How not to amend proposed legislation:
Obviously, Joe is the "don't confuse me with the details" sort. He apparently hasn't been around, or even ever heard of, a legal fight over the placement of a single comma in a statute.
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. That was no joke. It's lost on Joe though.
Well, it matters whether he thinks so or not.
I wouldn't want my name attached to the NEED Act as is without qualification. It needs a fine-tooth combing. Joe incorrectly thinks it's salable as it stands.
Well, it really doesn't matter much what Joe thinks about it because as a salesman, if he were to stick around long enough for anyone with any brains to get to see what he's up to, he'd get the door slammed in his face. Don't shoot the "messenger"? He does it himself, in both feet.
To everyone else who does care about sweating the details, the lack of a designator on the clause to amend 1813(l) is an easy matter to fix; but poor Joe is so utterly stuck up, he can't even bring himself to agree with that. It would be admitting he's not perfect/infallible. Rather than admitting it, he twists what I've done as if I haven't done it. I did the im pardonable. I actually pointed out something that Joe can't point to something else to say that I'm wrong. In other words, Joe turned out to be wrong all along but can't admit it. His way of dealing with it is by feigning boredom and hoping to dupe others into cognitive dissonance that the designator really is there when it is clearly not but ought to be in the way I suggested or something very close to it.
"Who cares about making things clearer. Let's just muddle through." No way! That's Joe's way of doing things that got us into this economic crisis.
Let me also say that Joe ducked supplying the list of all the experts in every agency and discipline who signed off on the bill as it stands -- not even a link, not even a name.
You'll also note that he ducked my clear and correct point concerning the cash-flow crunch on the banks that forecast interest earnings and commit to projects that then won't be funded. Does the NEED Act say the Revolving Fund will be used to handle such projects? It does not. Could it? Should it? If it should, how? There would have to be deadlines. There would also have to be audits.
Let's not make Joe's head spin though. We don't want to think too big around him. He might get mad and not want to communicate but rather pout.
Lastly, I will make clear that Joe has a problem communicating with people who are socialists and communists even Christians and not Marxists. I rather suggest that, that's his main problem concerning me -- that and that I didn't see the need for his not seeing that Ellen said that banks do create money (akin to check kiting) but that there is more to bank accounting and practices, what with all the exotics, etc., and MMT aspects than Joe's 1930's mind-set can wrap around.
Joe's attitude is that the NEED Act is don't touch it but just take it or leave it. Well, we'll see about that. It's not his bill. It's Dennis Kucinich's on behalf of the whole people. There's no way that Dennis would agree with plenty of the stuff Joe has said here callously about banking staff being thrown out of work. I dare say that Dennis would take the thought seriously and would not be put off by anyone wanting to avoid that or to be sure a solid safety net were in place.
Anyway, I don't need Joe, obviously a sore loser with his huge chip on his shoulder. There are others here and elsewhere who are interested in actually getting things through into law and know that that will require fixing real things that are pointed out, such as I have clearly done.
Now, I must get back to work on other things.
But I will say to anyone and everyone, that anyone who "lets" Joe "own" this thread is a fool.