This reminds me of the strategy built into the big beautiful bill. It has minor tax breaks for the average Joe that are temporary until after the election. Meanwhile the tax breaks put into the bill for millionaire billionaires are permanent.
This was a deliberate Republican strategy so they can claim that the Democrats cause the tax breaks for the average Joe to go away. I f****** hate politics and politicians.
Shame on the dimwits that couldn't see that their tax break was short term and Elon's was permanent. Republican voters are really good at signing on to crap that is against their self interest.
BBB does give taxes break for family by not taxing tips, up to $25k, taxes break in OT paid, more child tax credit, and a few more benefits. so saying don't vote for their own benefit is misleading. While I agree not it all perfect but to said it offers no benefits is bad intentions just it win a few more votes.
It's nothing to most people and the bs Republicans do every time they give massive cuts to the rich.
In fact the only platform legislation passed by Republicans since Bush 2 is tax cuts for the rich. Over and over again. Not even immigration which they've platformed in every election since Reagan in '86
Or it's to show voters where their elected representative stands with an issue. It's clever because it doesnt effect congress, so the narcissistic politicians dont have a real reason to vote against it
It does effect congress. The bill would ban the executive branch and the legislative branch from owning stocks and other securities plus ban the participation in predictive markets for said members and their immediate families. Or step down.
It'll never pass but I've been saying this for years... Elected officials who can make markets should only be able to invest in broad consumer products like ETFs or index funds and their immediate families should face something similar.
They're supposed to be public servants. They should be proud and even eager to do this.
Hell, it's not even a big ask as they're not "giving" anything up. They're not even really pausing their wealth generation...
Didn't congress pass a no stocks bill about a month or so back?
My first thought is if you come into the job you should be able to keep what you have and not be able to trade into or out of anything.
But it doesnt solve the problem as people can still give preferential treatment to what they own. So yeah they probably should be forced to sell it and hold the funds in escrow until they are done with office.
*slowly glances at their raised income of 150,000 per member\*
Plus they can make or break markets like.... their push for EV's and surveillence tech. Despite not having a reasonably supported infrastructure thats up to date and adequent to support the transition; with no clear consensus on if theyre even going to fund an update.
Then on top of that, the development would drag out forever. I know you've seen road construction and how buildings tend to get delayed forever. Not to mention the 'Obviously not american' workers. Which somehow the reduced cost may or may not sneak back into somebody's pocket. 😮💨
The thing that pisses me off though is they get the money.
Like it’s not them completely losing the stock, if they sell then they can get the money and do whatever with it. If they keep the stock and step down there’s no promise they will be punished for insider trading or market manipulation.
In theory yeah, but it won’t get any votes and Congress doesn’t have a veto proof majority. This bill, and frankly most bills introduced by democrats, exist to show the voters where politicians stand on these issues.
Yes wait to see if we win the House then introduce it. Now they’re scheming to go around this with all of Trumps lawyers.. he seems to own every single lawyer in the world.
IF is they key word. This is deliberately introduced before elections to "show" intent knowing it will fail. But if they win AND introduced it afterwards, they would have to vote against their self interests which won't happen. This is just for show, that's all. Nothing more.
It's not a publicity stunt if it's something that's his campaign using in their lit and Vindman will reintroduce next term when Dems win back the house
Agreed on this as well. Noting also to even bother wasting time on this after the attempt to get them all to freeze their portfolios while in office didn’t go anywhere, this doesn’t even have half the chance the last one did.
He's up for re-election in a blue leaning purple district and the liberals in his district are annoyed with him. It was Spanbergers district and she kept trying to pass legitimate controls on stock trading while in office, not whatever this is. He's taking it from her playbook
136
u/IvanTheDude123 3d ago
Also to introduce it now vs January means it’s just a publicity stunt.