167

Lawmakers could vote for infrastructure bill, then buy stock in a concrete firm.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago
[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

They have it backwards too. They'll buy stock, then vote on the bill that'll raise stock prices (or vice versa with shorts)

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

If they haven't yet voted, then the bill might not pass.

In any case, upcoming bills are public knowledge. If you think a bill will pass, you too can buy the stock before the vote.

[-] WaltJRimmer@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Does the bill specify who they're going to be paying the money to, though? Because an infrastructure bill saying we're going to spend a certain amount of money on these projects can predict changes in certain industries, but being on a committee and saying, "We're going to hire this specific company with this huge government contract to do this work," can tell you exactly what company is about to have a huge boost to their value.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Usually the committee gives the executive branch a sum of money and tells them to find someone to do the job.

Occasionally a specific company is designated by legislators. But this wouldn't be a secret, the committee meetings themselves are open to the public. And likewise when everyone votes on the bill, the name of the company would be public.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

part of the public service aspect of these positions should *absolutely disclude government officials in positions of legislative power, from investing any new funds at all during tenure.

I don't care if you go broke in office. That's part of the job if so.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

If you go broke on a minimum of $174k/y, you're spending too much on luxuries and/or hush money anyway.

[-] Dukeofdummies@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago

Admittedly, there is no government housing for politicians, which means either buying renting in washington DC (not cheap) in addition to your home in your own state, or moving entirely to Washington DC for a position you may lose in 4 years.

The entire job seems to be closed out to everyone but millionaires.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Frankly we should get rid of career politicians. Serving in public office should be more like jury duty. Civil servants do the real legwork.

I'd go even further, and say that we don't need "representatives" anymore. We all own devices that allow us to communicate across the world instantly, we all could potentially have our say directly in matters that concern us. The issues with this are ultimately only technical, and thus could be overcome.

Media has slagged off direct democracy many times (eg the Jack Black episode of the Mandalorian) but I truly believe that is what a real democracy would be. Yes, things like Brexit can happen when people get the chance to vote, but that only happened because of a sustained disinformation campaign - one that could not be maintained indefinitely for every issue under vote. If people had a chance to vote on how things are implemented and whether or not it was actually working these problems could be mitigated, and overall we would end up with a more functional and progressively better system for society.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 9 months ago

Yeah were not getting any movement on this until people like Pelosi are far removed from any role in the democrat party. They're just gonna keep pointing and screaming at the big orange distraction because it's a lot easier than making peoples lives better.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

When it comes to making people's lives better, Democrats did more last year alone then Republicans have in the last twenty years put together.

[-] WaltJRimmer@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

I agree with you. But it's important to still point out and want to fix problems even in the "better party." We can't simply be accepting of "be less bad." We need to always strive to improve. And weakening the connections between Wall Street and Washington is a big progressive goal that the old guard of Democrats have directly opposed.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Fair enough!

[-] twisted28@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago
[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Just the top three from last year:

  • prescription drug price controls, including insulin copay capped @ $35/month
  • health care subsidy for 13 million lower income Americans
  • 100K jobs in clean energy
[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Public service doesn't mean much in America.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Nothing happens in this country without someone getting paid.

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
167 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18621 readers
4208 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS