Submitted by sillychillly t3_y7doiu in Maine
Comments
Logan_W_Logan t1_isu7nfn wrote
It’s already against the law. STOCK Act of 2012. They all just ignore it
CumBubbleFarts t1_isuempv wrote
They gutted that law as soon as it was passed. There is essentially no transparency, no real way to gather information about who is trading what. This article explains the changes that they made to the law a year after it was passed. It went from an electronic catalogue of anything that needed to be disclosed to a physical paper copy version that you need to physically be in Washington to access. The original law required the creation of a searchable online database of disclosed trades, the amendment completely removed that.
And people bitch about a lack of bipartisan support for legislation... This amendment passed UNANIMOUSLY in the house and senate. Unanimously.
Random-Rambling t1_isui2ej wrote
>"...to a physical paper copy version that you need to physically be in Washington to access."
Reminds me of that one line in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Arthur found the paperwork declaring his house was to be bulldozed...in the basement of the city hall, in a dark, dusty bathroom, stuffed in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet in an out-of-order bathroom stall.
civildisobedient t1_isv82fh wrote
...with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard."
curtludwig t1_isusygt wrote
This headlines my contention that all politicians are sleazeballs and the only way to do right for our country is to vote them ALL out.
Nobody ever wants to really do it "Oh, my guy is okay" yeah, well he/she isn't...
DrGordonFreemanScD t1_isxauuf wrote
The only person qualified to do the job is the one who doesn't want it.
curtludwig t1_isxlax2 wrote
Too right. Desire to obtain the job proves they're not qualified.
wessex464 t1_isu80fu wrote
More like no one can prove it.
Squidworth89 t1_isu9b98 wrote
Which would be the inherent issue regardless of whatever act they sign.
It's easier to prove insider trading on the company level. On the policy level that's much more challenging.
anxiouslyaverage t1_isuzcba wrote
I love how it stands for Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge 2012, don’t love how it hasn’t been enforced…
[deleted] t1_isvyv2p wrote
[removed]
Squidworth89 t1_isu50uc wrote
Insider trading is a legal term. The laws exempt congress; therefore it isn't technically insider trading.
mhb20002000 t1_isua953 wrote
Wrong. Insider trading is illegal for everyone. Insider trading happens when you have knowledge gained from your inside position and you use that information to trade in. An example would be a Ford employee knows that they are about to recall a bunch of cars and shorts the Ford stock. This is illegal for everyone.
What Jared and other Congress members are backing is a ban on trading stocks period (some allow for blind trusts) because Congressmen and women learn information that would impact the markets generally and not necessarily a particular stock. I.e. February 2020 COVID is really bad and US economy may shut down like China when it gets here.
Squidworth89 t1_isuemgz wrote
It’s easy to prove that ford employee knew the stock would tank.
It’s not so easy to prove a politician knows a stock is going to move.
Banning equities is idiotic. It’ll only disincentives people from running. The already wealthy people will still get around it.
MaineHippo83 t1_iswo2ke wrote
They can invest in mutual funds or use a blind trust. Actively trading stocks of say chip manufacturers when you or your spouse is voting on the CHIPS bill should absolutely be illegal
Squidworth89 t1_isx8ckl wrote
Your vision is narrow as well as understanding of the matter.
MaineHippo83 t1_isxboge wrote
A witty retort that says nothing, well done.
[deleted] t1_isu8zpj wrote
[removed]
Ambitious_Ask_1569 t1_isuefxc wrote
When you write the laws and own the FBI and DOJ.......
tycam01 t1_isv1hof wrote
Well they make the rules
Downrightregret t1_isy9nmx wrote
When the crooks are making the rules and letting each other ignore and violate them with impunity, this is what happens
Silktrocity t1_isvi2tv wrote
Because the people taking advantage of it are the people responsible for passing laws lol
Elliptical_Tangent t1_isw35y2 wrote
When you write the laws, you can make it so you can do what others can't.
Beasagdeux t1_isy511g wrote
Because when they made the insider trading law... they were careful to make sure it didn't restrict the members of Congress.
[deleted] t1_ithjn0w wrote
[deleted]
indyaj t1_isty3me wrote
Too bad Jared has no political capital to spend or his voice would be worth more.
