Crime Pelosi rejects stock trading ban for Congress

[Broken arrow]

You need a very compelling reason to tell people, even members of the government, that they aren't allowed to participate in the economy. No one has presented one.

What is being presented is that because we know that many members are breaking the law, all of the non-law breakers shouldn't be allowed to invest either. That's not a strong enough reason to punish those members of Congress who are following the rules.

and that’s literally the exact reason why most laws exist…. And it’s exactly the same “reason” they want more gun control.

 

[panamaican]

Strong reason? They make laws that affect the market directly, before hand they know how markets will react.

"For example, Pelosi became the subject of a meme after it was revealed that Paul, her husband, had exercised CALL options to buy 4,000 shares of Alphabet just before an antitrust vote involving the firm in the House Judiciary Committee, making about $5.3 million in the process."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nancy-pelosi-stock-portfolio-10-133549340.html

and that’s literally the exact reason why most laws exist…. And it’s exactly the same “reason” they want more gun control.

Again, that's a reason to punish Pelosi and others who violate the rule. It's not a reason to punish people who haven't done anything wrong.

I don't know why you're telling me anything about gun control. Isn't this the very argument against gun control. Seems like a worthless rhetorical point to say "They want this for gun control therefore it should apply to buying stocks." But I'll address the flaw here anyway -- if they implemented gun control, if would affect everyone, including us and themselves. What is being discussed with stocks is not affecting everyone, it would not affect us. Just bad rhetorical point.

anyway, a compelling reason to prevent congresspeople who have done nothing wrong from participating in the free market is that some other congresspeople abuse the free market?

By that logic, no one in Congress should be allowed to do anything. I'm sure there are Congresspeople who use their position to get themselves all sorts of sweetheart deals. Discounts on cars - no Congresspeople should be allowed to by their own car. Real estate opportunities - no Congressperson should be allowed to buy real estate. Free box seats to sporting events - no Congressperson should be allowed to attend live sports.

If the argument is "Some people in Congress break the rule, therefore no member of Congress should participate in that part of the economy," then that is a very broadly applicable rule. And if it's just stocks, what makes stocks the one area where this rule is okay if it's not okay elsewhere? That's what I mean by a compelling argument.

 

[chardog]

feinstein made a career out of it, why wouldnt anyone else? you'd be a fool to leave all that money on the table

 

[chardog]

Again, that's a reason to punish Pelosi and others who violate the rule. It's not a reason to punish people who haven't done anything wrong.

I don't know why you're telling me anything about gun control. Isn't this the very argument against gun control. Seems like a worthless rhetorical point to say "They want this for gun control therefore it should apply to buying stocks." But I'll address the flaw here anyway -- if they implemented gun control, if would affect everyone, including us and themselves. What is being discussed with stocks is not affecting everyone, it would not affect us. Just bad rhetorical point.

anyway, a compelling reason to prevent congresspeople who have done nothing wrong from participating in the free market is that some other congresspeople abuse the free market?

By that logic, no one in Congress should be allowed to do anything. I'm sure there are Congresspeople who use their position to get themselves all sorts of sweetheart deals. Discounts on cars - no Congresspeople should be allowed to by their own car. Real estate opportunities - no Congressperson should be allowed to buy real estate. Free box seats to sporting events - no Congressperson should be allowed to attend live sports.

If the argument is "Some people in Congress break the rule, therefore no member of Congress should participate in that part of the economy," then that is a very broadly applicable rule. And if it's just stocks, what makes stocks the one area where this rule is okay if it's not okay elsewhere? That's what I mean by a compelling argument.

tough luck, dont work for congress

if congress wants to do all those things, work in the private sector

 

[Rob Battisti]

So many private companies don’t allow trading due to having access to insights. Anyone defending this point is beyond reasoning.

 

[panamaican]

So many private companies don’t allow trading due to having access to insights. Anyone defending this point is beyond reasoning.

But it's not a law. To the best of my understanding, the SEC will penalize companies if they fail to police insider trading by their employees. Companies responded by limiting or barring trading as a condition of employment to ensure that they don't open themselves up to penalty. It's private action all the way around. Private sector employment, private sector conditions of employment, private sector boundaries on what is and isn't allowed.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be stricter guidelines or harsher punishments. But I disagree with the idea of a law preventing people from owning stocks just because they're in the public sector. Enforce the existing restrictions or make them tougher. I think the STOCK Act has a host of penalties that should be enforced.

And not go too far down the slippery slope (just a little bit) - how far out on the family tree are we going to enforce this? Cousins, parents, adult children, etc.? I can't imagine a justifiable argument that says "Your child was elected to Congress, now you can't own individual stocks."

 

[Rob Battisti]

But it's not a law. To the best of my understanding, the SEC will penalize companies if they fail to police insider trading by their employees. Companies responded by limiting or barring trading as a condition of employment to ensure that they don't open themselves up to penalty. It's private action all the way around. Private sector employment, private sector conditions of employment, private sector boundaries on what is and isn't allowed.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be stricter guidelines or harsher punishments. But I disagree with the idea of a law preventing people from owning stocks just because they're in the public sector. Enforce the existing restrictions or make them tougher. I think the STOCK Act has a host of penalties that should be enforced.

And not go too far down the slippery slope (just a little bit) - how far out on the family tree are we going to enforce this? Cousins, parents, adult children, etc.? I can't imagine a justifiable argument that says "Your child was elected to Congress, now you can't own individual stocks."

If you have an ability to both have confidential information and/or influence policy to impact markets, you shouldn’t be able to invest in single stock purchases. I’d be fine with a 3rd party managing a fund they could buy into. Hell, even multiple options. But, there is too much risk of abuse in this current situation.

When I worked at Bloomberg, I couldn’t buy and my household couldn’t. That’s a good limit.

 

[ShadowRun]

Nothing will change until these boomers are out of office. They care more about their bank accounts then the people they're supposed to represent.

Such a dumb statement

 

[Revolver]

Such a dumb statement

Ok boomer

 

[ShadowRun]

Ok boomer

Since gold and currency has been around so has greedy corrupt politicians.. you’re a sad troll.. it’s going to magically change with the most fragile zoomers?

 

[DespicablePeep]

They are there to serve the country, make a hefty living, and should not have any conflict of interest. Anyone in the banking industry is forbidden to act on the market directly, they can at most invest in funds. It's quite moving to see you go to depths to defend politicians rights lol

Again, that's a reason to punish Pelosi and others who violate the rule. It's not a reason to punish people who haven't done anything wrong.

I don't know why you're telling me anything about gun control. Isn't this the very argument against gun control. Seems like a worthless rhetorical point to say "They want this for gun control therefore it should apply to buying stocks." But I'll address the flaw here anyway -- if they implemented gun control, if would affect everyone, including us and themselves. What is being discussed with stocks is not affecting everyone, it would not affect us. Just bad rhetorical point.

anyway, a compelling reason to prevent congresspeople who have done nothing wrong from participating in the free market is that some other congresspeople abuse the free market?

By that logic, no one in Congress should be allowed to do anything. I'm sure there are Congresspeople who use their position to get themselves all sorts of sweetheart deals. Discounts on cars - no Congresspeople should be allowed to by their own car. Real estate opportunities - no Congressperson should be allowed to buy real estate. Free box seats to sporting events - no Congressperson should be allowed to attend live sports.

If the argument is "Some people in Congress break the rule, therefore no member of Congress should participate in that part of the economy," then that is a very broadly applicable rule. And if it's just stocks, what makes stocks the one area where this rule is okay if it's not okay elsewhere? That's what I mean by a compelling argument.

 

[Mr Holmes]

 

[Belaya Smert]

Stop. Hammer Time!

 

[jk7707]

This! This needs to be one of the things to bring the country together in that thread. Fuck Pelosi, and the rest of the members of congress that somehow became expert investors after they were elected.

 

[Gas121]

Pelosi rolling in lambos meanwhile the rest of us scratching our arses to make money in the stonk market lulz.

 

[BobsyaUncle]

I don't understand why Americans put up with such blatant corruption among their politicians.

 

[MT7]

It’s open blatant corruption at this point and the barely try to hide it. We are so divided as a society that we will never be able to organize any real effort to change it. They have infiltrated every level and destroyed our ability to hold them accountable. Go read the comments in her tweets and it’s either telling her to burn in hell or oozing respect for “madame Speaker”

Exactly. Unfortunately, very few Americans realize this, even though it's clear as day. The more divided we become, the more powerful the politicians and elites become.

 

[White Whale]

Exactly. Unfortunately, very few Americans realize this, even though it's clear as day. The more divided we become, the more powerful the politicians and elites become.

Jimmy Dore has been talking about this they don't want workers meeting on common ground because it hurts the establishment when people are united on a cause such as free speech, health care, healthy foods.

 

[The XL]

They're all clearly insider trading. We're governed by crooks

 

[rearnakedchoke]

They should ban it. But could you imagine if she voted for banning it? People would be even more pissed that she benefitted and then decided it wasn’t right.