Jump to content

Pelosi is flat wrong and this problem must be fixed


Recommended Posts

I don't understand why no one seems to get this. Congress should be allowed to trade, they should not be allowed to trade on stock where there is an incentive to make a decision in favor of a corporation to allow them to make more money. That's the difference, and also how people get rich. If the STOCK ACT works, why are reports of individual trades hidden for many months? This whole thing needs an overhaul or needs to be stopped.

Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress: 'We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that.'

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected the idea of barring members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks while in office.

"We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that," Pelosi said when asked by Insider at her weekly press conference.

Insider also asked Pelosi about Conflicted Congress, a five-month-long investigation by Insider that found that 49 members of Congress and 182 senior congressional staffers had violated the STOCK Act, a law to prevent Insider trading.

The speaker said she hadn't yet seen the project, but added that it's important that members comply with the law.

Pelosi's position put her at odds with progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom have called for barring members of Congress from trading stocks while in office.

 

"It is absolutely ludicrous that members of Congress can hold and trade individual stock while in office," Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. "The access and influence we have should be exercised for the public interest, not our profit. It shouldn't be legal for us to trade individual stock with the info we have."

And on Tuesday, Warren told Insider that she had seen Insider's investigation, calling out the "brazenness" of members and staffers trading stocks even while having access to privileged knowledge.

"We need both tougher laws and enforcement of those laws," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "The American people should never have to guess whether or not an elected official is advancing an issue or voting on a bill based on what's good for the country or what's good for their own personal financial interests." 

When asked about progressives' position on the issue, Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, signaled that the speaker preferred a transparency-focused approach to insider trading.

"The STOCK Act exists to shine a bright light on trades by members of Congress," Hammill said. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Pelosi's husband, investor Paul Pelosi, frequently trades significant numbers of stocks. With her husband's assets considered, Pelosi ranks among the wealthiest members of Congress, an Insider analysis found.

"The speaker does not own any stocks," Hammill said. "As you can see from the required disclosures, with which the speaker fully cooperates, these transactions are marked 'SP' for spouse. The speaker has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions."

Insider has identified numerous examples of federal lawmakers trading stocks in industries they oversee as part of their congressional committee assignments, including within the defense, healthcare, and energy industries.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

They should have to put their money in blind trusts while they are lawmakers.

But they won't because they make more by cheating the public.

Blind trusts are used by Australian politicians.

It's the wrong solution to the problem. It accepts that politicians will be corrupt.

Just don't elect corrupt politicians.

 

 

Now, I've got to go feed my unicorn......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is clean gummint the responsibility of the Dems only ?? 

Is the unspoken quiet part that the GOPPER Riech is irredeemably corrupt ?? 

That could well be, since it is, after all, true.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The trouble

Well yes, the real problem is insider trading, not just trading, as my gal Liz points out. 

And Congress critters can obtain insider info in a number of ways. 

But I would also go along with a total ban on Critter trading. 

Just waiting for those policy wonks of the GOP to weigh in on this . . . right @The Joker  ????  

What are the GOP policy proposals on this issue ?? What do they recommend ??  Why  ?? 

The Jokster has no clue whatsoever about this or any other issues of public policy. 

He just waits for Hannity to tell him what to think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I don't understand why no one seems to get this. Congress should be allowed to trade, they should not be allowed to trade on stock where there is an incentive to make a decision in favor of a corporation to allow them to make more money. .....

... Insider has identified numerous examples of federal lawmakers trading stocks in industries they oversee as part of their congressional committee assignments, including within the defense, healthcare, and energy industries.  ...

 

Trading in businesses they are involved with regulating is the very definition of "corruption."

Pelosi's husband is no different. It's also true he made a YUGE pile o'money in Cali real estate before that, but it is not right that he may use knowledge gained from her as an advantage.

That's far from the worst though.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Why is clean gummint the responsibility of the Dems only ?? 

Is the unspoken quiet part that the GOPPER Riech is irredeemably corrupt ?? 

That could well be, since it is, after all, true.  

Because the Conservative wing can only agree on one word, "NO!".

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Politicians should be able to trade.

The bigger question is "do you trust them to trade"?

If the answer to that is no, why do they get elected?

Bigger answer - NO

They get elected because the majority of voters vote emotionally, not logically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Because the Conservative wing can only agree on one word, "NO!".

To be accurate, they are not "conservatives".

Their words and deeds make clear they wish to return us to a time they feel America was "great".  Thus, they are regressive.

 

The "great" they pine for is pre-Roe v Wade and pre-Civil Rights.  Think 1950s. Of course, they reject the tax structure of that time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

To be accurate, they are not "conservatives".

Their words and deeds make clear they wish to return us to a time they feel America was "great".  Thus, they are regressive.

 

The "great" they pine for is pre-Roe v Wade and pre-Civil Rights.  Think 1950s. Of course, they reject the tax structure of that time.

