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

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 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.

        • Walt J. Rimmer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 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.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 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.

      • Walt J. Rimmer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 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