer in any other congress as there's widespread support on both sides. DJT's bats*!t crazy proposal to have private industry shoulder almost all the cost and risks was almost universally rejected, but a real infrastructure spending bill giving money to both red and blue districts should fly through
2) protecting pre-existing conditions. GOP failed to 'repeal and replace' and seem to have lost their appetite for trying. They even flipped this election and ran ads saying how they were the ones trying to protect people with pre-existing conditions. Whatever, a deal could be struck here
3) raising the federal minimum wage. Dems in the House will push this, and it will cost the GOP political capital to vote against, particularly among their blue-collar supporters. It's a potential win-win issue for the Dems; either they get a wage increase or they make a bunch of Trump's supporters pissed off at the GOP for choosing corporate profits over their own paychecks.
I think that of these, the only likely one is protecting people with pre-existing conditions and I only think that this is the case because it is already law. However, I expect the Republicans to continue fighting against these protections tooth and nail and I expect the Trump DOJ to continue to support the fight against these protections.
The other two major policy areas you mention are non-starters.
-
The other two major policy areas you mention are non-starters.
Why do you think that?
-
I think that bills coming up in the house and senate are going to look pretty different.
-
The other two major policy areas you mention are non-starters.
Why do you think that?
I'll answer re: minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
-
The other two major policy areas you mention are non-starters.
Why do you think that?
I'll answer re: minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
Basically the same is true with infrastructure. They'll suddenly become deficit hawks again. Further, as long as the Republicans refuse to agree to any bill, Trump can and will claim that the Democrats are being obstructionists.
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
But don't forget that the other party wants to take your guns and kill all of the babies. /s
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
People will put up with a whole lot more. We'll see what happens as workers rights erode further. They can keep people feeling like they're on the cusp of prosperity and treat work as a virtue.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
YES!!!!! Sweet Jesus, this!
HELL YES. One of my favorite things about living in Arizona was they didn't do that stupid crap.
Alternatively, we could just keep daylight savings all year round. That would be fine too, esp for northern climates. Whatever, just STOP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH.
As someone in a Northern clime, and in the most western edge of a time zone, I would really hate it if they kept Daylight savings year round. I need it to get light before 8am. Those last few weeks of October were killing me. I would be fine with no Daylights savings time at all.
-
Nothing will pass. Republicans don't compromise, and Democrats have no reason to compromise when Republicans won't.
-
1. Prison reform would be great. Likely from Dems and Trump but not Repubs.
2. End Daylight Wasting Savings Time and make it full time one or another.
3. Immigration Reform (This might actually happen)
4. Make the middle section of the tax breaks permanent and not phased out.
5. Infrastructure beyond just roads and bridges. Making the internet has made America pretty well off, perhaps develop worldwide internet systems (looking at you SpaceX) in collaboration with Fed grants. Tax the usage for a set amount of time to pay for it.
And if one can dream...
6. Reduce all spending (Yes I mean that massive DoD leach on uncle sam's back) including defense and entitlements. Combine departments. Use technology to reduce staffing levels. Etc.
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
YES!!!!! Sweet Jesus, this!
HELL YES. One of my favorite things about living in Arizona was they didn't do that stupid crap.
Alternatively, we could just keep daylight savings all year round. That would be fine too, esp for northern climates. Whatever, just STOP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH.
Love this idea!
-
I know we are only a few posts in, but surprised to not see some legislation protecting the Special Counsel investigation. Trump has been trying to block that from many angles now for 1.5 years, obstructing justice along the way. This could even get done with the current Congress, I see Flake is on board.
I don't see a path for bipartisan support for this. Republican voters have made it quite clear that they don't want to know the truth, and their elected representatives are not interested in bringing the truth to light.
No way Republicans will vote for this. Not in their self interest.
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
There's something there but I can't quite put my finger on it....
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
1. Minimum wage bill might pass in the House, but would die in the Senate. Would be a bill akin to the "Repeal the ACA" votes the Republicans were doing all the time a couple years ago. Red meat for the blue base.
2. I think ANY immigration bill that Democrats support would be a non-starter. Democrats would want some amnesty, and amnesty is a dirty word in Republican circles, so No-Go. Nothing fixed, unfortunately. Last broad amnesty was under Reagan, under a democratic congress, of course. So who knows?
3. I like a bill that would extend Broadband Wireless to all cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I think lots of folks would support that.
4. Democrats will likely decrease funding for the military. I have no idea whether the president would sign this or not. Or pick a fight and have a shutdown. I see budget soap-operas in our future.
Just some thoughts, JGS
-
Alternatively, we could just keep daylight savings all year round. That would be fine too, esp for northern climates. Whatever, just STOP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH.
Florida voters approved this a couple years ago (but their legislators have not yet implemented it), and California just voted to do the same. Please, please can we just switch to DST year-round??? I hate getting home at sunset for 5 months out of the year.
Current Federal law prevents year round daylight savings time. States/localities can choose to stick with standard time or switch clocks twice a year on the dates set by Federal law. This is what is preventing Florida's implementation, not their legislature. I could see the upcoming congress approving year round daylight savings time if the current congress does not pass it within this session.
California voted to give the legislature the power to change to year round daylight savings if the Federal law changes. It might have also authorized the legislature to change to year round standard time. The law requires the legislature to pass the change with a 2/3 majority. The legislature did not have authority to change daylight savings time because the voter initiative establishing daylight savings time made no provision for them to do so.
-
The Republican Party in America believes the Government should only have 1 function:
- Protect private property rights
When you view the actual actions of the Republican party through that lens it makes more sense. The 0.1% uber rich donors do not believe the government has any business in regulating private business or in funding the public good, ie, welfare, healthcare, environmental protection. Quite frankly, they don't give a shit about bipartisanship.
The right wing propaganda machine is extraordinarily effective at stoking fears and obfuscation. What happened to that deadly caravan that was steps away from invading America?
-
The right wing propaganda machine is extraordinarily effective at stoking fears and obfuscation. What happened to that deadly caravan that was steps away from invading America?
It immediately disbanded when they heard democrats took the house in the midterms?
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
1. Minimum wage bill might pass in the House, but would die in the Senate. Would be a bill akin to the "Repeal the ACA" votes the Republicans were doing all the time a couple years ago. Red meat for the blue base.
2. I think ANY immigration bill that Democrats support would be a non-starter. Democrats would want some amnesty, and amnesty is a dirty word in Republican circles, so No-Go. Nothing fixed, unfortunately. Last broad amnesty was under Reagan, under a democratic congress, of course. So who knows?
3. I like a bill that would extend Broadband Wireless to all cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I think lots of folks would support that.
4. Democrats will likely decrease funding for the military. I have no idea whether the president would sign this or not. Or pick a fight and have a shutdown. I see budget soap-operas in our future.
Just some thoughts, JGS
I do. Trump would never sign anything that decreases funding for the military.
-
The right wing propaganda machine is extraordinarily effective at stoking fears and obfuscation. What happened to that deadly caravan that was steps away from invading America?
It immediately disbanded when they heard democrats took the house in the midterms?
Yep. Breitbart has reports from this guy whose cousin works in the same town that George Soros drove through on Wednesday that Soros is no longer paying the caravan, so the caravan disbanded and went back to their day jobs as Mexican soap actors.
-
Everyone knows no one really FIREs, they are paid by George Soros for side gigging. Vast conspiracies all over.
-
1. Minimum wage bill might pass in the House, but would die in the Senate. Would be a bill akin to the "Repeal the ACA" votes the Republicans were doing all the time a couple years ago. Red meat for the blue base.
2. I think ANY immigration bill that Democrats support would be a non-starter. Democrats would want some amnesty, and amnesty is a dirty word in Republican circles, so No-Go. Nothing fixed, unfortunately. Last broad amnesty was under Reagan, under a democratic congress, of course. So who knows?
3. I like a bill that would extend Broadband Wireless to all cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I think lots of folks would support that.
4. Democrats will likely decrease funding for the military. I have no idea whether the president would sign this or not. Or pick a fight and have a shutdown. I see budget soap-operas in our future.
Just some thoughts, JGS
[/quote]
I do. Trump would never sign anything that decreases funding for the military.
[/quote]
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/17/trump-appears-to-call-for-defense-spending-cuts/
5% of $716 BILLION is $35.8 BILLION, I wonder what we could do with all the moolah?
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
1. Minimum wage bill might pass in the House, but would die in the Senate. Would be a bill akin to the "Repeal the ACA" votes the Republicans were doing all the time a couple years ago. Red meat for the blue base.
2. I think ANY immigration bill that Democrats support would be a non-starter. Democrats would want some amnesty, and amnesty is a dirty word in Republican circles, so No-Go. Nothing fixed, unfortunately. Last broad amnesty was under Reagan, under a democratic congress, of course. So who knows?
3. I like a bill that would extend Broadband Wireless to all cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I think lots of folks would support that.
4. Democrats will likely decrease funding for the military. I have no idea whether the president would sign this or not. Or pick a fight and have a shutdown. I see budget soap-operas in our future.
Just some thoughts, JGS
I do. Trump would never sign anything that decreases funding for the military.
If his privately owned businesses acquired say . . . a mercenary army (like Betsy Devos's Academi for example) I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
-
This is what I think the Dems should send to the Senate.
1) An infrastructure bill. Make sure there is plenty of work being done in rural areas.
2) A Tax Reform Bill. Increase taxes on corporations and the high income folks to 80% of where they were before the tax cut. Reduce taxes on the middle class by 20% of the increased income.
3) Cut funding of government agencies by 10%. Tell them to cut out the overhead costs of getting their work done.
Where Trump gutted social oriented agencies, restore the funds back to 90% of what they were pre-Trump.
4) Instruct agencies that impact business to reduce regulations that interfere with business without impacting public health, safety, worker's rights or the environment. Start pointing out in-the-way regulations and instruct them to be repealed.
5) Provide an approved path to adoption of US children by the usual carrot/stock method. States that sign on get to keep federal funding they want. States that don't, don't. Simplify the system so it can be accomplished in 6 months and not require a lawyer or any appreciable amount of funds by a prospective parent. Make any provisions a parent giving a child up for adoption that restrict who can adopt the child invalid. I.e., parent who won't be taking care of the child can't restrict adoption to only a specific race religion, gender, etc.
6) Abolish the VA system and replace it by allowing veterans to go to the doctor of their choice and paying for it.
(7) Implement strong tax and incentive policies that will drive businesses to locate in rural and troubled areas. Include in that provisions to help people without jobs or with lower paying jobs to relocate to the new area.
(8) Allow banks, on new mortgages, to charge a per-payment service fee. Regulate it so it's not onerous. This will make small mortgages financially feasible for the banks to offer, which would let lower middle class people better afford a home of their own. Modify Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage loan policies to allow for repairs to be made to the property as part of the loan (so they can buy a fixer-upper) and to have a draw at the same interest rate (added to the loan and extending the term or increasing the payment, per customer choice) that would be sufficient to cover an hvac replacement or similar serious malfunction.
-
5. Infrastructure beyond just roads and bridges. Making the internet has made America pretty well off, perhaps develop worldwide internet systems (looking at you SpaceX) in collaboration with Fed grants. Tax the usage for a set amount of time to pay for it.
This! Internet infrastructure is huge for getting businesses (including home-based businesses, self-employed people, or remote workers) off the ground these days. There's no reason that we shouldn't run fiber anywhere we run electricity, all across the country. Cities are covered in fiber but plenty of rural or even suburban areas are laughably behind the curve thanks to regional monopolies and other bullshit.
-
Everyone knows no one really FIREs, they are paid by George Soros for side gigging. Vast conspiracies all over.
FIRE is a hoax created by the chinese and Soros to make american manufacturing uncompetitive due to higher priced goods.
-
This is what I think the Dems should send to the Senate.
1) An infrastructure bill. Make sure there is plenty of work being done in rural areas.
2) A Tax Reform Bill. Increase taxes on corporations and the high income folks to 80% of where they were before the tax cut. Reduce taxes on the middle class by 20% of the increased income.
3) Cut funding of government agencies by 10%. Tell them to cut out the overhead costs of getting their work done.
Where Trump gutted social oriented agencies, restore the funds back to 90% of what they were pre-Trump.
4) Instruct agencies that impact business to reduce regulations that interfere with business without impacting public health, safety, worker's rights or the environment. Start pointing out in-the-way regulations and instruct them to be repealed.
5) Provide an approved path to adoption of US children by the usual carrot/stock method. States that sign on get to keep federal funding they want. States that don't, don't. Simplify the system so it can be accomplished in 6 months and not require a lawyer or any appreciable amount of funds by a prospective parent. Make any provisions a parent giving a child up for adoption that restrict who can adopt the child invalid. I.e., parent who won't be taking care of the child can't restrict adoption to only a specific race religion, gender, etc.
6) Abolish the VA system and replace it by allowing veterans to go to the doctor of their choice and paying for it.
(7) Implement strong tax and incentive policies that will drive businesses to locate in rural and troubled areas. Include in that provisions to help people without jobs or with lower paying jobs to relocate to the new area.
(8) Allow banks, on new mortgages, to charge a per-payment service fee. Regulate it so it's not onerous. This will make small mortgages financially feasible for the banks to offer, which would let lower middle class people better afford a home of their own. Modify Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage loan policies to allow for repairs to be made to the property as part of the loan (so they can buy a fixer-upper) and to have a draw at the same interest rate (added to the loan and extending the term or increasing the payment, per customer choice) that would be sufficient to cover an hvac replacement or similar serious malfunction.
Way too much common sense for today's political climate.
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
Don't count on it. It's been discussed before how Trump supporters, before the election, readily admitted their intention to vote for Trump despite possibly losing healthcare. I mean, increasing their odds of dying from a preventable disease is worth the risk of ensuring an "R" is in the White House. Nuckin Futs!
-
Here’s a new idea:
Abolish the Nanny Tax. No convoluted social security, Medicare, state taxes withdrawals for domestic employees. Just pay the feds 500$ a year if you hire nannies and be done with it. Nannies could pay $250 a year. All up to a certain cutoff (I.e. 30K /year or so)
Being as 90% of nannies/nanny employers don’t pay a dime in taxes for that work, this could be a huge net gain for the coffers, while legitimizing respectable work without screwing over usually young workers or cash strapped parents.
Less regulations and real tax cut while broadening tax base = Republicans love it.
Legitimizing childcare workers (lots of which are female, young, low-income), getting quarters for social security, improving childcare access for working mothers = Democrats love it.
JGS
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
Don't count on it. It's been discussed before how Trump supporters, before the election, readily admitted their intention to vote for Trump despite possibly losing healthcare. I mean, increasing their odds of dying from a preventable disease is worth the risk of ensuring an "R" is in the White House. Nuckin Futs!
This. And in my neck of the woods, all the soybean farmers who are currently getting their asses handed to them, but still say they're going to continue supporting Trump.
-
End Daylight Savings Time.
YES!!!!! Sweet Jesus, this!
HELL YES. One of my favorite things about living in Arizona was they didn't do that stupid crap.
Alternatively, we could just keep daylight savings all year round. That would be fine too, esp for northern climates. Whatever, just STOP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH.
Florida voters approved this a couple years ago (but their legislators have not yet implemented it), and California just voted to do the same. Please, please can we just switch to DST year-round??? I hate getting home at sunset for 5 months out of the year.
Yes, that's what I have always wanted. I don't want to get rid of daylight saving time, but I would prefer it extended all year round. However, I will FIRE soon enough, so it won't matter much to me anymore when I'm not tied to a job schedule.
-
5. Infrastructure beyond just roads and bridges. Making the internet has made America pretty well off, perhaps develop worldwide internet systems (looking at you SpaceX) in collaboration with Fed grants. Tax the usage for a set amount of time to pay for it.
This! Internet infrastructure is huge for getting businesses (including home-based businesses, self-employed people, or remote workers) off the ground these days. There's no reason that we shouldn't run fiber anywhere we run electricity, all across the country. Cities are covered in fiber but plenty of rural or even suburban areas are laughably behind the curve thanks to regional monopolies and other bullshit.
Sounds too much like socialism to me. The hard working middle class should not have to pay for rural porn watchers to get their fix.
-
5. Infrastructure beyond just roads and bridges. Making the internet has made America pretty well off, perhaps develop worldwide internet systems (looking at you SpaceX) in collaboration with Fed grants. Tax the usage for a set amount of time to pay for it.
This! Internet infrastructure is huge for getting businesses (including home-based businesses, self-employed people, or remote workers) off the ground these days. There's no reason that we shouldn't run fiber anywhere we run electricity, all across the country. Cities are covered in fiber but plenty of rural or even suburban areas are laughably behind the curve thanks to regional monopolies and other bullshit.
Sounds too much like socialism to me. The hard working middle class should not have to pay for rural porn watchers to get their fix.
Good point. We tried this before with rural electricity and look how well it worked.
-
5. Infrastructure beyond just roads and bridges. Making the internet has made America pretty well off, perhaps develop worldwide internet systems (looking at you SpaceX) in collaboration with Fed grants. Tax the usage for a set amount of time to pay for it.
This! Internet infrastructure is huge for getting businesses (including home-based businesses, self-employed people, or remote workers) off the ground these days. There's no reason that we shouldn't run fiber anywhere we run electricity, all across the country. Cities are covered in fiber but plenty of rural or even suburban areas are laughably behind the curve thanks to regional monopolies and other bullshit.
Sounds too much like socialism to me. The hard working middle class should not have to pay for rural porn watchers to get their fix.
Good point. We tried this before with rural electricity and look how well it worked.