I think you are shortening the time line, they want to return to Antebellum America.  Tariffs rather than income or land taxes, control of who votes, ownership of labor; what's not to like.  

The working definition of 'conservative' that I've always used is someone who wants to keep things the same or return to a previous 'better" (for them) time period.  "Regressive" simply refers to a flavor of conservative rather than a different critter.  The only regressive liberals would be utopians, a far rarer beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Ultimately the problem is, how do you stop it? 
Take Madame Pelosi as a perfect example. You think she doesn't telegraph pending legislation to her husband so he can execute trades base on legislation in the pipeline? Do you think Hiliary Clinton really hit it all on her own in Porkbelly Futures?
Even if elected officials had to but their money behind some sort of wall so they could not profit from pending legislation or pending policy changes, you really think they could possibly be shielded from their investments?

I agree it is awkward, and has real bad optics even if pure intent, but how do you fix it?
Further, yes this fails on the side of bad, but man there is a whole bunch of crapthat is really much worsethe political elite do to enrich themselves when they pretend to represent We The People.

Obviously, we fix it by having a Trump-inspired mob break into the Capitol, steal stuff, smear shit on the walls, in an attempt to kidnap and kill a bunch of Congresscritters

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
22 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

So your take is we should forge ahead to not be great?

No, we should forge ahead to be BETTER

- DSK

You said it so succinctly, and completely, there is nothing to add.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
30 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
41 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

So your take is we should forge ahead to not be great?

No, we should forge ahead to be BETTER

- DSK

Expand  

You said it so succinctly, and completely, there is nothing to add.

The issue is, "perfect" is the enemy of "good." If you "Forge Ahead To Be GREAT!" then it becomes very easy to reject anything that's not great. It's easy to throw away things that are good, as part of the agenda to BE GREAT!! There's some subtle human psychology embedded in this, and I don't think it's an accident.

Take something that's Ok, work to improve it, make it genuinely good. Take something that's mostly good, make it better. If we don't have GREAT!! now, then obviously we can do without it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about what we should do or what we can do? 
 

We should insist that every person on this list be pitched out of Congress and stripped of any benefits:

https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9

What can we do? Jack shit. As George Carlin said, it’s a club, and you ain’t in it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I agree it is awkward, and has real bad optics even if pure intent, but how do you fix it?

TERM LIMITS to start. Polygraphs on day one and on the final day of one's term ... with jail sentences in the balance. These aren't gentlemen and ladies and they never were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I don't think you and Steaming Pile understand the why these people seek office in the first place.

FIFY

It's a unique quality of being a dumbass, is that you believe you're smarter than others with very little or no evidence.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I don't think you and Steaming Pile understand the why these people seek office in the first place.

Remind us again why your boy Shitstain ran for office. You know, the guy with the multiple corporate person bankruptcies and the 3500+ civil fraud suits whose first action after winning was to settle the Shitstain U fraud suits. You know, that guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Remodel said:

This is exactly why I have no use for either party.

I agree but as of the last decade and slightly more, the Democrats have been merely useless while the Republicans have been actively harmful

Over my voting life, it's been about half and half until 2016. I voted for 3 Republicans on the whole ticket in 2016, 2 (both personally known to me) in 2018, and none in 2020. I do not know when I will vote for a Republican again but they will have a big hill to climb, and that's assuming that we still have elections after this next one.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

I don't think you and Steaming Pile understand the why these people seek office in the first place.

Have you given up on your previous line of reasoning about us not understanding the role of the SCOTUS?

It seemed pretty important, a bit ago.

PUI?

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Remind us again why your boy Shitstain ran for office. You know, the guy with the multiple corporate person bankruptcies and the 3500+ civil fraud suits whose first action after winning was to settle the Shitstain U fraud suits. You know, that guy.

I'm still Lockian enough to believe that a lot (I used to believe most) got into politics to make good changes, even if I disagreed with their changes.  I can't say that about the conservatives anymore. Biden, yes. Trump was a grifter, GW a congenial puppet, HW well meaning if simple, Reagan a true believer early and a stuffed doll later, Nixon a mixed bag, Eisenhower the last Good Republican President.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

I'm still Lockian enough to believe that a lot (I used to believe most) got into politics to make good changes, even if I disagreed with their changes.  I can't say that about the conservatives anymore. Biden, yes. Trump was a grifter, GW a congenial puppet, HW well meaning if simple, Reagan a true believer early and a stuffed doll later, Nixon a mixed bag, Eisenhower the last Good Republican President.

I agree with that. I'd say that W the Stupid and Saint Ronald delegated their corruption but it amounts to the same thing. I like a LOT about Eisenhower. His only ding, a massive ding in retrospect, was trusting the Dulles bros. H stage managed the end of the Cold War well enough but then started up what his son would then call the GWOT.

I learned a few things from Intro to Comparative Politics. I remember resource curse well and I remember elite competition. I don't know if that's what Locke was getting at in the Enlightenment. I think we've had a good run. Those ideas came from a time when, for better or for worse, this was this news.

The modern elk now gets most of its news from this:

image.png.86fb22ebdce2363bcf9e8982ad8cec75.png

We've had a good run but I don't think the Republic survives. The system has been gamed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to work for a public accounting firm where, once you made manager, you had to divest yourself of any stock from a company that the firm audited.  This applied to spouses as well I believe.  The implication of this was clear and necessary to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Seems that we were held to a higher standard than members of Congress.

Blind trusts are not a bad idea.  Any rules should apply to spouses as well.

Hroth

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress is subject to the same insider trading laws but blind trusts are an excellent idea.

However Critters make $174,000/yr which isn't a hairshirt but it isn't a lot given living in DC and travel. Their chief of staff will be decently paid from the Member's staff budget. But when you go down the line, there's a lot of people working in the office who are basically volunteering. Who volunteers? People who can afford it (rich kids) who know their next job will be better because of this one.

You can check this out on Legistorm:

https://www.legistorm.com/member/334/Rep_Barbara_Lee/270.html

AOC basically said everyone in her office gets paid a living wage which raises the floor and also lowers the ceiling because her office gets allocated a fixed budget. She seems to be pretty effective. But basically, we pay these people too little and if you don't pay them someone else will 'pay' them. Who is going to get that phone call returned?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

One of the hardest things for the SEC to prosecute.  They prefer the black-and-white wrongdoing stuff.

Which is why a blind trust (QBT) is a good requirement for the executive branch as defined by the post-Watergate Ethics In Government Act, but should be extended to the legislative and judicial branches as well.

And we should pay people responsible for governing a $22T economy more than $174K while expecting them to be virgins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hrothgar said:

I used to work for a public accounting firm where, once you made manager, you had to divest yourself of any stock from a company that the firm audited.  This applied to spouses as well I believe.  The implication of this was clear and necessary to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Seems that we were held to a higher standard than members of Congress.

Blind trusts are not a bad idea.  Any rules should apply to spouses as well.

Hroth

Totally in favor of this. A custodian needs to be set up such these "blind trusts" don't peek.

Look at LBJ for example

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Which is why a blind trust (QBT) is a good requirement for the executive branch as defined by the post-Watergate Ethics In Government Act, but should be extended to the legislative and judicial branches as well.

And we should pay people responsible for governing a $22T economy more than $174K while expecting them to be virgins.

Dunno if I agree with that. What's the national median professional-level salary? They certainly should not get more than that, although since DC is expensive they should get access to decent housing. They can go on Medicare instead of their own special health care plan, etc etc.

I've NEVER been happy about the Imperial aspirations of our "public servants." They should not expect to be fanned with peacock feathers while orgying at the public trough.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

What is the total comp plan number?

I don't think it is a lot more. Critters don't get a housing allowance. They pay for health insurance. They do get a Members Representational Allowance which is basically their office budget from which they can pay for their flights home. They get frankage. Any real estate broker or law partner should aspire to a greater income. Myself, I always aspired to the NBA Minimum.

Jeffrey Ullman once said you should aspire to a medium grade hooker's pay, $100/hr in 1989 or about $224/hr today or about $448,000/yr. Yeah, pay != salary but the idea that our Critters are well paid is ludicrous. And expecting underpaid people to be honest is foolish. At the same time I don't think that paying them fairly would solve all problems which is why a blind trust is such a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Up thru the middle 1980s or so, every so often, there was a political scandal involving bribery, payola, slush funds, lobbyists providing hookers and blow, etc etc, with various Congresscritters. About every 4th to 11th one went to jail, some random interval it seemed.

That seems to have died out.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, quod umbra said:
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Remind us again why your boy Shitstain ran for office. You know, the guy with the multiple corporate person bankruptcies and the 3500+ civil fraud suits whose first action after winning was to settle the Shitstain U fraud suits. You know, that guy.

Shitstain? My boy??

Yet again, I did not and do not vote major party, no matter how many times you pretend I do.

Where in that did I say that you voted for your boy Shitstain? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I don't think it is a lot more. Critters don't get a housing allowance. They pay for health insurance. They do get a Members Representational Allowance which is basically their office budget from which they can pay for their flights home. They get frankage. Any real estate broker or law partner should aspire to a greater income. Myself, I always aspired to the NBA Minimum.

Jeffrey Ullman once said you should aspire to a medium grade hooker's pay, $100/hr in 1989 or about $224/hr today or about $448,000/yr. Yeah, pay != salary but the idea that our Critters are well paid is ludicrous. And expecting underpaid people to be honest is foolish. At the same time I don't think that paying them fairly would solve all problems which is why a blind trust is such a good idea.