GoggleField t1_isu1g19 wrote
Too bad our system of government is based on political capital and not, like, doing good stuff.
mike_hawk_420 t1_isxaclq wrote
They should be paid based off our gdp or something. If they help the country grow, they make more. And they are not allowed to take any outside money
Squidworth89 t1_isu262d wrote
Define “good stuff”
Cause this isn’t a good idea. Way to ostracize even more people from public office. Can’t retire off government bonds.
Bywater t1_isu3aps wrote
You really defending politicians engaging in insider trading and allowing them to make decisions based on stocks because they don't get paid enough? Holy fucking Stockholm syndrome Batman.
TheFangjangler t1_isuu06o wrote
Some people just really like deep throating that Capitalist boot.
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isugghe wrote
I'm not mad about insider trading. I'm mad that I don't have the networking connections to do it myself. We're all human. I know it sounds good to say I would never do that but the reality is a substantial amount of people would partake in insider trading if they had the ability to.
I already posted something similar but he does have a good point. Government pay sucks. After talking to some of my state senators and my local representatives I realized that it really sucks. The really smart people go private sector, we get the second stringers because of the graft. You get rid of the graft we're really going to have even worse politicians.
Obviously there's exceptions to the rule, looking at you Bernie. But those politicians are the exception, not the rule
Random-Rambling t1_isuinh5 wrote
So what should we do?
If we pay gov't employees more, you get greedy bastards only in the job for the money. If we pay them less, you get...even greedier bastards who manipulate the system for more money.
Bywater t1_isujm03 wrote
The problem now is that we have way to much hierarchy and far to little accountability. Those we elect to represent us tend to just represent whatever will make them the most money to get back in office so they can continue to profit off that position of trust.
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isujy41 wrote
Off the cuff maybe we could offer voter based incentives. Annually after election the constituents can vote whether or not the official earned a bonus.
I don't mind greedy bastards. Money, shame and pride are powerful motivations.
Unpopular opinion but I'd like to just pay them more. Like I said I don't mind if they're just in it for the money as long as they're the best at what they do. Elected official is a job and most people want the best paying job they can get which leaves us with people who couldn't cut it in the private sector.
Bywater t1_isuifsn wrote
I ditched all my stocks decades ago, that shit more rigged than a casino.
Saying "Government pay sucks" considering the current state of economic affairs makes you sound both privileged and completely out of fucking touch. Even if you ignore the fact that they still get a pension saying that people who get paid 5 and a half times the median income in our country get a free pass on corruption because that is how you get good people is peak fuckwit.
I swear the number of people who are content to be ruled and allow those in power to have their own set of laws is why we are in such a bad way. Defending their ability to engage in insider trades, and even own stocks for company they make decisions on is an ethical nightmare, that you can't see that shit is speaks to how effective propaganda is on some folks gullibility. But hey, some folks cool with people taking classified documents home from work with them, so I guess I should not be surprised anymore.
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isulmls wrote
Ad hominem is not the way to get anyone to respect your opinion. You realize you can't murder the opposition you have to sway them to your side with articulate arguments. You ever won a debate by calling the other person a fuckwit?
State senators make less than $16k a year. Substantially below the poverty level. So yes government pay sucks. If you're surviving on less than that every year please share how you're doing yet. It's not an automatic pension, I don't know what you're getting that information.
You make a really poor argument. What are you talking about with classified documents? Are you one of these right wingers that believes everyone is guilty until proven innocent?
If you're off stocks what makes up your IRA? Genuine question, mine is almost entirely VOO with a little VXUS. Always interested in how to diversify
Bywater t1_isunrt1 wrote
I was describing you, if you found it to be insulting maybe you should reflect on that. As for respecting my opinion, do what you want, but I have long since given up on reaching most people who are so committed to whatever it is they decided to believe in that they lack the strength to challenge their own beliefs regardless of the information they are presented with.
I firmly believe that if you use your position of power to make a single dollar by violating your oath and the trust of those you represent that you should not be in office. As you came out saying that they have no choice but to do this and survive, despite how much better off they are than 90% of Americans, to defend that corruption? Ya, with as deep as you are in that bubble I know I will never be able to pop it. I mean even with the 16k we pay our reps (it varies by state) as they work less than half a year they are still above the median, but lets not let that get in the way of some kind of clear repetition of Dan Crenshaw's talking points to defend his millions he made.