Well maybe we should get rid of that electricity too, since you need electricity to watch porn.
-
My guess is that the biggest thing urbanites subsidize for rural voters right now is healthcare and roads. I’m not sure how to confirm my guess though.
-
I'm going to hope for:
1. Fixes to Amtrak - a la enforcing rulebreakers who cause most of the delays, upgrading infrastructure, etc.
2. Decreases in military spending
3. Infrastructure bill, but it probably won't be the infrastructure bill we need (probably will be current construction extended, rather than smart growth)
4. A new farm bill to help small and new farmers without subsidizing big agriculture. This should have bipartisan support and help rural voters.
-
5. Infrastructure beyond just roads and bridges. Making the internet has made America pretty well off, perhaps develop worldwide internet systems (looking at you SpaceX) in collaboration with Fed grants. Tax the usage for a set amount of time to pay for it.
This! Internet infrastructure is huge for getting businesses (including home-based businesses, self-employed people, or remote workers) off the ground these days. There's no reason that we shouldn't run fiber anywhere we run electricity, all across the country. Cities are covered in fiber but plenty of rural or even suburban areas are laughably behind the curve thanks to regional monopolies and other bullshit.
Sounds too much like socialism to me. The hard working middle class should not have to pay for rural porn watchers to get their fix.
Good point. We tried this before with rural electricity and look how well it worked.
Well maybe we should get rid of that electricity too, since you need electricity to watch porn.
Agreed. Rural people have access to cows, horses, and sheep . . . therefore they can get free porn (albeit only at certain times of the year) without electricity.
:P
-
Allow individuals under the age of 45 to invest 25% of their social security into an index fund that tracks the s&p 500
-
The other two major policy areas you mention are non-starters.
Why do you think that?
I'll answer re: minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
Hey now. Don't give the current GOP too much credit here. In Alabama we have a long, proud history of voting against our own best interests.
-
Raising minimum wage is just anathema to the business-controlled Republicans. It's a hill to die on. It'll happen in cities and states not controlled by the Republicans but it'll never happen in, say, Alabama, even if it helps many workers there. The Repubs will spin it as regulating businesses and a job-loss scenario and the base will eat it up.
How long will minimum wage voters continue to support republican politicians who argue that the minimum wage should never go up? I mean at some point, the desire to support your party's ideology has to run up against your own desire to not live in poverty anymore.
But don't forget that the other party wants to take your guns and kill all of the babies. /s
This. Our surprise Dem senator made an appearance in my neighborhood after a natural disaster and was called a babykiller by the lineman restringing our power lines.
-
1. Fixes to Amtrak - a la enforcing rulebreakers who cause most of the delays, upgrading infrastructure, etc.
Doesn't Amtrak use the freight tracks with lowest priority, leading to most of their delays, etc.?
-
Why not a MagLev from Miami to Boston, another from NYC to LA, and a final one from San Diego to Seattle?
What happened to our huge infrastructure projects in this country?
JGS
-
I actually like the idea of huge infrastructure projects, but I hope the benefits can be distributed to more than just urbanites.
It's urbanites who would pay for it, and urbanites who would benefit from it. If rural people want more big infrastructure projects in rural areas, they either need to pay for it themselves or convince the rest of the country that they will somehow benefit from it.
This is how free markets are supposed to work. Successful areas (industries/regions/cities/companies) are supposed to profit, and then use those profits to improve their own lot. Conversely, the failing ones are destined to fall farther and farther behind until they disappear or become obsolete. Why would facebook pay to save myspace, or android pay to subsidize palm? These former giants of their industries are now irrelevant husks. Facebook and android are winners, and they rake in cash they use to further cement their winner status. Yay capitalism!
Only die-hard liberals would advocate for the kind of wholesale wealth-redistribution that would be required to fund major infrastructure in rural areas, and if the rural areas have been wholly dominated by republican politics that oppose these ideas, how hard are liberals really going to fight to help conservatives who don't want to be helped?
-
Why not a MagLev from Miami to Boston, another from NYC to LA, and a final one from San Diego to Seattle?
What happened to our huge infrastructure projects in this country?
JGS
If a huge factor in the last election was the growing cultural gulf between Urban and Rural communities, I highly doubt that an infrastructure project to whisk trendy urbanites from city to city faster is going to be much of a winner. I mean it would be great for me personally, but not sure what's in it for someone in small town West Virginia.
I actually like the idea of huge infrastructure projects, but I hope the benefits can be distributed to more than just urbanites.
US cities are home to 62.7% of the people in the country. Providing better services to cities would therefore help the majority of Americans . . . who are urbanites.
-
I actually like the idea of huge infrastructure projects, but I hope the benefits can be distributed to more than just urbanites.
It's urbanites who would pay for it, and urbanites who would benefit from it. If rural people want more big infrastructure projects in rural areas, they either need to pay for it themselves or convince the rest of the country that they will somehow benefit from it.
National bike routes that go through small towns - win win win, plus cheaper per mile than most other infrastructure projects.
-
I actually like the idea of huge infrastructure projects, but I hope the benefits can be distributed to more than just urbanites.
It's urbanites who would pay for it, and urbanites who would benefit from it. If rural people want more big infrastructure projects in rural areas, they either need to pay for it themselves or convince the rest of the country that they will somehow benefit from it.
National bike routes that go through small towns - win win win, plus cheaper per mile than most other infrastructure projects.
Great Idea, I'd jump on in this one.
-
I actually like the idea of huge infrastructure projects, but I hope the benefits can be distributed to more than just urbanites.
It's urbanites who would pay for it, and urbanites who would benefit from it. If rural people want more big infrastructure projects in rural areas, they either need to pay for it themselves or convince the rest of the country that they will somehow benefit from it.
National bike routes that go through small towns - win win win, plus cheaper per mile than most other infrastructure projects.
Great Idea, I'd jump on in this one.
We've got a bike trail that runs along the edge of town. It seems to get a lot of use. There are plans to link it with another fairly long trail to make a 90 mile corridor. The next town over has really embraced it, opening a welcome center and several businesses that cater to people biking through on long rides.
-
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
My state has the federal minimum wage only but the fast food restaurants around here post entry level jobs with $9 or $10 per hour starting wages posted in their windows. The US minimum is not a mandated maximum, different locations can pay whatever they need to in the LOCAL environment to have employees staffing the front counter. We should continue to have a relatively low national pay level but individual smaller governments can pass higher or let businesses pay based on demand.
-
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
My state has the federal minimum wage only but the fast food restaurants around here post entry level jobs with $9 or $10 per hour starting wages posted in their windows. The US minimum is not a mandated maximum, different locations can pay whatever they need to in the LOCAL environment to have employees staffing the front counter. We should continue to have a relatively low national pay level but individual smaller governments can pass higher or let businesses pay based on demand.
This is what we already have in place. However, the argument is whether $7.25/hour (the current federally-mandated minimum wage) is too low, as well as whether we should allow the plethora of workers who are exempt from this minimum wage, which includes interns, seasonal employees, those (supposedly) compensated by tips and the self-employed.
FWIW, my opinion is that $7.25 is far too low for the minimum, as it equates to about $14k/year for full-time work. On a real-adjusted basis we've had much higher federal minimum wage levels in the past. I have no problem when local and state governments wish to pay above this level.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/gallagher-congress/575689/
Thoughts about the importance of committee structure to actually achieve congressional engagement and improve the chance of bipartisanship in the House?
-
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
My state has the federal minimum wage only but the fast food restaurants around here post entry level jobs with $9 or $10 per hour starting wages posted in their windows. The US minimum is not a mandated maximum, different locations can pay whatever they need to in the LOCAL environment to have employees staffing the front counter. We should continue to have a relatively low national pay level but individual smaller governments can pass higher or let businesses pay based on demand.
This is what we already have in place. However, the argument is whether $7.25/hour (the current federally-mandated minimum wage) is too low, as well as whether we should allow the plethora of workers who are exempt from this minimum wage, which includes interns, seasonal employees, those (supposedly) compensated by tips and the self-employed.
FWIW, my opinion is that $7.25 is far too low for the minimum, as it equates to about $14k/year for full-time work. On a real-adjusted basis we've had much higher federal minimum wage levels in the past. I have no problem when local and state governments wish to pay above this level.
I know that this is what we have in place. However, if I go true libertarian and say that the only true minimum wage is $0 and that if we raise the mandate to $15, then many workers will get $15 but others will get $0, then I will be accused by some on here of wanting slavery to be legalized.
Secondly, did you mean that we should mandate a minimum for self-employed workers? That would be interesting.
-
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
My state has the federal minimum wage only but the fast food restaurants around here post entry level jobs with $9 or $10 per hour starting wages posted in their windows. The US minimum is not a mandated maximum, different locations can pay whatever they need to in the LOCAL environment to have employees staffing the front counter. We should continue to have a relatively low national pay level but individual smaller governments can pass higher or let businesses pay based on demand.