As someone pointed out, the reason the Clintons were involved in sketchy land deals was that the governor's pay was so low compared to the business world.  Compare the President's salary to a top 100 CEO's. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Term limits have had the unintended consequence of getting rid of good legislators and opening the door for nut jobs. Would you want a doctor to have to stop practicing after 10 years (actually, that would probably be better for healthcare quality)? Or your attorney? Accountant? Politics is a skill just like any other, we just lived throw the poster child for "Anyone can be President".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, quod umbra said:

And see, that is where your confusion comes from. You actually think people vote for people they don't support and support people they wouldn't vote for.
When you are an "all in" kind guy, party before all else, that tends to happen I guess.

Why do you jump in to defend Trump any time some particularly ugly fact is posted about him?

Why do you -only- attack Democrats, often on completely spurious or at best emotion-based grounds?

I'm not a bit surprised that you claim to not have voted for Orange Shitstain. Very few admit to it, now, and unless the trumpalos win big next fall, in a year NOBODY will admit ever voting for him.

But you certainly support him.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

As someone pointed out, the reason the Clintons were involved in sketchy land deals was that the governor's pay was so low compared to the business world.  Compare the President's salary to a top 100 CEO's. 

Arkansas gov + law partner added up to around $200k in today's dollars. It kind of reminds me of Clayton Lonetree, a young single marine responsible for guarding the Moscow embassy with consequences to follow. Or priests prevented from marrying with consequences to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Trading in businesses they are involved with regulating is the very definition of "corruption."

Pelosi's husband is no different. It's also true he made a YUGE pile o'money in Cali real estate before that, but it is not right that he may use knowledge gained from her as an advantage.

That's far from the worst though.

- DSK

I think that anyone amassing a fortune while in Congress has milked the system. I think anyone on a committee that votes on matters that benefits them, should not have that opportunity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Ultimately the problem is, how do you stop it? 
Take Madame Pelosi as a perfect example. You think she doesn't telegraph pending legislation to her husband so he can execute trades base on legislation in the pipeline? Do you think Hiliary Clinton really hit it all on her own in Porkbelly Futures?
Even if elected officials had to but their money behind some sort of wall so they could not profit from pending legislation or pending policy changes, you really think they could possibly be shielded from their investments?

I agree it is awkward, and has real bad optics even if pure intent, but how do you fix it?
Further, yes this fails on the side of bad, but man there is a whole bunch of crapthat is really much worsethe political elite do to enrich themselves when they pretend to represent We The People.

We have created a separate class of politician, one that no longer serves its electorate. Oh, they sound the same, but the numbers don't lie. If Congress can't correct this on their own, we should simply vote these people out. That only works for Democrats, Republicans take this behavior for granted. Cleaning up that side of the aisle is a completely different animal. (sorry for the late response, I had a board meeting this morning.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Term limits have had the unintended consequence

Term limits for Congress-critters would also require a constitutional amendment. Not gonna happen. 

And for the US right wing pols, "term limits" are their go-to solution to any and all problems with money in politics, corruption, malfeasance, and etc. 

It is meant to distract you and let the pols keep on keeping on . .

At the state level, term limits have only served to empower lobbyists.  

Don't fall for that scam. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Not quite sure what you are on about now BD.
You suffering some sort of butt hurt??

You edited your comment.  I am just wondering if you had a point to make about the SCOTUS, or did you just have a brain fart?

3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:
3 hours ago, quod umbra said:

I don't think you and Steaming Pile understand the role of SCOTUS.

What does having a desire to be better have to do with the role of the SCOTUS?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Term limits for Congress-critters would also require a constitutional amendment. Not gonna happen. 

And for the US right wing pols, "term limits" are their go-to solution to any and all problems with money in politics, corruption, malfeasance, and etc. 

It is meant to distract you and let the pols keep on keeping on . .

At the state level, term limits have only served to empower lobbyists.  

Don't fall for that scam. 

CA has term limits for state legislators and we haven't sank into the Pacific. In fact, Dems have a supermajority in both houses and every statewide seat. Also, I'm not convinced it would take an amendment for term limits to be enforced in state elections. If CA wanted to do it for our Senate + House seats, I think we could without an amendment.

That said, I'm ambivalent as to whether it would be a good idea. Yet my ambivalence is shaken every time I think of Feinstein.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I learned a few things from Intro to Comparative Politics. I remember resource curse well and I remember elite competition.

OH Boy !! A pol sci reference . .  As I vaguely recall from Comparative Politics there is also interest aggregation and interest articulation. 

But note how the hidden assumption there is that the demos has some affect on policy . . 

The US demos lacks that capacity - because oligarchy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

CA has term limits for state legislators

Right, terms limits for STATE LEGISLATORS is very doable - 15 states have it now. 

One of them is Ohio, where I reside. The state has become a veritable cesspool of corruption - partly due to gerrymandering, but also because of term limits. 

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that if you run a correlation between term limits and corruption, you'll get a positive relationship. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/term-limits-exacerbate-all-the-problems-with-our-government.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

And what of a really good rep. Should people not be allowed to vote for competent ones regardless?

If the rep is that good, then they can back the next Great Guy...  No need for the same person to be in there for more than x years, that's why we are here now...   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shaggy said:

If the rep is that good, then they can back the next Great Guy...  No need for the same person to be in there for more than x years, that's why we are here now...   

That's a bit like saying employers should only hire "great" employees; just how big do you think the pool is? You're looking for someone smart enough to understand the issues, patient enough to work the system, moral enough to resist the temptations, popular enough to bring in the small donations and high minded enough to do it for less money than in the private sector.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Right, terms limits for STATE LEGISLATORS is very doable - 15 states have it now. 

One of them is Ohio, where I reside. The state has become a veritable cesspool of corruption - partly due to gerrymandering, but also because of term limits. 

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that if you run a correlation between term limits and corruption, you'll get a positive relationship. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/term-limits-exacerbate-all-the-problems-with-our-government.html

I tend to agree. Term limits was instituted in CA because of the execrable Willie Brown, basically the Donald Trump of San Francisco. He was Speaker of the Legislature for 15 years before becoming mayor. Think FDR but without FDR. I don't think CA is any more or less corrupt as a result of term limits. The only thing I like about term limits in CA is that it promotes an up or out mentality. That's hard to achieve at the Federal level.

Otherwise term limits are kind of a populist combination of there ought to be a law meets get off my lawn. Americans seem to want to require virginity from our legislators while paying them jack and then watching them through the lens of Fox News.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I don't think it is a lot more. Critters don't get a housing allowance. They pay for health insurance. They do get a Members Representational Allowance which is basically their office budget from which they can pay for their flights home. They get frankage. Any real estate broker or law partner should aspire to a greater income. Myself, I always aspired to the NBA Minimum.

Jeffrey Ullman once said you should aspire to a medium grade hooker's pay, $100/hr in 1989 or about $224/hr today or about $448,000/yr. Yeah, pay != salary but the idea that our Critters are well paid is ludicrous. And expecting underpaid people to be honest is foolish. At the same time I don't think that paying them fairly would solve all problems which is why a blind trust is such a good idea.

My point... $174K a year and all this shit they deal with, let alone the time spent getting re-elected - not worth it, unless you follow the formula.  For instance:

Two-term Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) saw the largest growth in wealth between 2017 and 2018. The former for-profit college executive’s average net worth skyrocketed from $101 million to nearly $180 million. Mitchell won’t seek reelection this November.

Some longtime members of Congress watched their wealth rise to record levels in 2018. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) was worth an estimated $123,500 in 2008. The House Agriculture Committee chairman’s average net assets stood at $4.2 million as of his most recent financial disclosure. 

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) was worth less than six figures in 2008. One decade later her estimated net worth sat at $7.1 million. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) increased his wealth from $602,000 to $10.7 million over the last decade.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/majority-of-lawmakers-millionaires/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, quod umbra said:
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I am just wondering if I had a point to make, or did I just have a brain fart?

Glad I was able to capture that before you edited it.

Bad form to edit the words of others, to convey a false impression of what was said.  But, I am not surprised you'll stoop to that level.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
9 minutes ago, quod umbra said:
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I am just wondering if I had a point to make, or did I just have a brain fart?

Glad I was able to capture that before you edited it.

Bad form to edit the words of others, to convey a false impression of what was said.  But, I am not surprised you'll stoop to that level.

Considering there is at most a 15-minute window to edit posts, it's pretty obvious that quoddy is down to flinging bullshit level again. Once a liar, always a liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

But are you surprised when you do it?
That is the real question.

I am not aware I take the posts of others and intentionally change the wording to give readers a false impression of what was said.

I even endeavor to stay away from that FIFY crap, in an attempt to be funny.

Gotta cite?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

I think you made it about 5 days. Kudos!

But yes, insider trading is bad, m'kay?

 

Close, but no cigar. Burning man objected to my news article posts sans comment. He believes that posting news without comment is a cheap way to start a conversation, and he is correct. Conversely, when I post an article to an already active conversation, it is informative, and then a personal comment is not always necessary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ventucky Red said:

My point... $174K a year and all this shit they deal with, let alone the time spent getting re-elected - not worth it, unless you follow the formula.  For instance:

Two-term Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) saw the largest growth in wealth between 2017 and 2018. The former for-profit college executive’s average net worth skyrocketed from $101 million to nearly $180 million. Mitchell won’t seek reelection this November.

Some longtime members of Congress watched their wealth rise to record levels in 2018. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) was worth an estimated $123,500 in 2008. The House Agriculture Committee chairman’s average net assets stood at $4.2 million as of his most recent financial disclosure. 

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) was worth less than six figures in 2008. One decade later her estimated net worth sat at $7.1 million. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) increased his wealth from $602,000 to $10.7 million over the last decade.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/majority-of-lawmakers-millionaires/

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here partly because I don't see the system changing.

Pelosi is right. We're capitalists. She's actually been pretty consistent about that and I lived in her district and I've been watching her her whole career.

https://nyulocal.com/nancy-pelosi-to-leftist-nyu-student-were-capitalists-deal-with-it-abf1e8e04e46

You can't just look at outcomes and say, well, something fishy musta went on there. They aren't required to put their wealth into blind trusts like some executive branch officials are but otherwise Critters are subject to same insider trading laws we are.

So here's Diane Feinstein. I can't stand the bitch and I know her history better than Nancy's. I lived not even in her city but in her precinct.

https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9#sen-dianne-feinstein-a-democrat-from-california-1

She's five months late on disclosing a five figure (ooooh) investment in a private, youth-focused polling company. Is that insider trading or is it late paperwork? Is that front page news or someone combing through the ledgers? Hillary invested in cattle futures, investments managed by someone else. She made money and she lost money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_cattle_futures_controversy

Is this legit front page news or oppo research? No one ever found anything wrong wrong with it. But it sure made for a good story.

I think Nancy has a point. We have laws and Congress is subject to those same laws, well, as of the 2012 STOCK Act it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

Shaquille O'Neill was in on the Google Series A funding round. He made 100s of millions, quadrupling his net wealth at the time. Was it insider trading? No, it wasn't. He was babysitting some kids at a restaurant and one of their dads was Ron Conway. It's not what you know. It's who you know and Critters will know a lot more people. Insider trading is about confidential information. It is not about who you know.

So yeah, if one of them called their broker after finding out about Covid in a confidential briefing, book em' Danno. But if they had access to a cattle futures investment opportunity because they knew a board member of Tyson ... in Arkansas, well, that's not insider trading. So insider trading does exist and it exists in Congress. But we can't broad brush all of them for being in DC at the seat of power. They actually had to do something wrong as in illegally wrong. We have laws.

Yeah, I'm gonna side with Nancy on this. So @badlatitudethis is just media bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Close, but no cigar. Burning man objected to my news article posts sans comment. He believes that posting news without comment is a cheap way to start a conversation, and he is correct. Conversely, when I post an article to an already active conversation, it is informative, and then a personal comment is not always necessary. 

I believe I'm due a cigar. 

Whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here partly because I don't see the system changing.

Pelosi is right. We're capitalists. She's actually been pretty consistent about that and I lived in her district and I've been watching her her whole career.

https://nyulocal.com/nancy-pelosi-to-leftist-nyu-student-were-capitalists-deal-with-it-abf1e8e04e46

You can't just look at outcomes and say, well, something fishy musta went on there. They aren't required to put their wealth into blind trusts like some executive branch officials are but otherwise Critters are subject to same insider trading laws we are.

So here's Diane Feinstein. I can't stand the bitch and I know her history better than Nancy's. I lived not even in her city but in her precinct.

https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9#sen-dianne-feinstein-a-democrat-from-california-1

She's five months late on disclosing a five figure (ooooh) investment in a private, youth-focused polling company. Is that insider trading or is it late paperwork? Is that front page news or someone combing through the ledgers? Hillary invested in cattle futures, investments managed by someone else. She made money and she lost money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_cattle_futures_controversy

Is this legit front page news or oppo research? No one ever found anything wrong wrong with it. But it sure made for a good story.

I think Nancy has a point. We have laws and Congress is subject to those same laws, well, as of the 2012 STOCK Act it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

Shaquille O'Neill was in on the Google Series A funding round. He made 100s of millions, quadrupling his net wealth at the time. Was it insider trading? No, it wasn't. He was babysitting some kids at a restaurant and one of their dads was Ron Conway. It's not what you know. It's who you know and Critters will know a lot more people. Insider trading is about confidential information. It is not about who you know.

So yeah, if one of them called their broker after finding out about Covid in a confidential briefing, book em' Danno. But if they had access to a cattle futures investment opportunity because they knew a board member of Tyson ... in Arkansas, well, that's not insider trading. So insider trading does exist and it exists in Congress. But we can't broad brush all of them for being in DC at the seat of power. They actually had to do something wrong as in illegally wrong. We have laws.

Yeah, I'm gonna side with Nancy on this. So @badlatitudethis is just media bullshit.

When Nancy Pelosi and her fellow members of Congress publicly declare their stock purchases on the same day they buy their stock, thereby leveling the playing field for everyone, I'll go along with it. But I'm no dummy, you will never see in your lifetime, a politician who votes, or acts to make less money. We'll just keep on creating limousine liberals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

When Nancy Pelosi and her fellow members of Congress publicly declare their stock purchases on the same day they buy their stock, thereby leveling the playing field for everyone, I'll go along with it. But I'm no dummy, you will never see in your lifetime, a politician who votes, or acts to make less money. We'll just keep on creating limousine liberals.

Congress hasn't raised its pay since 2009. They're allowed a COLA but the commission hasn't met. There's even the stupid 27th Amendment that forbids the House from raising their pay for this term.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

We have major problems in DC but Congressional pay isn't one of them. Indeed we pay them too little.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insider trading by Congresscritters is so well known, and so ignored, that kind of like the pay raises they give themselves, while everyone else (The actual working people, not the CEOs etc.) is taking a pay reduction  because incremental yearly raises rarely match the COL rise...

 It's absurd. Anyone who holds an elected office should either divest, or keep in a blind trust any investments they currently have, and not participate in any trading while in office, or for several years after leaving office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Congress hasn't raised its pay since 2009. They're allowed a COLA but the commission hasn't met. There's even the stupid 27th Amendment that forbids the House from raising their pay for this term.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

We have major problems in DC but Congressional pay isn't one of them. Indeed we pay them too little.

$176,000 salary and a $200,000,000 net worth says it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Congress hasn't raised its pay since 2009. They're allowed a COLA but the commission hasn't met. There's even the stupid 27th Amendment that forbids the House from raising their pay for this term.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

We have major problems in DC but Congressional pay isn't one of them. Indeed we pay them too little.

For the amount of "work" that they do, and the number of hours that they actually are on the job, they are vastly over paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Congress hasn't raised its pay since 2009. They're allowed a COLA but the commission hasn't met. There's even the stupid 27th Amendment that forbids the House from raising their pay for this term.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

We have major problems in DC but Congressional pay isn't one of them. Indeed we pay them too little.

Instead of a bloated salary, why don't we engineer a way that they can work from home? It would save a bundle on DC rent, office cost, reduced staff, and the best benefit of all, it would put a dagger in the heart of lobbying. I would personally love to see my Congressman more accessible, close to the problems at home, and I get to see just how hard they work.

Edit to Add: It would make another January 6 hard to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here partly because I don't see the system changing.

....

So yeah, if one of them called their broker after finding out about Covid in a confidential briefing, book em' Danno. ....

Oddly enough, one of my state's Senators did exactly that.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818192535/burr-recording-sparks-questions-about-private-comments-on-covid-19

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/senator-richard-burr-insider-trading-sold-stocks-brother-in-law-2021-10?op=1

Result, a year later, nada. Not even a harsh word spoken to him. Well, fuck it, he's retiring.

Maybe, just maybe, the SEC will shake a finger at him.

But I doubt it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I don't understand why no one seems to get this. Congress should be allowed to trade, they should not be allowed to trade on stock where there is an incentive to make a decision in favor of a corporation to allow them to make more money. That's the difference, and also how people get rich. If the STOCK ACT works, why are reports of individual trades hidden for many months? This whole thing needs an overhaul or needs to be stopped.

Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress: 'We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that.'

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected the idea of barring members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks while in office.

"We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that," Pelosi said when asked by Insider at her weekly press conference.

Insider also asked Pelosi about Conflicted Congress, a five-month-long investigation by Insider that found that 49 members of Congress and 182 senior congressional staffers had violated the STOCK Act, a law to prevent Insider trading.

The speaker said she hadn't yet seen the project, but added that it's important that members comply with the law.

Pelosi's position put her at odds with progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom have called for barring members of Congress from trading stocks while in office.

 

"It is absolutely ludicrous that members of Congress can hold and trade individual stock while in office," Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. "The access and influence we have should be exercised for the public interest, not our profit. It shouldn't be legal for us to trade individual stock with the info we have."

And on Tuesday, Warren told Insider that she had seen Insider's investigation, calling out the "brazenness" of members and staffers trading stocks even while having access to privileged knowledge.

"We need both tougher laws and enforcement of those laws," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "The American people should never have to guess whether or not an elected official is advancing an issue or voting on a bill based on what's good for the country or what's good for their own personal financial interests." 

When asked about progressives' position on the issue, Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, signaled that the speaker preferred a transparency-focused approach to insider trading.

"The STOCK Act exists to shine a bright light on trades by members of Congress," Hammill said. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Pelosi's husband, investor Paul Pelosi, frequently trades significant numbers of stocks. With her husband's assets considered, Pelosi ranks among the wealthiest members of Congress, an Insider analysis found.

"The speaker does not own any stocks," Hammill said. "As you can see from the required disclosures, with which the speaker fully cooperates, these transactions are marked 'SP' for spouse. The speaker has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions."

Insider has identified numerous examples of federal lawmakers trading stocks in industries they oversee as part of their congressional committee assignments, including within the defense, healthcare, and energy industries

Agree 100%.  It's absolutely no different that insider trading.  If they want to play the Stock market, then resign from congress.  