Gayasskat t1_isuolhh wrote
I mean yeah if I had the ability to rob a bank and have no repercussions I would do it. Doesn't mean it should be legal lmao
c4boom13 t1_isutb5t wrote
State Congress is SIGNIFICANTLY different than Federal Congress. Federally all members make $174k or more as their pay. Considering Congressional sessions are not a full time job (the rest of the year they spend fundraising for re-election which doesn't count), that is plenty for them to live very comfortably. They just want MORE. If they want to play the stock market and build personal wealth, they can retire from Congress.
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isuytir wrote
I'm not disagreeing with you. At some point I'm going to fact check that $174k is enough to live comfortably in DC but for now I'll go along with it.
Everybody wants more. You say that like it's an accusation of wrongdoing when wanting more is the American dream.
On a federal level they're making about what a programmer who took a 6 month boot camp makes a year. 166k average vs 174k.
They live in spotlight under constant scrutiny, at any given time probably a third of the country hates them no matter how good a job they're doing.
I'm fine with getting rid of the graft but you have to bump up the salary or as I said we're going to get even worse politicians than we have now.
TarantinoFan23 t1_isuikwz wrote
Lol, thats terrible logic. The solution is pull you cheeks apart so it doesn't hurt so bad?
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isum1c1 wrote
Dude.. I'll debate with you all day but if you're going to shit post with no kind of articulate response I'm going to bail.
Do you talk to people like this at the pub or when you're volunteering for GOTV?
TarantinoFan23 t1_isute6i wrote
Could you show me some legislation that would meet your stamp of approval?
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isuxaxg wrote
Death with Dignity is legislation that gets my stamp of approval. Granted they waited to pass it until after we put it on the ballot but a win is a win.
Edit: haha you win, you baited me into a reply after I said I was out if you kept up like this.
TarantinoFan23 t1_isv0nur wrote
Intresting. I am opposed to assisted suicide because it only benefits the survivors (family), which seems like a slippery slope. And the fact that we only assume that death ends the suffering of the person who dies.
Attackcamel8432 t1_isu38s3 wrote
This might sound nutty, but people who get into government for the money might not be the people we want there...
Squidworth89 t1_isu45gl wrote
You're missing the point.
You need to be able to invest in equites in order to retire.
Bond yields are nothing.
If you want good people in office you shouldn't disincentivize them.
Attackcamel8432 t1_isu4os9 wrote
Or a pension... normal people investing for their retirement is a relatively new thing.
Squidworth89 t1_isu58o3 wrote
Pensions are getting rarer and rarer.
Shouldn't be... but is the reality of it... they're only failing because the companies/government entities didn't properly fund them in past decades and unions got gutted.
Attackcamel8432 t1_isu5rjs wrote
True enough. You aren't wrong about incentives for lawmakers, but they definitely have to be the right ones.
Squidworth89 t1_isu6z1l wrote
Not so much for the lawmakers but for those looking to try to be one...
Do they have decent salaries? Yes. Are those salaries huge? Not by DC standards.
I personally would be hard pressed to ever run for office if I couldn't invest in equities. Social security is a joke. Bond yields are terrible. I've never been offered a pension. Have no choice but equities.
There should be reform but most pushing the narrative "it's insider trading rawr rawr rawr!" don't grasp the subject matter beyond the headline.
Plus... there's many far more important things we keep kicking the can on...
MaineHippo83 t1_iswoao2 wrote
You keep failing to realize that you can invest in equities and prevent corruption.
Mutual funds and/or blind trusts
Ok-Pomegranate6336 t1_isx53f9 wrote
Yes, exactly.
Squidworth89 t1_isx8fo8 wrote
Those are terrible alternatives.
MaineHippo83 t1_isxbho1 wrote
Disagree. It's what most americans are invested in and a safe long term investment strategy. Look up bogleheads.
Most people will not beat the market over the long term.
Squidworth89 t1_isxdcpc wrote
Boggleheads is a very basic community. Haven’t been there in prolly a decade. I’m assuming they haven’t changed much.
Friendly-Seaweed-250 t1_isu4pnv wrote
You have a smooth brain and a taste for licking boots
Squidworth89 t1_isu5g24 wrote
That's all you've got?
Feel free to educate yourself on the matter and try again. Or continue living in ignorance... I hear it's bliss.
GoggleField t1_isu75gu wrote
There are ways to invest in equities without taking advantage of insider knowledge. It's not one or the other. You could certainly make the point that Golden is over generalizing, but the intention is a good one.
Squidworth89 t1_isu8r3a wrote
Yeah you can use index funds or mutual funds...
But imo those are trash. I do feel there will eventually be an index fund bubble (they buy indiscriminately, and eventually that'll artificially inflate certain things that will eventually have to pop). And mutual fund managers are really not that good at managing funds.
For starters they could simply enforce the reporting requirements... which they really don't.
Intention is debatable. It does nothing for the people. To me it's simply pandering for votes. There's far more important matters out there.
TarantinoFan23 t1_isuj6n2 wrote
You're insinuating that this is literally the only legislation Golden is working on?
Squidworth89 t1_isukmme wrote
I'm insinuating the only real purpose behind this legislation is for him to score political points at home as he panders for votes in the upcoming election.
TarantinoFan23 t1_isum99f wrote
What is the difference between legislation that has broad support and legislation that is just to score political points?
Squidworth89 t1_isumz7n wrote
Something that actually matters...
This one means nothing for you and I.
Address basic rights for women, or lagging wages, or the terribly broken medical system and maybe he'd deserve those votes.
But pandering on misunderstood and inflated word salad... he might as well be a MTG who does equally as much nothing in office.
Laeek t1_isu9p5c wrote
So let them invest in index funds. Less than one percent of Americans are active traders. Active trading isn't necessary for financial security, and the thing people have issue with is "insider trading" (used colloquially) like members of congress buying stock in specific American chip manufacturers before they vote to give the industry a subsidy.
Plus members of congress get a pension and lifetime health insurance, in addition to a generous salary while in office. You're either making your argument without knowing how members of congress are compensated or you're being disingenuous.
Squidworth89 t1_isuh6g2 wrote
You guys cannot even keep your definitions straight.
The "Less than 1%" you're referring to is day trading. That has nothing to do with the conversation.
Just because someone buys stock in specific companies doesn't mean it's insider trading, or day trading, or whatever else ppl come up with.
They get a decent salary while in office for DC. Not something I would give up access to stocks for.
lucianbelew t1_iswvb90 wrote
Oh. I get it. This is a parody of someone so profoundly stupid that they can't imagine common sense provisions like allowing for investment in target date funds or blind trusts.
Well done! You almost had me there.
Squidworth89 t1_isx8iek wrote
Target date funds are a rip-off sold to the ignorant.
Blind trusts… who blindly gives up control of their funds?
lucianbelew t1_isxaelm wrote
Excellent twist on that parody of a profoundly stupid human being. Keep it up if it makes you happy!
Squidworth89 t1_isxanad wrote
You should try actually educating yourself on the subject matter at hand. You wouldn’t be so bitter about it if you grasped the basics.
lucianbelew t1_isxbg6u wrote
Ain't nobody bitter over here, bub.
JBunds72 t1_isu38au wrote
I don’t think anyone in congress is really hurting for money lol, if it stops the ridiculous insider trading that both sides egregiously do, I’m all for it
Squidworth89 t1_isu4by4 wrote
Insider trading is a legal term; of which this is not it.
Is it shady? Sure. But we don't need to be disincentivizing decent people from trying to get into office. Bonds are trash for retirement planning these days.
Silktrocity t1_isvibm4 wrote
Get a grip bro. You're shilling for people that give zero fucks about you.
Squidworth89 t1_isviwtm wrote
You sound bitter. Maybe it’s you that needs the grip.
MaineHippo83 t1_iswo7uo wrote
No but I'd be doing quite well making 174k a year.
This is about actively trading individual stocks not broad market mutual funds.l
Squidworth89 t1_isx8eki wrote
No this is about equities. Learn the proper definitions.
$174k isn’t glamorous for DC.
MaineHippo83 t1_isxbmym wrote
I lived in NOVA for years making between 49-72k and owned a home. That was starting out in my career. Making 174K I'd be doing very well. You have a very limited view of how many live in the DMV, you don't need a McMansion to live a good life.
janmichaelvintage t1_isv1be9 wrote
Exactly
Bywater t1_isu325m wrote
Luck in battle Bub. You got people who have been in office for decades and have grown fantastically rich off this shit. The odds of them doing anything but lip service or some piddly ass 10k fine on millions in trades is long. He would have a better bet trying to get them to have to list all stock trades as they happen, because as soon as you get other people following them the system is likely to breakdown as all trades become insider trades because of corrupt politicians. That is the only thing that would actually force them to stop it.
