5 ms·

> Could we just not prohibit lawmakers from investing in particular stocks You're talking about HR 5106 [0] (aka the "Restore Trust in Congress Act"), currentl

by ethbr1 11mo ago

> Could we just not prohibit lawmakers from investing in particular stocks You're talking about HR 5106 [0] (aka the "Restore Trust in Congress Act"), currently being blocked by Republican House leadership, and actively facing a discharge position by the House rank and file (Republican included) to force a vote [1]. [0] https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr5106/BILLS-119hr5106ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr5106/BILLS-119hr5106ih.... [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-stock-trading-ban-discharge-petition-anna-paulina-luna/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-stock-trading-ban-disc...

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 11mo ago
The de-facto leader of the Republican party is running blatant crypto scams from the White House and his supporters cheer him on. I don't know where the Overton Window is today, but it's a long way from Jimmy Carter's peanut farm.
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  It's a big cult, and you ain't in it.
- iyn 11mo ago
  Imagine reading that pre 2008 (creation of bitcoin) — what kind of crypto scam could president run?!
- ethbr1 11mo ago
  > Jimmy Carter's peanut farm Ironically, somewhere I was walking around on Sunday. Pretty place.
trimethylpurine 11mo ago
It's authored by a Republican congressman, and is a bipartisan flop, with only 100 total reps sponsoring. It's true that of those few who are sponsoring there are more Democrats, but overall most Democrats oppose which is also enough to block the bill, same as Republicans. Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5106 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5106 It also blocks stock trading entirely for congressmen, which is dramatically different from what gp was suggesting.
- dangus 11mo ago
  80 Democratic cosponsors out of 213 Democratic representatives. The bill is sponsored by 37% of Democrats 22 Republican cosponsors out of 219 Republican representativs. The bill is sponsored by 10% of Republicans. I think you might be jumping to conclusions by calling it a bipartisan flop. Co-sponsorship is not the same as a vote, there may be people not on the sponsorship list who would vote for the bill. The bill was introduced 3 months ago (43 days these last three months was a government shutdown) and not enough time has passed to determine whether the bill will be a "flop" or not.
  - trimethylpurine 11mo ago
    It's not a flop without a vote. I can agree with that definition. It's then not a "blocked" bill without a vote either. Right? I'm certainly not trying to seem like I'm jumping to any conclusions. But we should like to keep our definitions uniform throughout a given paragraph. Well, at least if we aspire to call ourselves rational.
- giancarlostoro 11mo ago
  Blocking it outright is probably more than what I want. I think if they can only invest in things like S&P500 funds that would suffice for me. Force them to invest more broadly in a way that it cannot interfere with the market.
- burkaman 11mo ago
  102 cosponsors is a lot, most bills have far fewer than that. Look through recent bills that have passed the House, you won't find any with that many cosponsors. This is true of both bipartisan unanimous bills (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr4423 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr4423, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5348 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5348) and partisan controversial ones (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5107 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5107, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr1949 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr1949).

by ethbr1 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

stickfigure 11mo ago

The de-facto leader of the Republican party is running blatant crypto scams from the White House and his supporters cheer him on. I don't know where the Overton Window is today, but it's a long way from Jimmy Carter's peanut farm.

CamperBob2 11mo ago
It's a big cult, and you ain't in it.
iyn 11mo ago
Imagine reading that pre 2008 (creation of bitcoin) — what kind of crypto scam could president run?!
ethbr1 11mo ago
> Jimmy Carter's peanut farm Ironically, somewhere I was walking around on Sunday. Pretty place.

trimethylpurine 11mo ago

It's authored by a Republican congressman, and is a bipartisan flop, with only 100 total reps sponsoring. It's true that of those few who are sponsoring there are more Democrats, but overall most Democrats oppose which is also enough to block the bill, same as Republicans. Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5106 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5106 It also blocks stock trading entirely for congressmen, which is dramatically different from what gp was suggesting.

dangus 11mo ago
80 Democratic cosponsors out of 213 Democratic representatives. The bill is sponsored by 37% of Democrats 22 Republican cosponsors out of 219 Republican representativs. The bill is sponsored by 10% of Republicans. I think you might be jumping to conclusions by calling it a bipartisan flop. Co-sponsorship is not the same as a vote, there may be people not on the sponsorship list who would vote for the bill. The bill was introduced 3 months ago (43 days these last three months was a government shutdown) and not enough time has passed to determine whether the bill will be a "flop" or not.
- trimethylpurine 11mo ago
  It's not a flop without a vote. I can agree with that definition. It's then not a "blocked" bill without a vote either. Right? I'm certainly not trying to seem like I'm jumping to any conclusions. But we should like to keep our definitions uniform throughout a given paragraph. Well, at least if we aspire to call ourselves rational.
giancarlostoro 11mo ago
Blocking it outright is probably more than what I want. I think if they can only invest in things like S&P500 funds that would suffice for me. Force them to invest more broadly in a way that it cannot interfere with the market.
burkaman 11mo ago
102 cosponsors is a lot, most bills have far fewer than that. Look through recent bills that have passed the House, you won't find any with that many cosponsors. This is true of both bipartisan unanimous bills (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr4423 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr4423, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5348 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5348) and partisan controversial ones (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5107 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5107, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr1949 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr1949).