This is what we already have in place. However, the argument is whether $7.25/hour (the current federally-mandated minimum wage) is too low, as well as whether we should allow the plethora of workers who are exempt from this minimum wage, which includes interns, seasonal employees, those (supposedly) compensated by tips and the self-employed.
FWIW, my opinion is that $7.25 is far too low for the minimum, as it equates to about $14k/year for full-time work. On a real-adjusted basis we've had much higher federal minimum wage levels in the past. I have no problem when local and state governments wish to pay above this level.
I know that this is what we have in place. However, if I go true libertarian and say that the only true minimum wage is $0 and that if we raise the mandate to $15, then many workers will get $15 but others will get $0, then I will be accused by some on here of wanting slavery to be legalized.
Is this what you are suggesting? Right now you are masking everything in hypotheticals. I've been pretty clear that I think $7.25 is too low (note that just over half of states and roughly 2/3rds of the country live in states with a higher minimum wage standard).
Secondly, did you mean that we should mandate a minimum for self-employed workers? That would be interesting.
I was merely stating the exemptions in our current federal minimum wage laws, which apply to a considerable portion of our workforce.
Specific to the self-employed category, a fairly recent strategy is for many companies to outsource much of their daily operations to workers defined as 'self-employed', thereby making them exempt from both minimum wage standards as well as things like benefits and payroll taxes and benefits.
If the laws are vague enough it effectively undercuts any federal minimum wage standards. That isn't to say that we should require all self-employed to make minimum wage, but I don't believe we ought to allow individuals working full-time in conjunction with for-profit companies to be exempt.
-
How long will minimum wage workers keep working a minimum wage job and not develop into something bigger? If you can't find a different job and negotiate a higher salary in this economy then no one has taught you how to make money. Fast food in my town is offering 14$/hr just to get more people because there is a surplus of jobs.
I seriously don't get the minimum wage argument.
My state has the federal minimum wage only but the fast food restaurants around here post entry level jobs with $9 or $10 per hour starting wages posted in their windows. The US minimum is not a mandated maximum, different locations can pay whatever they need to in the LOCAL environment to have employees staffing the front counter. We should continue to have a relatively low national pay level but individual smaller governments can pass higher or let businesses pay based on demand.
This is what we already have in place. However, the argument is whether $7.25/hour (the current federally-mandated minimum wage) is too low, as well as whether we should allow the plethora of workers who are exempt from this minimum wage, which includes interns, seasonal employees, those (supposedly) compensated by tips and the self-employed.
FWIW, my opinion is that $7.25 is far too low for the minimum, as it equates to about $14k/year for full-time work. On a real-adjusted basis we've had much higher federal minimum wage levels in the past. I have no problem when local and state governments wish to pay above this level.
I know that this is what we have in place. However, if I go true libertarian and say that the only true minimum wage is $0 and that if we raise the mandate to $15, then many workers will get $15 but others will get $0, then I will be accused by some on here of wanting slavery to be legalized.
Secondly, did you mean that we should mandate a minimum for self-employed workers? That would be interesting.
Actually, I'd be fully on board with your $0 minimum wage as long as it's paired with a UBI/negative income tax.
-
Why not a MagLev from Miami to Boston, another from NYC to LA, and a final one from San Diego to Seattle?
What happened to our huge infrastructure projects in this country?
JGS
This is a classic high barriers to entry scenario. Railroads are great investments because it is impossible to get the right of way to build a competing one.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/gallagher-congress/575689/
Thoughts about the importance of committee structure to actually achieve congressional engagement and improve the chance of bipartisanship in the House?
Interesting thoughts on the power structure of the House of Representatives and how it may contribute to deadlock. Thanks for the link.
-
Ok, here's an idea I've been fooling with.
So I'm a fairly pro-immigration kind of person. My parents were immigrants to this country in the 70's. I believe one of the things that makes USA great is that we are capable of siphoning off the smartest, the most ambitious and the hardest working folks from around the world and then incorporating them successfully into our culture (eventually).
In any case, I don't believe you need to build walls or close borders to solve the immigration issue. All you have to do is create a $100,000 fine to every business for every employee or subcontractor (or subcontractor's subcontractor) found to be illegally working for that business. Take the profit out of "cheating". There's already a program for businesses to confirm that their particular employee is legally allowed to work. Put the onus on the employer's, not the employees. Same rule applies to "under the table" jobs.
Cheap labor jobs like landscaping,farm work, back kitchen restaurant work, and child care will lose A LOT of workers. The free market will do the rest. The "minimum wage" folks will be willing to work at will have to increase (as will the conditions in which those workers work those jobs) due to supply and demand.
If you really want to get draconian, add a $10,000 award for every confirmed illegally employed employee. Watch what happens...
Of course, a lot of services will get a whole lot more expensive. A lot of legit businesses will fail. There'd probably be a recession. This would be followed by either amnesty for the folks who were able to survive staying illegally in the states, or a much more liberal immigration policy like the late 1800's or early 1900's.
-
In any case, I don't believe you need to build walls or close borders to solve the immigration issue. All you have to do is create a $100,000 fine to every business for every employee or subcontractor (or subcontractor's subcontractor) found to be illegally working for that business. Take the profit out of "cheating". There's already a program for businesses to confirm that their particular employee is legally allowed to work. Put the onus on the employer's, not the employees. Same rule applies to "under the table" jobs.
There already are penalties for businesses that willfully violate employment record requirements. As someone who ran a small business for several years with several unskilled laborers the challenge I see with this kind of solution is that it places the burden and enforcement of employment verification onto the business, which is really not their forté. We used e-verify to check that the name and worker ID number matched, but there was no way of knowing whether the 'Alfonzo' applying for a position was actually the real 'Alfonzo'. And I hated it - I didn't want to be ICE and my major concern was whether I could find someone reliable to do the job. We did everything required of us but it was both a PITA and I knew that a lot of guys cheated. And the kicker was I sympathized with the cheaters, because they were good people who worked hard and were pulling themselves up, so to speak.
-
I was hoping this congress could get money out of our political process.
-
In any case, I don't believe you need to build walls or close borders to solve the immigration issue. All you have to do is create a $100,000 fine to every business for every employee or subcontractor (or subcontractor's subcontractor) found to be illegally working for that business. Take the profit out of "cheating". There's already a program for businesses to confirm that their particular employee is legally allowed to work. Put the onus on the employer's, not the employees. Same rule applies to "under the table" jobs.
There already are penalties for businesses that willfully violate employment record requirements. As someone who ran a small business for several years with several unskilled laborers the challenge I see with this kind of solution is that it places the burden and enforcement of employment verification onto the business, which is really not their forté. We used e-verify to check that the name and worker ID number matched, but there was no way of knowing whether the 'Alfonzo' applying for a position was actually the real 'Alfonzo'. And I hated it - I didn't want to be ICE and my major concern was whether I could find someone reliable to do the job. We did everything required of us but it was both a PITA and I knew that a lot of guys cheated. And the kicker was I sympathized with the cheaters, because they were good people who worked hard and were pulling themselves up, so to speak.
Thanks for the reply Nereo.
I understand that putting the responsibility on the employer can be more work, but isn't hiring anyone a great deal of work anyway? Isn't it important for a business to do it's "due diligence" to ensure someone is a good fit, a good long term employee, and a "team player".
I don't buy this argument. I think it's just another reason to blame someone else (i.e. the government) while also happening to benefit by filling a job that needed to be done. It's the path of least resistance.
"We did everything required of us but it was both a PITA and I knew that a lot of guys cheated." --> The solution is not to put your hands up and surrender, saying it was so very hard to hire someone legally. That's not MMM philosophy at all. For me, the solution is to make the system more foolproof, while also insisting that the parties that are currently cheating the system (employers AND undocumented employees) don't continue to do so.
And another thing, I always here this argument that we "don't want government to get even bigger and have more power over us" by business owners. But in your discussion above, here you are saying you'd rather it be someone else's responsibility to handle this since you don't want to be ICE. Please reconcile this for me.
JGS
-
In any case, I don't believe you need to build walls or close borders to solve the immigration issue. All you have to do is create a $100,000 fine to every business for every employee or subcontractor (or subcontractor's subcontractor) found to be illegally working for that business. Take the profit out of "cheating". There's already a program for businesses to confirm that their particular employee is legally allowed to work. Put the onus on the employer's, not the employees. Same rule applies to "under the table" jobs.
There already are penalties for businesses that willfully violate employment record requirements. As someone who ran a small business for several years with several unskilled laborers the challenge I see with this kind of solution is that it places the burden and enforcement of employment verification onto the business, which is really not their forté. We used e-verify to check that the name and worker ID number matched, but there was no way of knowing whether the 'Alfonzo' applying for a position was actually the real 'Alfonzo'. And I hated it - I didn't want to be ICE and my major concern was whether I could find someone reliable to do the job. We did everything required of us but it was both a PITA and I knew that a lot of guys cheated. And the kicker was I sympathized with the cheaters, because they were good people who worked hard and were pulling themselves up, so to speak.
Thanks for the reply Nereo.
I understand that putting the responsibility on the employer can be more work, but isn't hiring anyone a great deal of work anyway? Isn't it important for a business to do it's "due diligence" to ensure someone is a good fit, a good long term employee, and a "team player".
I don't buy this argument. I think it's just another reason to blame someone else (i.e. the government) while also happening to benefit by filling a job that needed to be done. It's the path of least resistance.
"We did everything required of us but it was both a PITA and I knew that a lot of guys cheated." --> The solution is not to put your hands up and surrender, saying it was so very hard to hire someone legally. That's not MMM philosophy at all. For me, the solution is to make the system more foolproof, while also insisting that the parties that are currently cheating the system (employers AND undocumented employees) don't continue to do so.
And another thing, I always here this argument that we "don't want government to get even bigger and have more power over us" by business owners. But in your discussion above, here you are saying you'd rather it be someone else's responsibility to handle this since you don't want to be ICE. Please reconcile this for me.
JGS
Ok, good to have a dialog. I'm not sure we're entirely understanding each other here... our goal as employers was always to hire the best candidate we could, and yes that meant people who could legally work. Given that these were low-skill, lower paying jobs we weren't getting a lot of Harvard grads.
In our hiring process we gave the same scrutiny to all applicants, which was that after passing an interview they had to supply us with the mandated documents before they could begin work. As I said before we ran everyone through an employment verification system. We did this for the white, seemingly native-born applicants as well as the hispanic workers who came from away.
But I think your insinuation that we were 'putting our hands up and surrendering' is off-base. To give added scrutiny over applications from one group (e.g. hispanics) over another would be racist. Ultimately though the point I want to make is that as an employer you cannot do any more. Not from a practical or legal standpoint. If an applicant met the requirements and hands me his/her paperwork and nothing seems amiss I can't take that any further, and I'm genuinely curious what more you think employers should do. It would be morally unethical to deny them a job without cause, and I can't interrogate or investigate every applicant.
FWIW the 'cheating' i spoke of wasn't limited to non-citizens. We also had workers who lied about illegal drug use and criminal convictions and problems with previous employers. We ran checks on everyone we hired, but issues weren't always apparent at the time of hire.
I guess my broader point is that as an employer you don't want these issues, and you do what you can and what you are legally allowed to do and what you can afford to do to prevent issues down the road, because no one wants to lose a worker mid-week and be shorthanded. But you very rapidly reach the limit on what you can do/say/ask/require.
-
In any case, I don't believe you need to build walls or close borders to solve the immigration issue. All you have to do is create a $100,000 fine to every business for every employee or subcontractor (or subcontractor's subcontractor) found to be illegally working for that business. Take the profit out of "cheating". There's already a program for businesses to confirm that their particular employee is legally allowed to work. Put the onus on the employer's, not the employees. Same rule applies to "under the table" jobs.
There already are penalties for businesses that willfully violate employment record requirements. As someone who ran a small business for several years with several unskilled laborers the challenge I see with this kind of solution is that it places the burden and enforcement of employment verification onto the business, which is really not their forté. We used e-verify to check that the name and worker ID number matched, but there was no way of knowing whether the 'Alfonzo' applying for a position was actually the real 'Alfonzo'. And I hated it - I didn't want to be ICE and my major concern was whether I could find someone reliable to do the job. We did everything required of us but it was both a PITA and I knew that a lot of guys cheated. And the kicker was I sympathized with the cheaters, because they were good people who worked hard and were pulling themselves up, so to speak.
Thanks for the reply Nereo.
I understand that putting the responsibility on the employer can be more work, but isn't hiring anyone a great deal of work anyway? Isn't it important for a business to do it's "due diligence" to ensure someone is a good fit, a good long term employee, and a "team player".
I don't buy this argument. I think it's just another reason to blame someone else (i.e. the government) while also happening to benefit by filling a job that needed to be done. It's the path of least resistance.
"We did everything required of us but it was both a PITA and I knew that a lot of guys cheated." --> The solution is not to put your hands up and surrender, saying it was so very hard to hire someone legally. That's not MMM philosophy at all. For me, the solution is to make the system more foolproof, while also insisting that the parties that are currently cheating the system (employers AND undocumented employees) don't continue to do so.
And another thing, I always here this argument that we "don't want government to get even bigger and have more power over us" by business owners. But in your discussion above, here you are saying you'd rather it be someone else's responsibility to handle this since you don't want to be ICE. Please reconcile this for me.
JGS
Ok, good to have a dialog. I'm not sure we're entirely understanding each other here... our goal as employers was always to hire the best candidate we could, and yes that meant people who could legally work. Given that these were low-skill, lower paying jobs we weren't getting a lot of Harvard grads.
In our hiring process we gave the same scrutiny to all applicants, which was that after passing an interview they had to supply us with the mandated documents before they could begin work. As I said before we ran everyone through an employment verification system. We did this for the white, seemingly native-born applicants as well as the hispanic workers who came from away.
But I think your insinuation that we were 'putting our hands up and surrendering' is off-base. To give added scrutiny over applications from one group (e.g. hispanics) over another would be racist. Ultimately though the point I want to make is that as an employer you cannot do any more. Not from a practical or legal standpoint. If an applicant met the requirements and hands me his/her paperwork and nothing seems amiss I can't take that any further, and I'm genuinely curious what more you think employers should do. It would be morally unethical to deny them a job without cause, and I can't interrogate or investigate every applicant.
FWIW the 'cheating' i spoke of wasn't limited to non-citizens. We also had workers who lied about illegal drug use and criminal convictions and problems with previous employers. We ran checks on everyone we hired, but issues weren't always apparent at the time of hire.
I guess my broader point is that as an employer you don't want these issues, and you do what you can and what you are legally allowed to do and what you can afford to do to prevent issues down the road, because no one wants to lose a worker mid-week and be shorthanded. But you very rapidly reach the limit on what you can do/say/ask/require.
It has been my experience that you are the exception, not the rule nereo. Around here, people are very open, even boasting, about hiring illegals. They are cheap, they will not complain, they work harder. The reasons go on and on. There is no worry whatsoever about being caught. That tells me the penalty is too low, even reaching joke status. The ONLY reason illegal immigrants come here is for a better life. The ability to find work is THE major reason to stay.
Do you know of anyone who was punished? I agree if you do what is asked, you might still inadvertently hire someone you should not. That should not be punishable, but with technology that would also occur less and less. These are not the cases I am talking about when I discuss hiring illegal workers.
-
What???
Huge daylight savings time fan here. It helps me maintain my circadian rhythm in the winter and allows me to enjoy more leisure time during summer evenings.
If they got rid of daylight savings, I'd be pissed. Royally pissed.
I've thought about getting rid of DST.
Do I like it or not?
I'm not sure.
-
I bet Republicans would be willing to accept more pressure for business to verify ID and legal status if similar requirements were also put in place to verify voter ID and voter registration status. I don't see Democrats accepting either of those.
-
I bet Republicans would be willing to accept more pressure for business to verify ID and legal status if similar requirements were also put in place to verify voter ID and voter registration status. I don't see Democrats accepting either of those.
Democrats would likely have no problem with those things IF it was free and automatic to get voter ID/registration.
-
I bet Republicans would be willing to accept more pressure for business to verify ID and legal status if similar requirements were also put in place to verify voter ID and voter registration status. I don't see Democrats accepting either of those.
Voting to fine their base for hiring illegal workers? I am in full favor for that, but good luck with that. ZERO chance heavier fines with increased enforcement ever happens. It is way too easy to blame the immigrant.
-
It has been my experience that you are the exception, not the rule nereo. Around here, people are very open, even boasting, about hiring illegals. They are cheap, they will not complain, they work harder. The reasons go on and on. There is no worry whatsoever about being caught. That tells me the penalty is too low, even reaching joke status. The ONLY reason illegal immigrants come here is for a better life. The ability to find work is THE major reason to stay.
Do you know of anyone who was punished? I agree if you do what is asked, you might still inadvertently hire someone you should not. That should not be punishable, but with technology that would also occur less and less. These are not the cases I am talking about when I discuss hiring illegal workers.
It's been my experience that the overwhelming majority of businesses follow legal hiring practices, and the ones that don't (the ones you talk about boasting about it) are in sectors with acute labor shortages. Even there most employers I know try to do the right and legal thing. I suspect this the case of observational bias - you notice the businesses who cheat, or who have a predominatly immigrant workforce - which is the exception (compare the number of citizens & permanent residents in the workforce to the estimated number of undocumented, for example).
Regardless, the crux of JGS1980's argument is that stricter penalties would severely reduce the number of undocumented immigrants in our country. Personal beliefs about immigration aside, my core point is that significant penalties already exist, they are just haphazardly enforced. Making them substantially harsher won't do much if the likelihood of punishment is still small, and from a moral standpoint there's an inherent problem with making a punishment so severe that it outstrips the crime. We saw this with crack-cocaine, where, in an effort to combat a problem first time offenders got mandatory jail time while people who did cocaine or were the cause of DUI injury-accidents got probation.
Oh, and yes, where I worked in California I saw several businesses get fined for hiring undocumented workers. On more than one occasion a business closed after and because of these fines.
-
So enforce the laws already on the books. And give folks a finders fee to find perpetrators with no additional effort needed by ICE. How hard could that be? I personally think that the cost of cheating is much higher than budinesses who use undocumented workers like to admit. The bigggest toll is simple political opportunism that comes from the right in regards to immigration. So........ call their bluff.
-
Don't fine the company.
Fine and jail the workers who do the illegal hires.
Fine and jail the executives who sign off on the illegal hires or (double the fine) pressure workers to illegally hire.
We need to stop fining corporations and start fining and jailing the people in them who are responsible for breaking the laws.
And if that means taking the food out of their babe's mouth and tossing their family into the street, so be it.
To use the same logic that gun-toting Republicans use, "Corporations don't break the law, people break the law."
Let's get more executives in jail among the general prison population.
-
I'm really looking forward to Space Force legislation.
-
It's been my experience that the overwhelming majority of businesses follow legal hiring practices, and the ones that don't (the ones you talk about boasting about it) are in sectors with acute labor shortages. Even there most employers I know try to do the right and legal thing. I suspect this the case of observational bias - you notice the businesses who cheat, or who have a predominatly immigrant workforce - which is the exception (compare the number of citizens & permanent residents in the workforce to the estimated number of undocumented, for example).
With an estimated 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants, how in the WORLD can an "overwhelming majority" be playing by the rules. The numbers simply do not provide evidence of your experience. These people are obviously working. If 11,000,000 is just the roundoff error you suggest, then what the hell is everybody getting all worked up about?
Personally, I think proof of a job is proof you are a working member of society and you are needed. Why shouldn't all workers be given full citizenship?
-
Personally, I think proof of a job is proof you are a working member of society and you are needed. Why shouldn't all workers be given full citizenship?
Because then they would be entitled to the social security and medicaid benefits they are paying for, instead of just paying for but not using these services.
-
It's been my experience that the overwhelming majority of businesses follow legal hiring practices, and the ones that don't (the ones you talk about boasting about it) are in sectors with acute labor shortages. Even there most employers I know try to do the right and legal thing. I suspect this the case of observational bias - you notice the businesses who cheat, or who have a predominatly immigrant workforce - which is the exception (compare the number of citizens & permanent residents in the workforce to the estimated number of undocumented, for example).
With an estimated 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants, how in the WORLD can an "overwhelming majority" be playing by the rules. The numbers simply do not provide evidence of your experience. These people are obviously working. If 11,000,000 is just the roundoff error you suggest, then what the hell is everybody getting all worked up about?
Personally, I think proof of a job is proof you are a working member of society and you are needed. Why shouldn't all workers be given full citizenship?
You misunderstood. THe 'overwhelming majority' is in reference to businesses, not immigrants, which in reference to the earlier comment quoted upthread. As you noted, there are roughly 11MM undocumented (according to PEW's estimates), but only ~6MM are in the labor force. In the US we have a labor force of roughly 160MM. So they compose less than 4% of the total labor force. Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring illegals.
As for why everyone is getting all worked up about immigration, that's a good but seperate question. In a country of 330MM the undocumented compose about 3% of the total. We've also had far higher numbers of immigrants in previous decades. That's not to say that we shouldn't have immigration standards, but that's yet a third issue.
-
It's been my experience that the overwhelming majority of businesses follow legal hiring practices, and the ones that don't (the ones you talk about boasting about it) are in sectors with acute labor shortages. Even there most employers I know try to do the right and legal thing. I suspect this the case of observational bias - you notice the businesses who cheat, or who have a predominatly immigrant workforce - which is the exception (compare the number of citizens & permanent residents in the workforce to the estimated number of undocumented, for example).
With an estimated 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants, how in the WORLD can an "overwhelming majority" be playing by the rules. The numbers simply do not provide evidence of your experience. These people are obviously working. If 11,000,000 is just the roundoff error you suggest, then what the hell is everybody getting all worked up about?
Personally, I think proof of a job is proof you are a working member of society and you are needed. Why shouldn't all workers be given full citizenship?
You misunderstood. THe 'overwhelming majority' is in reference to businesses, not immigrants, which in reference to the earlier comment quoted upthread. As you noted, there are roughly 11MM undocumented (according to PEW's estimates), but only ~6MM are in the labor force. In the US we have a labor force of roughly 160MM. So they compose less than 4% of the total labor force. Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring illegals.
As for why everyone is getting all worked up about immigration, that's a good but seperate question. In a country of 330MM the undocumented compose about 3% of the total. We've also had far higher numbers of immigrants in previous decades. That's not to say that we shouldn't have immigration standards, but that's yet a third issue.
People are getting worked up about illegal immigration because it's easy to blame brown people for their economic problems not because illegal immigration is an actual problem.
Want to stop illegal immigration? Continue building Mexico. As Mexico becomes a stronger economy people aren't going to come across the border illegally.
Also, people who think illegal immigration is a real problem should also be huge advocates of climate change. Like what do they think will happen if the earth warms and south america cant support the # of people there? But it's not really about logic, it's about blaming brown people.
-
there are roughly 11MM undocumented (according to PEW's estimates), but only ~6MM are in the labor force. In the US we have a labor force of roughly 160MM. So they compose less than 4% of the total labor force. Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring illegals.
I suspect that in some sectors, like dairy farms and fruit orchards, the percentage of businesses that hire undocumented workers is approaching 100%. They just aren't profitable without immigrants willing to bust ass for $5/hour while living in a shack next to a manure lagoon. Conversely, my old white collar job was full of PhDs and federal contracts, and I'm pretty confident that 0% of office like mine are currently employing undocumented immigrants.
As for why everyone is getting all worked up about immigration, that's a good but seperate question.
The history of immigration debates in America has ALWAYS been tied up with racism. Going back to the early 1800s, Americans have used "immigration" as a code word for "protecting white christian privilege by keeping out the subhuman foreigners" and hilariously those subhuman foreigners were from countries that today pass as white (i.e. italians, irish, etc).
Whenever I hear a politician use the word "immigration" to fire up a crowd, I mentally replace it with "brown people" just to remind myself of what he's really trying to say. Similarly, whenever I hear one complain about "George Soros" I remind myself that what they really mean is "wealthy Jews". It makes the entire Republican party platform feel much more familiar, in historical context, to just let them use the words they have always used before to mean the things they have always meant before.
-
I think we largely agree on the overall immigration issue. I am not sure we agree on the current benefit to businesses.
In the US we have a labor force of roughly 160MM. So they compose less than 4% of the total labor force. Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring illegals.
One does not necessary lead to the other, unless we change your comment to be "Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring a large portion of illegal workers." It would be possible, though extremely unlikely that EVERY business could hire 1 illegal worker, ALL are therefore hiring illegals, and they still compose only 4% of the labor force. A low percentage of workers has nothing to do with the percentage of companies that hire illegals.
I think the bigger issue is who BENEFITS from an illegal work force. The semantics of sub-contracting labor makes it very easy to benefit from this workforce without the pesky "hiring illegals" label. It is just one more added benefit to sub-contract labor, adding to not paying benefits, half of social security, workers comp, vacation, sick days, etc.
It is possible that a huge company like Dole has 0 employed illegal workers, but do you really think they are not benefiting from that workforce in the way of direct labor farming crops that contain their label?
-
I think we largely agree on the overall immigration issue. I am not sure we agree on the current benefit to businesses.
In the US we have a labor force of roughly 160MM. So they compose less than 4% of the total labor force. Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring illegals.
One does not necessary lead to the other, unless we change your comment to be "Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring a large portion of illegal workers." It would be possible, though extremely unlikely that EVERY business could hire 1 illegal worker, ALL are therefore hiring illegals, and they still compose only 4% of the labor force. A low percentage of workers has nothing to do with the percentage of companies that hire illegals.
I think the bigger issue is who BENEFITS from an illegal work force. The semantics of sub-contracting labor makes it very easy to benefit from this workforce without the pesky "hiring illegals" label. It is just one more added benefit to sub-contract labor, adding to not paying benefits, half of social security, workers comp, vacation, sick days, etc.
It is possible that a huge company like Dole has 0 employed illegal workers, but do you really think they are not benefiting from that workforce in the way of direct labor farming crops that contain their label?
Well I think everyone benefits from illegal/undocumented workers, as they (from everything I have read) are over-represented in farm-picking and construction jobs. As for the leap in logic above ("ergo, most businesses aren't hiring illegal workers...") there's just not enough undocumented (~6MM) for each business (~30MM) for each to hire one.
Anyhow, circling back to what you said about subcontractors and what I said about federal work standards (including federal minimum wage) not applying to a large chunk of the workforce, including subcontractors, seasonal workers, interns and the self employed. It seems to me these two issues are interconnected.
-
Implement a "Bad Citizenship Tax"
The tax is levied on all US citizens 18 years of age or order.
It is assessed at $100 per month.
It is due one week after each election.
Payment can be in cash or by voting in the election.
Provide reasonable mitigating circumstances and rules to handle invalids, people whose car broke down, had medical issues, absentee ballot lost in the mail, etc.
This has several benefits.
1) It encourages people to vote. The biggest tax collection is for primary elections because the gap between primary elections and the previous election will usually be much larger than the gap between the primary and the main election.
2) It only taxes people who don't vote. Makes it very easy for a politician to vote for that tax.
3) It dilutes the extreme partisan folks in each party with lots of moderates. (Most voters skip the primary and that means each party has to play to the extremes to get elected, because extremes in each party are most likely to vote.)
This would have the effect of moving both parties to a more moderate position and enable the elected politicians to negotiate better because the crazies in their party won't be able to vote them out in the primary so easily.
-
Require all non-primary races on federal ballots to have a "None of the above" option.
If "None of the above" gets a majority of votes cast, then none of the candidates in that race get elected.
None of the candidates can hold, be elected to, be hired for or be elected to any position of trust and responsibility in the Federal government (including quasi-governmental organizations) for a period of 10 years since they were deemed unfit for office by the electorate. (If constitutional, which i doubt, forbid any state or local government position either).
This next bit gets a bit more complicated. You see, some political parties automatically get their candidates placed on the ballot. In some states, other parties have to petition to get on the ballot if their candidates didn't get a minimum % of the vote last time. This makes it harder for small parties to compete because they expend their scarce resources just to get on the ballot, much less win the election.
So, if none of above wins that race, then each and every political party in that race - provided that party's candidates are automatically placed on the ballot - is fined the full cost of a new election.
This would also have to include the provision that political parties withdraw from a given race, but that withdrawal would need to come within 2 weeks of the primary election. If the party withdraws, that party's candidate(s) do not get on the ballot.
This would motivate the parties to identify and put forward candidates whose best reason to vote for them isn't because they're the lesser of two evils.
-
Corporations don't commit crimes, people commit crimes.
If a corporation breaks the law in a felonious manner, the prosecutors are directed to identify and prosecute all workers and managers and shareholders who broke that law or who applied pressure to break the law to those who did so.
And, punishments for these crimes should be higher in dollars and longer in sentences than smaller burglaries and robberies in which no one is injured.
-
Any member of congress accused of a crime or misdemeanor must go thru the regular justice system just like any other citizen.
There can be no slush fund to pay for the misdeeds of congressman who want to sexually harass people (or anything else, for that matter).
-
No President can pardon anyone who worked in their White House (or the VP's). They cannot pardon anyone who served in their cabinet or was a top level administrator or military person or on the supreme court whilst they were in office. They cannot pardon anyone who committed a crime that did, or was intended to benefit the President, their administration, or the President's political party. No VP becoming President other than by an election can pardon anyone the prior President could not pardon.
For example, this prevents a President hiring someone to murder an opponent and, if caught, pardoning them.
-
Corporations don't commit crimes, people commit crimes.
Corporations are people though. That's why they're allowed to use their money ("free speech") to lobby politicians. I'm not against imprisoning/fining those in corporations who break the law, but the corporation itself should also be fined. Otherwise there's incentive to encourage your employees to do illegal stuff . . . as it'll make your corporation more profitable with no risk.
-
Corporations don't commit crimes, people commit crimes.
Corporations are people though. That's why they're allowed to use their money ("free speech") to lobby politicians. I'm not against imprisoning/fining those in corporations who break the law, but the corporation itself should also be fined. Otherwise there's incentive to encourage your employees to do illegal stuff . . . as it'll make your corporation more profitable with no risk.
That's why I specifically said that applying pressure to someone to break the law is breaking the same law. :)
But I don't mind the corporations paying a fine in addition to those people in it who break the law.
-
Require all non-primary races on federal ballots to have a "None of the above" option.
I can certainly see an argument for banning candidates losing to "none of the above" from appointed public office for a term (probably less than 10 years though), but see no reason to bar them from continuing to seek elected public office. A less severe penalty for losing to "none of the above" could be to shorten the term of office for the candidate that takes office based on a plurality rather than majority.
I could see "none of the above" useful on an instant runoff style ballot. Voters would rank candidates that they approve of then select "none of the above" rather than ranking candidates they disapprove of. In counting the votes, first you'd count all the first choice votes. If no candidate got a majority of first choice votes, you'd follow runoff procedures. Runoff procedures would rank candidates by number of votes they received and retain enough candidates to represent a majority of votes cast - all other candidates are eliminated and votes cast for those candidates would transfer to the next highest ranked candidate cast on the ballot that was still in the running. Multiple rounds of ranking candidates, eliminating candidates, and transferring votes could occur until either a candidate or "none of the above" received a majority of votes. The result of "none of the above" getting the majority of votes cast could either be a vacant office as you suggest or the plurality winner of the round where "none of the above" took the majority taking office (potentially with a shorter term than a majority elected candidate would receive).
-
Implement a "Bad Citizenship Tax"
The tax is levied on all US citizens 18 years of age or order.
It is assessed at $100 per month.
It is due one week after each election.
Payment can be in cash or by voting in the election.
Provide reasonable mitigating circumstances and rules to handle invalids, people whose car broke down, had medical issues, absentee ballot lost in the mail, etc.
This has several benefits.
1) It encourages people to vote. The biggest tax collection is for primary elections because the gap between primary elections and the previous election will usually be much larger than the gap between the primary and the main election.
2) It only taxes people who don't vote. Makes it very easy for a politician to vote for that tax.
3) It dilutes the extreme partisan folks in each party with lots of moderates. (Most voters skip the primary and that means each party has to play to the extremes to get elected, because extremes in each party are most likely to vote.)
This would have the effect of moving both parties to a more moderate position and enable the elected politicians to negotiate better because the crazies in their party won't be able to vote them out in the primary so easily.
In response to your "Bad Citizenship Tax" policy proposal:
1. No one likes new taxes or fines -> it can't pass congress.
2. If your goal is moderating both parties and diluting the crazies, why not just provide everyone with a "National Voting Holiday" every 2 years with the understanding that the holiday is created solely to get more people to vote?
3. Alternatively, we can just have elections on Sundays, when more people are already off.
Plenty of other countries have weekend elections exactly for this reason.
-
3. Alternatively, we can just have elections on Sundays, when more people are already off.
Plenty of other countries have weekend elections exactly for this reason.
America can't have elections on Sundays because a significant fraction of our voting citizens are deeply superstitious. There's this really old book, you see...
-
I know we are only a few posts in, but surprised to not see some legislation protecting the Special Counsel investigation. Trump has been trying to block that from many angles now for 1.5 years, obstructing justice along the way. This could even get done with the current Congress, I see Flake is on board.
I don't see a path for bipartisan support for this. Republican voters have made it quite clear that they don't want to know the truth, and their elected representatives are not interested in bringing the truth to light.
I actually think McConnel likes the current environment. He thinks this would actually be protecting Trump from himself.
-
Implement a "Bad Citizenship Tax"
The tax is levied on all US citizens 18 years of age or order.
It is assessed at $100 per month.
It is due one week after each election.
Payment can be in cash or by voting in the election.
Provide reasonable mitigating circumstances and rules to handle invalids, people whose car broke down, had medical issues, absentee ballot lost in the mail, etc.
This has several benefits.
1) It encourages people to vote. The biggest tax collection is for primary elections because the gap between primary elections and the previous election will usually be much larger than the gap between the primary and the main election.
2) It only taxes people who don't vote. Makes it very easy for a politician to vote for that tax.
3) It dilutes the extreme partisan folks in each party with lots of moderates. (Most voters skip the primary and that means each party has to play to the extremes to get elected, because extremes in each party are most likely to vote.)
This would have the effect of moving both parties to a more moderate position and enable the elected politicians to negotiate better because the crazies in their party won't be able to vote them out in the primary so easily.
In response to your "Bad Citizenship Tax" policy proposal:
1. No one likes new taxes or fines -> it can't pass congress.
2. If your goal is moderating both parties and diluting the crazies, why not just provide everyone with a "National Voting Holiday" every 2 years with the understanding that the holiday is created solely to get more people to vote?
3. Alternatively, we can just have elections on Sundays, when more people are already off.
Plenty of other countries have weekend elections exactly for this reason.
Seems there are a few easy steps which could be taken that would not incur additional costs yet address several of our current problems.