TarantinoFan23 t1_isuduxa wrote
No need for any action except to share information. Perfect solution
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isuflnm wrote
That's about the long and short of it. Transparency that independent watch dog groups can wade through to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. In a perfect world we wouldn't need government regulations because watchdog groups plus the free market would do the job for us but c'est la vie..
appleshit8 t1_isukc2v wrote
As they happen or before they happen? If I invest 1mil then tell everyone I did that because of insider info the price will spike and I can just exit my position with a win
Bywater t1_isulg1e wrote
As they happen, the trade doesn't count until the information has been released; should also works for when you release.
You are right, it would lead to rapid and nonsensical fluctuations in the market, but it would in turn force them to get off their asses and do something about it as all the trusts and big players continued to take it in the teeth because Nancy or whoever let her husband know the way the wind was blowing or even used her position of power to fan that shit in one direction or the other.
Dseltzer1212 t1_isullqc wrote
Good luck, and while you’re at it, take their sweetheart health insurance away from them and give them some plan with a $1000 deductible and a crazy high co-pay for expensive meds like the rest of us
WhatIfIToldUu t1_isv8e0f wrote
Or just put these people in jail. Seriously. They have legitimately fucked people over for their own benefit. This may be shocking for some but our government is corrupt as the day is long. Term limits. We need them.
sirgoofs t1_isx3ynz wrote
$1000 deductible? Mine’s $6,000 for me, $6,000 for my wife, but don’t worry, the plan only costs us $1,000/month…
The joy if self employment. This is how the system breeds compliant employees instead of independent people.
matt9191 t1_isx4htd wrote
What makes you think it's a sweetheart health insurance?
They pay the same 28% cost share for health care that all other federal employees do. (Although they do have access to an on-site medical clinic, and use of DC area DOD Medical Treatment Facilities.)
Logan_W_Logan t1_isu7l58 wrote
It’s already against the law. STOCK Act of 2012. They all just ignore it
baxterstate t1_isuwyns wrote
I like Golden, I plan to vote for him. The true test will be if he goes after those in his own party with the same zeal as he goes after Republicans.
1stepklosr t1_isw1m01 wrote
All Jared does is go after the Dems. It's not always a bad thing, but he almost never goes after the Republicans.
I promise you if you ask him who benefits from this the most, the first person he'd say is Pelosi. Which is not inaccurate, but he's not doing it to win over Dem voters.
wiggywithit t1_isui87i wrote
There are zero former members of Congress who are not millionaires by the end of their political careers.
Donors pay big bucks just to be fly’s on the wall at important meetings that will affect markets. Congress people are running these meetings and setting policy.
Blind trusts would be acceptable.
As important as this is I would say this pales in comparison to bigger issues like gerrymandering.
MathematicianGlum880 t1_isu4rqx wrote
Neither side could give two shits, he will soon learn this.
TheRogIsHere t1_isvea0l wrote
Good. Paul Pelosi has a better track record with the market than Warren Buffet.
ErnieJohn t1_isutuau wrote
Good idea, next stop lobbyists.
Cutlasss t1_isuvfpw wrote
Gotta agree with him there. He'll get nowhere on it, though.
tycam01 t1_isv1chv wrote
Ban legal corruption.. I mean lobbying also
MontEcola t1_isup9uq wrote
Perhaps he is using the wrong term? Perhaps he wants to say 'trading stocks'? Read the comment at the end.
I heard a report on NPR about members of congress trading stocks. And getting richer than the professional traders in doing it. There are two things wrong with this.
1). Members will have information not available to the general public. Which makes them insiders.
2). Members will create legislation for certain industries which will change how a stock performs. And that promotes incentive for stock traders who know to buy or sell those stocks.
There was an argument between people who know more about it than me. Some called # 1 and 2 insider trading. Others said it was not. And both sides agreed that members of congress from all parties were getting richer than the average skilled trader.
So, I will give him credit for seeing a problem, and wanting to take steps to define and ban those practices. I say make the law clear and then stick to it.
The proposal I heard was that elected officials would be banned from trading stocks.
RaptorBuddha t1_isv1nqs wrote
I emailed Angus King about this and got some (presumably) canned response about how he's super concerned about congressional stock trading, but he assured me that the STOCK act covered it and it's all taken care of. I don't know if he's deliberately full of shit or if it's just years of being in Congress that have made him think people don't see what's going on behind the curtain.
neuromonkey t1_isv65kt wrote
I would be ok with a government full of profiteering jerkwads if they actually stabilized and strengthened the commonwealth and public interests. Education, healthcare, a living wage, pure and applied research, sane & egalitarian law enforcement, environmental preservation, etc.