You're a bit late to the party on this one.  NPR did a good news piece on this back in Sept.  https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-group-says-7-house-lawmakers-didnt-disclose-stock-trades

It seems there is little consequences even if they violate the law.  A slap on the wrist is not going to stop critters from taking advantage of their inside knowledge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Close, but no cigar. Burning man objected to my news article posts sans comment. He believes that posting news without comment is a cheap way to start a conversation, and he is correct. Conversely, when I post an article to an already active conversation, it is informative, and then a personal comment is not always necessary. 

Well done and I agree that posting an article to an already active conversation doesn't always require comment assuming it is fairly clear what point the article is attempting to make, to support or to counter

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would be out of a job

What are these "jobs" of which you speak ?? 

Hmmm, is it possible that you are on the clock while trashing arms control discussions ?? 

Whose clock ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Not one that hasn't been doctored repeatedly.

And if we can't have a little fun back here,

Bull pucky. In academia that is about the worst crime imaginable, 

the lowest and most unethical form of argumentation. 

To me, it is worthy of flickeration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

One of the quickest ways to crush an economy is voting in a bunch of politicians who have no idea how an economy actually works.  Honestly, we're probably already over that precipice.  I want former soldiers to run for congress.  And scientists.  And teachers.  And bartenders.  And even investors.  I'm OK with politicians having some skin in the game.  On principle, Pelosi is correct, IMHO.

That being said the penalties are laughably low.  I'm sure the Freakonomic folks would have a field day on this one, if the data were actually accessible.  So we have at best an inefficient system, and at worst, a corrupt system that would make a Lilliputian king blush.

I'd say you have two options if elected:

1)  Blind Trust run by a licensed fiduciary.

2)  Self directed with a 7-calendar day reporting window for self and spouse.  Failure to report = 100% forfeiture of invested amount, collected through the IRS.  You know when you hit the magic buy/sell button and when.  Its SUPER easy to run a report and attach it as part of routine business dealings.  "I forgot' or "I'm busy" is bullshit.   These guys aren't investing $50 on Webull sucking down a Monster between classes.  They KNOW what they're doing.

That's what I'd personally like to see implemented.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2021 at 11:42 PM, badlatitude said:

I don't understand why no one seems to get this. Congress should be allowed to trade, they should not be allowed to trade on stock where there is an incentive to make a decision in favor of a corporation to allow them to make more money. That's the difference, and also how people get rich. If the STOCK ACT works, why are reports of individual trades hidden for many months? This whole thing needs an overhaul or needs to be stopped.

Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress: 'We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that.'

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected the idea of barring members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks while in office.

"We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that," Pelosi said when asked by Insider at her weekly press conference.

Insider also asked Pelosi about Conflicted Congress, a five-month-long investigation by Insider that found that 49 members of Congress and 182 senior congressional staffers had violated the STOCK Act, a law to prevent Insider trading.

The speaker said she hadn't yet seen the project, but added that it's important that members comply with the law.

Pelosi's position put her at odds with progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom have called for barring members of Congress from trading stocks while in office.

 

"It is absolutely ludicrous that members of Congress can hold and trade individual stock while in office," Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted. "The access and influence we have should be exercised for the public interest, not our profit. It shouldn't be legal for us to trade individual stock with the info we have."

And on Tuesday, Warren told Insider that she had seen Insider's investigation, calling out the "brazenness" of members and staffers trading stocks even while having access to privileged knowledge.

"We need both tougher laws and enforcement of those laws," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "The American people should never have to guess whether or not an elected official is advancing an issue or voting on a bill based on what's good for the country or what's good for their own personal financial interests." 

When asked about progressives' position on the issue, Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, signaled that the speaker preferred a transparency-focused approach to insider trading.

"The STOCK Act exists to shine a bright light on trades by members of Congress," Hammill said. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Pelosi's husband, investor Paul Pelosi, frequently trades significant numbers of stocks. With her husband's assets considered, Pelosi ranks among the wealthiest members of Congress, an Insider analysis found.

"The speaker does not own any stocks," Hammill said. "As you can see from the required disclosures, with which the speaker fully cooperates, these transactions are marked 'SP' for spouse. The speaker has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions."

Insider has identified numerous examples of federal lawmakers trading stocks in industries they oversee as part of their congressional committee assignments, including within the defense, healthcare, and energy industries.

 

 

 

It’s a non issue 

politicians don’t make money off the stock market when in office , they make it when they leave office … payback time 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Instead of a bloated salary, why don't we engineer a way that they can work from home? It would save a bundle on DC rent, office cost, reduced staff, and the best benefit of all, it would put a dagger in the heart of lobbying. I would personally love to see my Congressman more accessible, close to the problems at home, and I get to see just how hard they work.

Edit to Add: It would make another January 6 hard to do.

A) Because the party of "NO" will vote against it and B it will remove an argument against doubling the size of the House, thus pushing the EC toward the popular vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites