Lots of interesting news today

jeepinmatt said:
So they basically gave it to a scrap company. Doesn't sound like stewarding the people's resources (not that I really expect that anymore anyway).
Click to expand...
If there's truly nowhere on the west coast that can handle scrapping it, considering the journey it has to make, its surprising to me they don't have to pay someone to take it away...

Call Boat Angel?
 
LBarr2002 said:
If there's truly nowhere on the west coast that can handle scrapping it, considering the journey it has to make, its surprising to me they don't have to pay someone to take it away...

Call Boat Angel?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're probably right, but it's a North Carolina named boat, so they really need to park it down in Wilmington so my kids can camp out on it in a few years.
 
jeepinmatt said:
I'm sure you're probably right, but it's a North Carolina named boat, so they really need to park it down in Wilmington so my kids can camp out on it in a few years.
Click to expand...
Gee, if only we already had one of those.
 
RatLabGuy said:
Gee, if only we already had one of those.
Click to expand...
That’s first ship, what about second ship

D27DE6C3-5DEC-4AB0-AECB-F0E8CE18B6A8.jpeg
 
^See, they know whats up.
 
RatLabGuy said:
www.businessinsider.com

67% of Americans support bill to ban stock trading by members of Congress, even as Pelosi resists

Support for a stock trading ban jumped to 74% after respondents were given reasons for and against the proposal the House speaker has opposed.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
I would support this and more.

Once you win a seat, by the time you are sworn in all investments you own must be frozen and remain unchanged the entire time you’re in office. Win or lose you can’t change a thing.

Congress is an unpaid service except people with a 10 year history of income under 250k.

Term limits, no more lifetime congress critters.

Actual office expenses (beyond the basics) plus travel and food are paid by the people/area represented. Be accountable to those who sent you.

51% of a representative’s time must be spent in the area represented.

Every vote is public and done by roll, no voice votes.



There’s more others could add but this would be a good start.
 
Just to pick on you a little, although I completely support the sentiment.
ponykilr said:
Once you win a seat, by the time you are sworn in all investments you own must be frozen and remain unchanged the entire time you’re in office. Win or lose you can’t change a thing.
Click to expand...
This is pretty draconian, if somebody is in office just 10 years, who knows how the market could change in any segment or a single company in that time. I mean what if you happened to have stock in Sears or K mart? That would leave you with a really strong incentive to pump money into those companies even though it's a clearly failing business that serves no value to the country.
Forcing things held in a blind trust would be much better, that way there is a complete firewall but it can still be managed to deal with reasonable changes - by somebody else.

Or, you allow ONLY broadly diversified mutual funds, so that their interest is in the market as a whole and not a specific segment.
[FYI that is kinda a thing now - on OGE 450 filing disclosures, you don't have to list anything in broad mutual or managed growth funds]

ponykilr said:
Actual office expenses (beyond the basics) plus travel and food are paid by the people/area represented. Be accountable to those who sent you.

51% of a representative’s time must be spent in the area represented.

Every vote is public and done by roll, no voice votes.
Click to expand...
So this sounds great until you look at the pragmatics of it and how it affects distance states.
How is a rep from CA or hell AK or HI going to be on local soil 51% of the time AND in person roll call for votes unless they are spending a shitpile of time and money on an airplane? that puts a really big differential burden based on locality. And when do they do their actual job of interacting with other representatives?
 
RatLabGuy said:
Just to pick on you a little, although I completely support the sentiment.

This is pretty draconian, if somebody is in office just 10 years, who knows how the market could change in any segment or a single company in that time. I mean what if you happened to have stock in Sears or K mart? That would leave you with a really strong incentive to pump money into those companies even though it's a clearly failing business that serves no value to the country.
Forcing things held in a blind trust would be much better, that way there is a complete firewall but it can still be managed to deal with reasonable changes - by somebody else.

Or, you allow ONLY broadly diversified mutual funds, so that their interest is in the market as a whole and not a specific segment.
[FYI that is kinda a thing now - on OGE 450 filing disclosures, you don't have to list anything in broad mutual or managed growth funds]


So this sounds great until you look at the pragmatics of it and how it affects distance states.
How is a rep from CA or hell AK or HI going to be on local soil 51% of the time AND in person roll call for votes unless they are spending a shitpile of time and money on an airplane? that puts a really big differential burden based on locality. And when do they do their actual job of interacting with other representatives?
Click to expand...
Maybe if it weren’t such a great gig with every one who’s elected getting filthy rich we might see some actual representation from normal people. Or maybe not.
 
In an article this morning I did hear an interesting point about banning stocks etc for reps, and equally importantly, their spouses.

How do you deal with the fact that when a rep takes office, their spouse / child may already be the owner or other leader of a company, and quite rightfully have ownership of a substantial share? Are they forced to change careers and sell ownership? I mean that sounds great, but it really limits your pool of potentially good politicians to only those whose family members work for other people.
 
ponykilr said:
Maybe if it weren’t such a great gig with every one who’s elected getting filthy rich we might see some actual representation from normal people. Or maybe not.
Click to expand...
But how would those normal people afford to do it? Thats the problem.
 
RatLabGuy said:
But how would those normal people afford to do it? Thats the problem.
Click to expand...
Limit all public elected positions to 8 years max. No pact monies, no bribes, Benefits end the day you leave office. No pension, no insurance, no NUTHIN. Once you're done, you’re done. No repeat abilities, no spouse running. A flat sales tax on everything, no income tax, Castle doctrine applies to anywhere you call "your space", legalize all Marijuana. Death to ming
 
CasterTroy said:
Limit all public elected positions to 8 years max. No pact monies, no bribes, Benefits end the day you leave office. No pension, no insurance, no NUTHIN. Once you're done, you’re done. No repeat abilities, no spouse running. A flat sales tax on everything, no income tax, Castle doctrine applies to anywhere you call "your space", legalize all Marijuana. Death to ming
Click to expand...
Your hired.
 
RatLabGuy said:
But how would those normal people afford to do it? Thats the problem.
Click to expand...
Normal people under 250k income history, like I posted, would get a salary.
 
ponykilr said:
Normal people under 250k income history, like I posted, would get a salary.
Click to expand...
So $249k yes, but $251k no? And define income ;)
 
Last edited:
The likelihood of people running for office without huge financial gains is small. They can all say they want to better humanity, but 99% are there for themselves. The only ones that will do it will be the ones that are already wealthy. That's the same problem we have now.
 
justjeepin86 said:
The likelihood of people running for office without huge financial gains is small. They can all say they want to better humanity, but 99% are there for themselves. The only ones that will do it will be the ones that are already wealthy. That's the same problem we have now.
Click to expand...
What's better than money?

POWER and money
 
I'd be president tomorrow. Don't even want the salary. I want to make common sense decisions.

1. No more immigrants...legal or illegal. Not until we have our house in order. That'll take a decade.
2. Federal legal Mary Jane
3. No more fed backed student loans
4. Go hard after organized crime
5. Get out of public school funding. Let the states handle it.
6. Visit every state and work with the governors on plans to reduce their leaning of the feds. Help 50 states get their house in order. Bump up that rainy day fund.
7. Focus on border security, our trade interests, and any foreign wars or threats.
8. Weekly radio and TV addresses.


That's enough to keep one man busy for 4 years.
 
RatLabGuy said:
this seems like a bad idea

Deperate times and desperate measures?
abc7.com

U.S. to let teens drive big rigs in test program to help ease supply chain shortage

Currently, truckers who cross state lines must be at least 21 years old, but an apprenticeship program to ease supply chain backlogs would drop that age to 18.
abc7.com abc7.com
Click to expand...

I know plenty of 18 year olds who have been driving big trucks longer than 40 year old Abdul who got his green card and CDL last week.....

Duane
 
RatLabGuy said:
this seems like a bad idea

Deperate times and desperate measures?
abc7.com

U.S. to let teens drive big rigs in test program to help ease supply chain shortage

Currently, truckers who cross state lines must be at least 21 years old, but an apprenticeship program to ease supply chain backlogs would drop that age to 18.
abc7.com abc7.com
Click to expand...
I've got mixed emotions on this. On the one hand, the classic argument is that we trust an 18 y.o. to go to war. Also, I think the quality of driver will improve if we allow them to start at a younger age. I could see more 18 y.o. teens graduating highschool and starting out as a truck driver to launch a better life.

I'm also not a fan of over aggregated statistics. Yes, teens tend to have more accidents. But if someone is in a trucking apprenticeship, I could see them bucking the trend.

On the flip side, the statistic exists and if you have a poorly managed program, you could end up with catastrophic results.

Overall, I say go for it. I'd rather train a fresh 18 y.o. than a 21 y.o. who already failed at something and is now calling 1-800-TRU-CKER to launch his new career.
 
Back
Top