JFC these people
Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)
- Thread starter Dylan
- Start date
- Status
JFC these people
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
If you think about it, this makes sense, because there's not a lot of value creation at every step of economic production.
If you hand the money to the rich, most of the surplus is going to stick to them, and everybody else is left fighting over whatever value was created by their consumption and whatever profits were created in that process. You're also going to get a lot of comparatively dead assets, in the sense that somebody that has more money than they know what to do with should be conservative in how they invest those assets. No sense taking risks when all you're trying to do is fund tomorrow's consumption bill from a huge asset base. By comparison, those without a lot of income are going to consume the bulk of what they earn, and lesser earners are incentivized to take some risks for much of their lives in order to have a chance to fund things like an actual retirement.
In a sense, this is what Marx was saying. His problem was that he forgot to build in some incentives for people to work hard, likely because he was going to do the work he was doing irrespective of the paycheck and failed to realize that not everyone else was like him.
Another page in the "who's the worst hypocritical POS" book:
Lobster Johnson
Player Valuation: £35m
Don’t think I’ve ever seen a more pathetic politician than Ted Cruz
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
To be fair, he introduced the Senate version of the legislation. I think it's reasonable for him to credit-claim on that. He probably did actually do a lot of the behind-the-scenes work that ultimately got it through.
Good to know. Thanks. While I will maintain he is a hypocritical POS, I’m happy to stand corrected on this piece of legislation.
So he introduced the senate version and voted against it?
Perhaps those that want to force other people to have medical procedures should volunteer to have them done to themselves first.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
This will take a minute to explain, as it requires delving into how Congress works. I'm including links to all of the congressional actions on the matter. They help.
1) Cruz introduces the Senate version of the bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/705) in March of 2001, three days after the House version (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1608) is introduced. Note that Cruz had already introduced this in the preceding Congress without result.
2) Both his version and the House version end up sitting dead in committee (see links).
3) The big spending bill originates in the House (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2471), as it has to. This starts as a more limited bill.
4) This hits the floor and ultimately ends up being the piece of legislation that becomes the omnibus bill, via this vote which also provides for voting on establishing the January 6 committee (https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021190). In the process, Ports-to-Plains gets rolled in from the transportation bill.
5) This ends up in the Senate, where it passes by voice vote with an amendment related to Haiti (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2471/actions - fourth item from the bottom). This keeps him (or anyone) from having to go on record.
6) The House marks this up out of conference (https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202266) and sends it back to the Senate.
7) Cruz votes against the final version of the spending bill (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00078.htm), but it passes
8) Biden signs it into law
In general, most members in the minority/opposition these days will refuse to vote for an omnibus spending bill or a continuing funding resolution. This is so they can paint the other side as big-spending wastrels with the wrong priorities in the next election. If some people need to cross the aisle to keep the government open, usually that's some combination of the more moderate members looking for a bipartisan reputation, leadership or the safest members of the minority. That latter group either don't fear a challenge from either side, or just won re-election. You can see that pattern in the final Senate vote in step 7.
Another way to say that is: once Cruz gets the amendment attached he knows he's golden. The Democrats have to pass the omnibus, and it's not like he was trying to pass a poison pill to kill it with Ports-to-Plains. He was then able to free-ride on their votes when it came time to pass the omnibus, because it's Thune's job to know whether or not the votes exist to pass it with or without Cruz on board.
What the White House said is deeply misleading about how the process works, in the sense that members of both parties do this all the time. Cruz is an easy target and the White House despises him, so the White House said something that is substantively accurate while neglecting to tell the whole story. It's worth noting that the Republican sponsor of the corresponding House legislation also voted against the omnibus, but the White House didn't call him out about it because he doesn't have the target on him that Cruz painted on himself.
That story doesn't fit well in a thirty second news clip, and any attempt to explain how the process works is virtually guaranteed to make Cruz look bad, so the White House engaged in a little political theater to make Cruz squirm.
See, I'm just being intellectually consistent here. Abortion, state matter. Interracial marriage, state matter. 12-year olds marrying their uncle, state matter. Eugenics, state matter. Killing witches, state matter. Slavery, state matter...
Douchenozzle.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
13th, 14th and 15th Amendments sorted that last one.
In principle, the rest could be state matters under the 10th Amendment. It all rests on Griswold and Kavanaugh's absolute need for contraception. Irony.
- Status