Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Potential Legislative/Policy Agenda Discussions


goskins10
 Share

Recommended Posts

House votes to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act

 

The House voted Wednesday to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the landmark 1994 law that strengthened domestic violence protections for women. 

 

The House approved the reauthorization by a vote of 244 to 172, with 29 Republicans joining all Democrats in voting for it. But the measure, which expired two years ago, may hit a roadblock in the evenly divided Senate.

 

VAWA enshrines legal protections for women who have experienced domestic and sexual violence. It was initially passed in 1994, championed by then-Senator Joe Biden, and was updated and reauthorized in 2000, 2005 and 2013. The bill expired at the end of 2018 due to a government shutdown and was briefly renewed by a resolution reopening the government, but expired again in February 2019. Mr. Biden made reauthorizing VAWA a key campaign promise before he was elected.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Larry said:


Mistake, IMO. It will cost him some of the moral capitol that comes from being a moderate.  


As a native son of the District, I say **** that noise. He should educate the public as to why this is just, decent, and long overdue.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Larry said:


Mistake, IMO. It will cost him some of the moral capitol that comes from being a moderate.  

 

 

Moral capitol? How does thinking DC should be a state, therefore removing the last place in the US where there is taxation without representation immoral? Maybe you meant political capitol - that I might agree with, although I would also say too bad. It's worth it. 

 

I am not even saying I agree with full statehood. The issue is there is not enough revenue since the federal government owns and controls so much of DC it cannot sustain itself. However, there should be equal representation in congress. Right now they have no representation in the House or Senate. 

 

Really not seeing this as a "moral" issue. Need to help me understand that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, JCB said:


As a native son of the District, I say **** that noise. He should educate the public as to why this is just, decent, and long overdue.

 

What it is, is an attempt to add two more Democrats to the Senate, by pretending that a city is a state.  

 

I think they should have self government.  Make them part of Maryland.  

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

What it is, is an attempt to add two more Democrats to the Senate, by pretending that a city is a state.    

 

Why should land acreage dictate representation in the Senate? DC has 150k more people than Wyoming. No real reason that should be.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a way to stay at 50 states and give both DC n Puerto Rico statehood. Combine the Dakotas. As well as the Carolinas. I live in NC, we honestly don't need two Carolinas. Aint even gotta change the murican flag or nothin. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, clietas said:

DC has 150k more people than Wyoming.

 

And Manhattan has more than either.  But it's not a state.  It's a city.  

 

31 minutes ago, clietas said:

There's a way to stay at 50 states and give both DC n Puerto Rico statehood. Combine the Dakotas. As well as the Carolinas. I live in NC, we honestly don't need two Carolinas. Aint even gotta change the murican flag or nothin. 

 

 

 

Long as you don't try to give West Virginia back.  

Edited by Larry
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2021 at 5:45 PM, TD_washingtonredskins said:

That's a pretty bid distinction, especially in more affluent areas where making 6-figures isn't extraordinary. 

As someone that normals throws that argument around... if you’re over 400k AGI, you’re doing quite well no matter where you live. Also, it would only be a tax raise on the $ over 400k...

 

it’s certainly lower than I would have picked for a significant tax increase, but I can’t say I have a problem with it. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 Also, it would only be a tax raise on the $ over 400k...

 

👏

 

The absolute failure of most people in understanding how income taxation rates work amazes me. I'm glad someone else thought about that increase only effecting the $s over 400k agi.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

As someone that normals throws that argument around... if you’re over 400k AGI, you’re doing quite well no matter where you live. Also, it would only be a tax raise on the $ over 400k...

 

it’s certainly lower than I would have picked for a significant tax increase, but I can’t say I have a problem with it. 
 

 

I don't really know enough to know if it's fair or unfair. But what I mean is that it's a pretty big communication issue/deviation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Larry said:

 

What it is, is an attempt to add two more Democrats to the Senate, by pretending that a city is a state.  

 

I think they should have self government.  Make them part of Maryland.  

 

Maryland has no more right to DC than VA does (who both gave up land for its creation). 

 

I wonder if the non-voting DC delegate to the House could be given voting rights without actual statehood? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

👏

 

The absolute failure of most people in understanding how income taxation rates work amazes me. I'm glad someone else thought about that increase only effecting the $s over 400k agi.

 

This is the great right wing lie. They tell the viewers that the dems are coming for "their" money. Well only if you make $400k or more a year. But they present it like they are going to tax everyone at the same rate. It's amazing how ****ing stupid people are and jsut believe it. 

 

I cannot tell you how many times while we were still in the office I had that conversation.

 

Them: "We can't let the dems tax us to death!"

Me: Do you make more than $400k/yr? If not, your tax rate does not change.

Them: That's not true, they will raise everyone's taxes if they can! 

Me: You're wrong. This is how the tax rates work.....  Go to IRS.gov and look for yourself.

Them: I will but I still think you are wrong - or better - The IRS lies. Why would I believe them! 

 

Me a few days later: So did you check the IRS website (for the few that do)? 

Them: Yea, but I still don't think people should have their taxes raised! 

Me: Even though it will only impact like the top 5% who can afford it! 

Them: Yes! 

Me: But you agree it will only impact those making more than $400k/yr! Right? 

Them: It doesn't look like it but I am still not sure! Still hate the Dems. 

 

I mean WTF can you do with that????  

 

Edited by goskins10
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I don't really know enough to know if it's fair or unfair. But what I mean is that it's a pretty big communication issue/deviation. 

Gotcha. It is. 
 

I didn’t watch it but reading it it’s confusing. He says he’s not going to get it because of the gop? And that it may be a small or large increase. And they had to clarify it’s household not individual. 
 

Sloppy all the way around. Given the low bar of the previous guy I’m not concerned, but yeah sloppy. 

30 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

The absolute failure of most people in understanding how income taxation rates work amazes me

The best is when you get some nitwit trying to say that they don’t want a raise cause it bumps them into the next tax bracket and they’ll therefore make less. 
 

there is a very possible yet incredibly rare/unlikely situation where you could get a raise and wind up netting less because you lose access to deductions/credits because you go over the income cap for them. 
 

but you’d have to be just under the cap first, then get a raise to put you just over the cap (AG wise), and then it would have to relate to specific deductions. 
 

it’s possible but it’s just not reality 99.99999% of the time

 

but you get people saying dumb **** like I don’t want a raise cause I’ll make less after taxes. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...