Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 House has passed a bill to reopen government. It will now go to languish on Mitch McConnell's desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said: House has passed a bill to reopen government. It will now go to languish on Mitch McConnell's desk. I believe that this would be the 8th bill so far passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 Just now, Kalbear said: I believe that this would be the 8th bill so far passed. I believe you are correct, Sir. Should have added "another." Over under on how many will be passed and sent on? I think we have at least 2 more to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 45 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Here's a really interesting article positing that it's almost better for Trump to be a Russian agent. The alternative, tthe author argues, might actually be worse: https://www.wired.com/story/president-trump-mueller-russia-agent-putin/ Personally I subscribe to the theory that Trump is as thick as they come, and that he has been compromised by Putin. I suspect Putin has him by the curlies because he managed to default on the loans arranged by Russian oligarchs. No reputable bank deals with Trump because he is such a bad risk and he is stupid enough to borrow from the Russian mob and stupid enough to default again. And stupid enough to sell out anyone who believes in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 17, 2019 Author Share Posted January 17, 2019 17 hours ago, davos said: This is also a very unusual shutdown. For starters, its was largely the white house that instigated this. Past shutdowns have generally originated in congress. It's also Trump and everything he does breaks the rules. This may well be the case where it finally bites him in the ass by sticking to him for a long time rather than fading away like other shutdowns. This is a good point to emphasize. This is really only the third shutdown of any political importance, but even among all the other low salient ones, the "blame" is inherently attributed to the party that is attempting to change the status quo. Looking back to 95-96 and 2013, both were plainly the GOP Congress. In this case, considering Trump agreed to the deal the Dems continue to offer in December, it's plainly Trump that wants to change the status quo. That's why he would have been at a disadvantage even if he was a smart politician and didn't claim responsibility for the shutdown before it started. 16 minutes ago, Mexal said: @DMC thought you might enjoy this. Interesting read, and well taken, but again the problem is the last two graphs: Quote Here’s where the opinion’s heft — literal and metaphorical — matters most. It would take five votes to freeze the decision’s effect. For Chief Justice John Roberts to undercut a district judge in this way, the opinion would have to seem obviously weak. Furman’s opinion is so effective that Roberts would look nakedly political if he voted to intervene. Given Roberts’s recent defense of the judiciary against Trump, he’s unlikely to take Trump’s side in ignoring such substantial work by a widely respected, centrist district judge. I don't know what Roberts is going to do, but neither does Furman. Roberts has already repeatedly demonstrated that he's not concerned about how his decisions will be perceived. I do have ever-increasing confidence that he'll do his best to ensure the court isn't kangaroo'd, but in this case he could easily fall on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 9 hours ago, Maithanet said: 50,000 federal employees are being called back to work (without pay), because their work is looking essential after all. So...it seems like it's up to the discretion of the Trump administration whether someone does or does not need to come in. So is there anything to stop him from just declaring that everybody is essential? Then the "pain" of the shutdown would be 100% on federal workers, which seems like an ideal solution for Trump, who hates federal workers. Obviously that would create medium term problems when they start striking en masse, but it would allow him prolong the shutdown many more weeks. I understand the judge's ruling on Tuesday, it really isn't in the judiciary's power to start dictating where federal money gets spent, and could lead to anarchy. But at the same time, how long can federal workers be required to work without pay? Can the federal govt just arbitrarily decide that workers will get paid only when they feel like it? That doesn't sound legal. It is probably better if you are working without pay (for now) because then you will more easily be able to get a line of credit to pay bills, because once the shutdown ends you'll get backpay for the days worked in the shutdown. If you're furloughed you get nada. Also they are technically not doing unpaid work, it's just that there will be a bigger lag than usual between a day's work and when they get paid for it. I suspect that federal worker employment contracts stipulate fortnightly pay, in arrears. So it is a breach of contract to not pay someone within a fortnight of the days that were worked, and you could have federal workers taking a class action against their department for breach of contract, which could include damages over and above simply being paid for the days worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 17, 2019 Author Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: It is probably better if you are working without pay (for now) because then you will more easily be able to get a line of credit to pay bills, because once the shutdown ends you'll get backpay for the days worked in the shutdown. If you're furloughed you get nada. This is inaccurate. Furloughed employees get backpay as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, DMC said: This is inaccurate. Furloughed employees get backpay as well. Thanks for the correction. Sucks to be called in then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 House Democrats Propose $15 Minimum Wage With New Majority They may finally be able to move the Raise the Wage Act, but don’t expect it to become law anytime soon. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-democrats-15-minimum-wage-majority_us_5c3f9b59e4b041e98ffa4ef1 Quote Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, their first step in an effort to shepherd such a hike through the House as the new majority. The Raise the Wage Act, which has been introduced previously in different forms, would boost the wage floor incrementally until it reaches $15 in 2024, after which it would rise each year according to an inflation index. If it were to become law, the proposal would more than double the current federal rate of $7.25 per hour and supersede most state minimum wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 17, 2019 Author Share Posted January 17, 2019 New thread: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.