Do that, and you can make as much as you like.
sacredblasphemies t1_isvy6ya wrote
Not the biggest fan of Golden (who thought it a good idea to do an appearance with Joe Manchin to, idk, show some "I'm an independent" solidarity bs), but this is good.
This is what "draining the swamp" looks like. Ending corruption in Congress.
Porcupine-Baseball t1_isxcs0u wrote
I really enjoy Golden. I hope his victory is a landslide.
GeoWannaBe t1_isuj78d wrote
Does this stop the spouse or children from using the Washington insider's information? The ban on trading would be worthless if their spouse handled the investments and gained privileged information. It should require that investments by immediate family either be through a blind trust or perhaps just through mutual funds - but no investments in individual companies.
1cooldud t1_isv9tvs wrote
Pelosi: *Takes another sip of water*
PigmySquidMotorcyle t1_iswaami wrote
He'll be the first to die
MaineHippo83 t1_iswnwzy wrote
That's awesome. I hope he realizes that his boss Pelosi is one of the worst offenders and this has to apply to spouses of members.
_Face t1_isxse8a wrote
Members of Congress should be banned from working in any private sector were they voted on legislation, or took money from, for a period of at least 10 years after they leave office. no more of this create beneficial tax incentives for the xyz industry, leave office and immediately get a $40 million a year consultant position with them.
Difficult_Bar1880 t1_isv2pry wrote
He'll change his mind in 3 days.
bulgarianjuice t1_isv2tdn wrote
Pelosi is going to end him.
[deleted] t1_isv598p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isv9ruu wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iswnvsx wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_isy79o4 wrote
[removed]
tsmit50 t1_isujva9 wrote
He votes with Pelosi something like 95% of the time. And she's one of the most notable abusers of this... I don't think this is headed anywhere.
DidDunMegasploded t1_isulzw4 wrote
Ha...you are one man. A newbie, at that. Good luck to ya.
[deleted] t1_istwp01 wrote
Pelosi won't let that happen, so I don't believe this at all. All the democrats have said this, and nothing has happened.
LumpyBumpyToad t1_istysjw wrote
>. All the democrats have said this
Well... there's a couple super notable exceptions.
YolksOnU t1_isu5qxv wrote
You can always check a username, and if it's "word-word-number" and posts in /r/Conservative, you can safely ignore every thing they ever say or do, because it's just troll bullshit.
Besides, you can be assured the generated username is because they keep getting banned for hate speech. They aren't worth your time.
TarantinoFan23 t1_isujcjz wrote
Bots
priceless37 t1_isu46iu wrote
How many republicans have come out in favor of this? I have heard a lot of democrats pushing it…….It’s like republicans voting against disaster relief, but bragging and being the first In line when their state needs it. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, we can start with republicans touting family values and then voting for a twice divorced, cheating man who paid for abortions…..
Squidworth89 t1_isu4t6a wrote
Even the dems won't actually vote for it. They're just pandering.
It's like Susan Collins pretending she isn't a party follower... she's with the dems when the vote is safe on the republican side.
and you have to be specific which man you're referring to these days. There's a lot of those in the republican side.
[deleted] t1_isu5slw wrote
Honestly, it sucks they all do this, and when I say all, I mean ALL. But I am not going to pretend they'll do anything about it.
Dems theatrics have gone too far really, people are over it.
We just want to know how you will fix the economy, inflation, and housing. Republicans will with this year simply because Biden is doing that bad.
determania t1_isu7ijb wrote
Republicans have no plan to fix anything. They are simply campaigning on culture war nonsense.
[deleted] t1_isua0ey wrote
It's like there's no difference, I think you're right.
determania t1_isua7kr wrote
There’s a huge difference, and you’re a fool if you can’t see that. Democrats aren’t all that great but Republicans are batshit crazy.
[deleted] t1_isub8dv wrote
Hey man if you're falling for it, that's on you. I'm not interested, I vote policies.
determania t1_isuc573 wrote
You are the one falling for the both sides BS while posting in conservative lmao
Competitive-Army2872 t1_isu6d2u wrote
How does POTUS fix global inflation?
Squidworth89 t1_isu7wnl wrote
He waves that magical wand he's got and POOF! all is fixed...
[deleted] t1_isu9pq7 wrote
"Global inflation"
You mean corporate price hikes?
Competitive-Army2872 t1_isubwbi wrote
Call it what you wish. Nevertheless, inflation is global.
How exactly is POTUS supposed to control that?
Squidworth89 t1_isu7rtp wrote
He really isn't doing that bad... you're just falling for the authoritarian brainwashing they're doing to you.
The economy is still firing on all cylinders... Hence why we have supply inflation, demand is outstripping supply.
Inflation is global. And by global inflation standards... the US is doing far better than many.
Housing has nothing to do with the Feds. 75% of the land people live on is zoned single family. Municipalities need to stop limiting the ability to build housing units.
[deleted] t1_isuakkl wrote
I'm not Republican thanks.
Explain the supply inflation.
"Global inflation" It's literally all political bullshit, and corporations are hiking prices. You could argue the war, but NATO is all in, it's clear the gas isn't going to flow.
So, how is the administration helping the people in response to the situation that has been created? Or are you all just ok with accepting this? I guess you are, which is why It doesn't really matter.
They will never stop limiting it, because all they want are apartments.
Squidworth89 t1_isuf7sf wrote
There is monetary inflation which is caused by printing currency. Then there is supply inflation which is based on supply and demand.
When supply of goods doesn’t keep up with demand for goods; prices go up.
Conversely when there’s too much supply… prices go down.
Inflation predates Ukraine. I noticed it in building supplies in early 2020. Costs doubled or more on material.
In response to what situation?
They don’t want apartments… that’s the problem… we need more multi story buildings with multiple units in them instead of all these single family houses.
[deleted] t1_isuocv2 wrote
What is the supply and demand issues you say that we are facing then?
Inflation does not predate the pandemic, but neither was it the cause. It was all speculation, and then it stayed up.
Maine.
When I say apartments, I mean buildings, not landlords and tenants. And there is plenty of room for single family housing, no working class person wants to live in a complex of any sort, or families for that matter.
Squidworth89 t1_isupnc2 wrote
The pandemic did start inflation. It showed how weak the worlds supply chain is.
Go back to building supplies… when the pandemic hit suppliers cut production goals figuring they’d have material backing up and people wouldn’t be spending. The reality was the reverse. Everyone was bored at home and getting caught up on projects.
Look at baby formula… there’s a relatively small number of places that make it. When a couple shut down for an extended period it causes a crises.
We see it regularly in gas. When refineries are down… it spikes.
That’s all supply inflation. Supply of goods isn’t keeping up with demand.
What crisis in Maine? Housing? That’s National. The fix is at the municipal level. Harass your local politicians. Maine does have a law coming up that allows universally by the sounds of it a second unit on all single family lots. But it needs more higher density rules changed.
[deleted] t1_isutzme wrote
No, ship transports who favored electronics over everything else previously caused the issue. The whole reason for the bill. The pandemic didn't see any inflation in food, gas, or energy, except lumber from Canada, because borders were the issue.
I mean is this an argument to trust bust? I agree.
It's obvious we're in a recession, and they are raising prices to offset losses. It's corporate manufactured. You could argue it's also the "green" push.
priceless37 t1_isuhulg wrote
How are the republicans going to fix it? I haven’t heard any actual ideas just a lot of typical republican doom and gloom conspiracies…….
[deleted] t1_isunp7l wrote
Fix what happened under the democratic administration?
Start with job training centers, low income housing, nationalizing the oil production in this country.
Something like that.
priceless37 t1_isv3fou wrote
Which republican candidate is running with that platform? HAHA. It sounds like a democratic platform. How are they going to pay for those programs?
[deleted] t1_isv4txs wrote
I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat. I am not easily placed into categories for easy digestion.
I just doubt the Democrats are going to win, their election results are terrible.
And that platform would be nice, wouldn't it? Not even the Dems would dare run on that, pretending otherwise is just echo chamber mentality.
priceless37 t1_isv7idt wrote
No they run on things to fix the economy like legalizing marijuana and taxing the rich
[deleted] t1_isv9t9f wrote
They didn't legalize anything, the country has been fighting this for at least a decade straight.
They tax property owners, the rich avoid taxes.
priceless37 t1_isvdmt9 wrote
Most states have sone form of legal. It’s only a matter of people trying to help the Economy vs republicans trying to stymie anything productive that will help inflation. States with legal marijuana are raking in the tax money. Property tax is a local tax not federal. Lepage wants to have towns raise property taxes by getting rid of the income tax. You don’t seem to understand how our tax system works…….democrats would fix the tax cuts republicans like trump made for himself and his rich friends.
I see rich democrats like gates, Cuban and soros saying that they should pay more taxes. Reality vs republican propaganda
[deleted] t1_isvfwh9 wrote
Democrats can run for Town and state government too. I don't need a tax lesson from you, thanks. Maine is 20 years in the past, and the county has a median age of 48. Democrats are doing nothing for the state.
​
I'm sorry, but you could argue this all day, but the Democrats are under performing midterms, that doesn't change that fact. There's no way Biden will beat Trump, and if he gets jailed, you're dealing with Desantis.
It just won't happen, I'm sorry.
priceless37 t1_isvirnx wrote
LOL. Both of those dudes are criminals…. Why do republicans like to vote for criminals? Telling, very telling.
Anyone who still supports trump should seriously consider mental health care . To deny the facts at this point is denying reality…… mental health care is needed. Hell trumpers drank their own piss to stop Covid. Mental health care is needed…….
[deleted] t1_isvjvbh wrote
Biden has the US landing troops in Somalia and bombing them. Pretty sure they're all criminals.
Sorry, but it's not smart to alienate 76 million people because they voted for someone else. You literally have to get along with these people in society.
It's messed up that people don't realize that.
priceless37 t1_isvlf6d wrote
We have tried to get along. Democrats try to compromise but republicans are not willing to do that. 76 million people…. Many died due to Covid and drinking their own piss as a cure, others have realized what a criminal trump actually is. We still have the stupid, but the republicans have also pissed off woman and men who have a conscience so their numbers are waning.
Good luck. Maine will have mills, and golden representing us.
[deleted] t1_isvzngs wrote
You know, never mind.
Golden is not winning at all. Mills will be fine most likely.
priceless37 t1_isx1rl8 wrote
Yeah cause Poliquin is a man the republicans can get behind…… LOL. Why do the republicans keep running the sane tired candidates???
[deleted] t1_isxcvpn wrote
Maine is unique in that everyone is older, and the younger generation is leaving. So we like to recycle the same old crap, over, and over again trying to relive the old days.
priceless37 t1_isvqxsb wrote
Republicans planning to cut social security and Medicare aren’t endearing them to their largest voting block, old people…… since Maine has so many old people how come we have a democratic governor and representatives? I don’t think trump and the right has the support you think it does. Early voting in Georgia is encouraging for the blue.
[deleted] t1_isvzevv wrote
The Democrats funded MAGA Republicans themselves as a political strategy.
Why is Maine behind on everything if we have Democrats in charge? I mean, subsidizing real estate property with tax payer funded solar farms for foreign investors, that was interesting to hear.
Yeah, Georgia is totally going Blue.
Sorry Repubs have mostly been voted in on town levels, and they have rearranged a lot of the voting districts across the country. But I am glad you're positive.
priceless37 t1_isvzu08 wrote
Wow that first conspiracy tells me everything I need to know, check out reality sometime. Unfortunately republicans keep voting against mental health help because they want to keep their sheep compliant. Good boy.
[deleted] t1_isw1ekc wrote
The democrats are in charge. They have no power here until midterms, and then the general election. I don't know why they haven't fixed that issue yet.
It's not a conspiracy, they literally would prefer to have MAGA Republicans as their opposition.
There it's from NPR.
So yeah. I mean, seems like a no-brainer.
Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee t1_isu290q wrote
Yes, it is the democratic holdouts, and not the entire republican half they vote with, that should be called out specifically. That's not silly at all.
[deleted] t1_isu3boq wrote
Yeah, their half hearted attempt is really "blocked".
In the mean time I will just follow her purchases and make a killing in the market.
DamienSalvation t1_isu8qpf wrote
There's a bill being worked out behind the scenes to ban members of Congress from trading. Looks like it fell apart?
[deleted] t1_isuayll wrote
Independent-Ruin-185 t1_isuetzc wrote
I like the concept but I'm just not sure. The best and the brightest already go to the private sector. We get the B squad only because of the graft. Government pay AND no graft we're getting the D squad.
I know there are exceptions to the rule like Bernie but he is the exception.
SobeysBags t1_isu49up wrote
Can someone explain to me how insider trading is legal or tolerated if you are member of congress, but outside of DC we send Martha Stewart to prison?