1) automate voter registration as much as possible. When you file your taxes, update your drivers license, change jobs etc. you are automatically registered to vote in the appropriate location. Voter registration ought to be automatic and include ~100% of the eligible public
2) allow everyone to cast their votes over the span of a week. They can be in person or via mail. No results are shared until the end of voting.
3) go to ranked-choice voting. This allows voters to select 3rd party candidates without 'throwing away' their vote - it also discourages candidates with extreme right or extreme left positions to win. Candidates must win by majority, not plurality.
-
there are roughly 11MM undocumented (according to PEW's estimates), but only ~6MM are in the labor force. In the US we have a labor force of roughly 160MM. So they compose less than 4% of the total labor force. Ergo, most businesses aren't hiring illegals.
I suspect that in some sectors, like dairy farms and fruit orchards, the percentage of businesses that hire undocumented workers is approaching 100%. They just aren't profitable without immigrants willing to bust ass for $5/hour while living in a shack next to a manure lagoon. Conversely, my old white collar job was full of PhDs and federal contracts, and I'm pretty confident that 0% of office like mine are currently employing undocumented immigrants.
Correct my if I'm wrong, but at one point in the not-so-distant past, didn't the US somewhat actively recruit Central American workers to come do the gruntwork for the summer/harvest/milk "wet" season and then go back home? But once the border became harder to cross, people began staying because they didn't know if they'd be able to get back in for the next harvest season?
-
I believe you're describing the braceros program.
-
1) automate voter registration as much as possible. When you file your taxes, update your drivers license, change jobs etc. you are automatically registered to vote in the appropriate location. Voter registration ought to be automatic and include ~100% of the eligible public
You were in Canada too long. ;-)
I have registered to vote for years by ticking that box on my federal income tax form. Easy. There are lots of other easy ways to register to vote in Canada.
-
1) automate voter registration as much as possible. When you file your taxes, update your drivers license, change jobs etc. you are automatically registered to vote in the appropriate location. Voter registration ought to be automatic and include ~100% of the eligible public
You were in Canada too long. ;-)
I have registered to vote for years by ticking that box on my federal income tax form. Easy. There are lots of other easy ways to register to vote in Canada.
There are lots of ways of registering to vote in the US as well which are easy, including at the DMV - my broader point is that registration should be the default, not an extra step one needs to take in order to vote. Unfortunately you currently cannot register to vote on your federal tax forms (which seems like a no-brainer option to have).
This would serve the purpose of circumventing much of the dubious legislation which aims to limit certain classes of voters (e.g. the poor, certain minorities, university students).
-
There are certain things that you know for certain the person would be eligible to vote, for example getting a passport, or registering in a program that requires citizenship. That should auto register them, with an opt out option later.
-
my broader point is that registration should be the default,
Why should it be the default? You need to be a citizen to vote, which means people who are legal residents but not citizens can't vote. So non-registration should be the default, but registration should be super easy.
Easy, as in, on last year's tax form, right at the beginning where we give our general information, Elections Canada has a 2 part question.
A. Do you have Canadian Citizenship? Yes No
If yes, go to Question B. If no, skip question B.
B. As a Canadian citizen, do you authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to give your name, address, and date of birth to Elections Canada to update the National Register of Electors? Yes No
If you don't pay taxes there are other ways to register, but this covers a huge number of Canadians. It must also save Elections Canada masses of money, I can remember being enumerated in the mid-eighties, and they had to come to a residence 3 times before they gave up and tried to reach you some other way.
-
So… I guess the answer is that nothing at all will be done with the a Split Congress. Although, to be fair, the shutdown begin under the Republican House of representatives.
-
So… I guess the answer is that nothing at all will be done with the a Split Congress. Although, to be fair, the shutdown begin under the Republican House of representatives.
I would say it's too early to judge fairly. This congress was sworn in 11 days ago. Not much of a sample size (yet)
-
So… I guess the answer is that nothing at all will be done with the a Split Congress. Although, to be fair, the shutdown begin under the Republican House of representatives.
Oh, they'll get around to doing something eventually. Any politician that spends their entire term boycotting the legislative process in order to support their party probably isn't going to get re-elected. In a normal world.
So I think they'll end the shutdown eventually one way or another. It wouldn't surprise me if it takes three months, though.
The alternative, of course, is that American politics are well and truly broken. The current division between educated and economically successful racially diverse urban areas that vote blue, and less educated economically struggling and primarily white rural areas that vote red has set up an interesting dynamic in which stalemate is a real possibility. The mismatch between population centers and political power centers means that a person can theoretically become the President of the United States while only winning 11 of the 50 states. The Senate is not much better, with less than 25% of the people in the US constituting a Senate majority. This is a situation in which it looks very possible for a vocal and angry minority of people to elect enough representatives to totally shut down the US government indefinitely.
Twice in recent memory we have seen a mismatch between the electoral college vote and the popular vote, and as more successful people continue to move to successful urban centers I can see this problem potentially getting worse and worse in the future. I think it's very possible that we're all about to grow very accustomed to that the presidential candidates that people want are not the ones that win elections.
-
Hmm... well back in Sept 2018, the R House passed a bill to introduce Universal Savings Accounts (USA).
It operates similar to a Roth IRA, in that it's funded with after-tax money, no tax on gains, and limited contribution per tax year (a mere $2.5k). The difference is that this account can be withdrawn from - contributions and earnings - with no penalty, and no age restriction.
It is still waiting to get in to the Senate... and for the Presidential sign-off to make it law.
This was generally a Republican supported bill in the House, so hopefully it should have no trouble passing in the Senate. It just needs to get on someone's radar..
The only media opposition I've read about this piece of the bill is complaining that it mostly will only benefit middle to upper income households that can afford to set aside 2.5k per year(!), and that the plight of low savings among low income workers is a systematic issue of the economy which this won't really address (due to paycheck to paycheck style living).
Personally, I am openly supportive of a bill that would reduce household tax liability and provide a natural, emergency fund buffer for people, which is beneficial to the overall health of the economy and for financial household stability.
This bill almost seems tailor-made for Mustachian stashers who can recognize the advantage, and will organize their budget to set aside money for it.
In terms of tax-advantaged funding priority, I would say that a USA would rank very high, right after 401k matched contributions, due to its complete accessibility and tax free gains!
-
Hmm... well back in Sept 2018, the R House passed a bill to introduce Universal Savings Accounts (USA).
...
The only media opposition I've read about this piece of the bill is complaining that it mostly will only benefit middle to upper income households that can afford to set aside 2.5k per year(!), and that the plight of low savings among low income workers is a systematic issue of the economy which this won't really address (due to paycheck to paycheck style living).
Ok, I'll fill in the blanks here. The opposition isn't opposed because it would only help the rich and middle class, they are opposed because it would further restrict government revenue while simultaneously lowering the taxable burden of those towards the upper end of the income scale. You may think that's a good thing, and it certainly would be for mustachian-minded savers like us. But this bill continues the GOP trend of reducing taxes that wealthy individuals pay, while driving up the deficit.
Not coincidentally, a key GOP talking point is how the percentage of entitlement spending has shot up and is 'unsustainable'. Well that's what happens when you cut revenue, and it was a pretty deliberate strategy of speaker Ryan (since they've been unable to cut the social net in years past, they've made them appear unsustainable by cutting revenue, and then going on talk shows to say how the system will be 'broke' if nothing is done. Funny, but they never mention the revenue side.)
-
Hmm... well back in Sept 2018, the R House passed a bill to introduce Universal Savings Accounts (USA).
It operates similar to a Roth IRA, in that it's funded with after-tax money, no tax on gains, and limited contribution per tax year (a mere $2.5k). The difference is that this account can be withdrawn from - contributions and earnings - with no penalty, and no age restriction.
It is still waiting to get in to the Senate... and for the Presidential sign-off to make it law.
This was generally a Republican supported bill in the House, so hopefully it should have no trouble passing in the Senate. It just needs to get on someone's radar..
The only media opposition I've read about this piece of the bill is complaining that it mostly will only benefit middle to upper income households that can afford to set aside 2.5k per year(!), and that the plight of low savings among low income workers is a systematic issue of the economy which this won't really address (due to paycheck to paycheck style living).
Personally, I am openly supportive of a bill that would reduce household tax liability and provide a natural, emergency fund buffer for people, which is beneficial to the overall health of the economy and for financial household stability.
This bill almost seems tailor-made for Mustachian stashers who can recognize the advantage, and will organize their budget to set aside money for it.
In terms of tax-advantaged funding priority, I would say that a USA would rank very high, right after 401k matched contributions, due to its complete accessibility and tax free gains!
Not a bad idea Shor. If I were king of the world, however, I would prefer to change the law so that EVERYONE could withdraw pre-tax from their paycheck to the 19K Limit. This would allow folks to save regardless of whether their employer had a plan. This will really help people who work in smaller businesses, in my opinion.