insider information is what drives a majority of the wealth gain by elected officials imo. how else do you explain the massive increases in wealth by lowly congressional members from podunk states? i think its likely the biggest reason anybody would want to be in DC unless they just get off on power trips and being on tv.
if you wanted to clean it up (somewhat) it should be that they have to file all investment transactions "X" number of days prior to the transaction actually taking place. IIRC this is what CEOs of publically traded companies are required to do. That way the action is completely transparent. I do recall that there are exceptions to these rules but they require a special insider declaration that goes to the SEC for review. say reacting to something in real time, out of the CEOs control, that affects stock price.
Thank you, @realDonaldTrump for appointing me to your task force on re-opening America safely in the wake of #COVID19.
With 22 million Americans filing for unemployment, it’s clear we must start working to revive our economy and get the American people back to work safely.
Either punished or appointed to the task force to re-open America...
We good with this?
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
Thank you, @realDonaldTrump for appointing me to your task force on re-opening America safely in the wake of #COVID19.
With 22 million Americans filing for unemployment, it’s clear we must start working to revive our economy and get the American people back to work safely.
Either punished or appointed to the task force to re-open America...
We good with this?
maybe shes got some secret information on getting things going sooner?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Thank you, @realDonaldTrump for appointing me to your task force on re-opening America safely in the wake of #COVID19.
With 22 million Americans filing for unemployment, it’s clear we must start working to revive our economy and get the American people back to work safely.
Either punished or appointed to the task force to re-open America...
We good with this?
maybe shes got some secret information on getting things going sooner?
At the worst, she's ahead of the curve...
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
Before handing all of them, I'd like more information. If 3M stock (for example) suddenly skyrockets... and Amy Klobuchar happened to have stock in 3M (because she's a good Minnesotan): won't she be making money off this? If this example isn't what you're talking about, then you might need to give more details about what you're concerns are. But, in the scenario I suggested, I wouldn't have a problem with her "making money", simply because her stock went up.
I wonder if the reticence to accept Jimmy's proposition is because there is someone specific that the OP has in mind...?
If Klobachar had no money in 3M, had a meeting with US officials about which companies were going to be producing/receiving government contracts, and then purchase 3M stock ahead of time, that’s a party foul. It’s egregious. It is disgusting.
If Amy had money in 3M before this, that’s a different story. One that should considered for debate. A ban on trading stocks should have been and should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Holding your investments in a blind trust is an option or middle ground
The two cases that stick out like sore thumbs would be Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kelly Loeffler, personally benefitting or better yet disaster profiteering.
It seems that America is in a constant political party us versus them, it would make sense that we could all agree that the real us vs them is the people versus the people who we have put into office.
Having done a little research on this... I fail to see what Loeffler did wrong (other than have an "R" behind her name). She found out that the situation was going to be dire... and dumped stock because of it. What was she supposed to do- keep it, knowing that it was in trouble? Yes, she was privvy to that information before most other people... but what would you have done differently? And it was about $100,000 (which- compared to what I make- is alot... but a drop in the bucket for *some* politicians; shoot, Omar just gave $300,000 to her own husband as a "campaign expense"). So, in my mind, I don't have a problem with what she did. But perhaps you've done more research than me... and can tell me why she should be hanged for what she did?
Burr's "sin" certainly involved alot more cash... but, again: what was he supposed to do? Even though the GOP is investigating him (that's good, right), I guess I don't see the big problem. He sold stock- because he knew it was in trouble. I would've done the same thing (if I was into the stock-market). Now, the issue (I guess) is that he had that information sooner than everyone else. So- what was he supposed to do? Tell everyone else what he knew? Simply hang on to the stock and lose money?
I guess I'm failing to see the big issue here. It's not like they were "making money" off of people (such as the scenario I presented). They simply chose not to lose money. But, I'm open to hearing more details (about what makes their decisions so egregious). Please believe me when I tell you: I am truly open to being persuaded differently. But- as of right now- I don't see the big deal. Again: what would you have done differently, if you were in their shoes?
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
Before handing all of them, I'd like more information. If 3M stock (for example) suddenly skyrockets... and Amy Klobuchar happened to have stock in 3M (because she's a good Minnesotan): won't she be making money off this? If this example isn't what you're talking about, then you might need to give more details about what you're concerns are. But, in the scenario I suggested, I wouldn't have a problem with her "making money", simply because her stock went up.
I wonder if the reticence to accept Jimmy's proposition is because there is someone specific that the OP has in mind...?
If Klobachar had no money in 3M, had a meeting with US officials about which companies were going to be producing/receiving government contracts, and then purchase 3M stock ahead of time, that’s a party foul. It’s egregious. It is disgusting.
If Amy had money in 3M before this, that’s a different story. One that should considered for debate. A ban on trading stocks should have been and should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Holding your investments in a blind trust is an option or middle ground
The two cases that stick out like sore thumbs would be Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kelly Loeffler, personally benefitting or better yet disaster profiteering.
It seems that America is in a constant political party us versus them, it would make sense that we could all agree that the real us vs them is the people versus the people who we have put into office.
Having done a little research on this... I fail to see what Loeffler did wrong (other than have an "R" behind her name). She found out that the situation was going to be dire... and dumped stock because of it. What was she supposed to do- keep it, knowing that it was in trouble? Yes, she was privvy to that information before most other people... but what would you have done differently? And it was about $100,000 (which- compared to what I make- is alot... but a drop in the bucket for *some* politicians; shoot, Omar just gave $300,000 to her own husband as a "campaign expense"). So, in my mind, I don't have a problem with what she did. But perhaps you've done more research than me... and can tell me why she should be hanged for what she did?
Burr's "sin" certainly involved alot more cash... but, again: what was he supposed to do? Even though the GOP is investigating him (that's good, right), I guess I don't see the big problem. He sold stock- because he knew it was in trouble. I would've done the same thing (if I was into the stock-market). Now, the issue (I guess) is that he had that information sooner than everyone else. So- what was he supposed to do? Tell everyone else what he knew? Simply hang on to the stock and lose money?
I guess I'm failing to see the big issue here. It's not like they were "making money" off of people (such as the scenario I presented). They simply chose not to lose money. But, I'm open to hearing more details (about what makes their decisions so egregious). Please believe me when I tell you: I am truly open to being persuaded differently. But- as of right now- I don't see the big deal. Again: what would you have done differently, if you were in their shoes?
You don’t see the prospect or actual disaster profiteering as an issue? Slippery slope by allowing this no?
Do you have an issue with CEOs and large corporate shareholders jump ship with inside information before companies fail and investors (stock market players) lose their money? By your logic, what else should they do, sure they can pull their money out based on information they had that the rest of the market didn’t.
It’s not political, I am certain that dems would do the same. It’s the wealthy politician that we have allowed. We have allowed the wolves into the hen house and then said, he’s wolf, what else is he going to do.
America is a dumpster fire
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
Thank you, @realDonaldTrump for appointing me to your task force on re-opening America safely in the wake of #COVID19.
With 22 million Americans filing for unemployment, it’s clear we must start working to revive our economy and get the American people back to work safely.
Either punished or appointed to the task force to re-open America...
We good with this?
Exactly. Some here don’t see this as an issue which blows my mind and typically is contradictory the supposed founding fathers belief system they promote
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
Before handing all of them, I'd like more information. If 3M stock (for example) suddenly skyrockets... and Amy Klobuchar happened to have stock in 3M (because she's a good Minnesotan): won't she be making money off this? If this example isn't what you're talking about, then you might need to give more details about what you're concerns are. But, in the scenario I suggested, I wouldn't have a problem with her "making money", simply because her stock went up.
I wonder if the reticence to accept Jimmy's proposition is because there is someone specific that the OP has in mind...?
If Klobachar had no money in 3M, had a meeting with US officials about which companies were going to be producing/receiving government contracts, and then purchase 3M stock ahead of time, that’s a party foul. It’s egregious. It is disgusting.
If Amy had money in 3M before this, that’s a different story. One that should considered for debate. A ban on trading stocks should have been and should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Holding your investments in a blind trust is an option or middle ground
The two cases that stick out like sore thumbs would be Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kelly Loeffler, personally benefitting or better yet disaster profiteering.
It seems that America is in a constant political party us versus them, it would make sense that we could all agree that the real us vs them is the people versus the people who we have put into office.
Having done a little research on this... I fail to see what Loeffler did wrong (other than have an "R" behind her name). She found out that the situation was going to be dire... and dumped stock because of it. What was she supposed to do- keep it, knowing that it was in trouble? Yes, she was privvy to that information before most other people... but what would you have done differently? And it was about $100,000 (which- compared to what I make- is alot... but a drop in the bucket for *some* politicians; shoot, Omar just gave $300,000 to her own husband as a "campaign expense"). So, in my mind, I don't have a problem with what she did. But perhaps you've done more research than me... and can tell me why she should be hanged for what she did?
Burr's "sin" certainly involved alot more cash... but, again: what was he supposed to do? Even though the GOP is investigating him (that's good, right), I guess I don't see the big problem. He sold stock- because he knew it was in trouble. I would've done the same thing (if I was into the stock-market). Now, the issue (I guess) is that he had that information sooner than everyone else. So- what was he supposed to do? Tell everyone else what he knew? Simply hang on to the stock and lose money?
I guess I'm failing to see the big issue here. It's not like they were "making money" off of people (such as the scenario I presented). They simply chose not to lose money. But, I'm open to hearing more details (about what makes their decisions so egregious). Please believe me when I tell you: I am truly open to being persuaded differently. But- as of right now- I don't see the big deal. Again: what would you have done differently, if you were in their shoes?
You don’t see the prospect or actual disaster profiteering as an issue? Slippery slope by allowing this no?
Do you have an issue with CEOs and large corporate shareholders jump ship with inside information before companies fail and investors (stock market players) lose their money? By your logic, what else should they do, sure they can pull their money out based on information they had that the rest of the market didn’t.
It’s not political, I am certain that dems would do the same. It’s the wealthy politician that we have allowed. We have allowed the wolves into the hen house and then said, he’s wolf, what else is he going to do.
America is a dumpster fire
Did any of these politicians cause the virus that led to the market plunge?
Were any of these pols in a position to stop the virus that caused the to market plunge? (if so how?)
i dont think you have an issue with red or blue as much you have a problem with people that have more than you do it seems, and you still think that team blue cares more about the middle class on down than team red... news flash, other than a vote every 2 to 4 years... neither sides elected really cares all that much.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
Before handing all of them, I'd like more information. If 3M stock (for example) suddenly skyrockets... and Amy Klobuchar happened to have stock in 3M (because she's a good Minnesotan): won't she be making money off this? If this example isn't what you're talking about, then you might need to give more details about what you're concerns are. But, in the scenario I suggested, I wouldn't have a problem with her "making money", simply because her stock went up.
I wonder if the reticence to accept Jimmy's proposition is because there is someone specific that the OP has in mind...?
If Klobachar had no money in 3M, had a meeting with US officials about which companies were going to be producing/receiving government contracts, and then purchase 3M stock ahead of time, that’s a party foul. It’s egregious. It is disgusting.
If Amy had money in 3M before this, that’s a different story. One that should considered for debate. A ban on trading stocks should have been and should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Holding your investments in a blind trust is an option or middle ground
The two cases that stick out like sore thumbs would be Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kelly Loeffler, personally benefitting or better yet disaster profiteering.
It seems that America is in a constant political party us versus them, it would make sense that we could all agree that the real us vs them is the people versus the people who we have put into office.
Having done a little research on this... I fail to see what Loeffler did wrong (other than have an "R" behind her name). She found out that the situation was going to be dire... and dumped stock because of it. What was she supposed to do- keep it, knowing that it was in trouble? Yes, she was privvy to that information before most other people... but what would you have done differently? And it was about $100,000 (which- compared to what I make- is alot... but a drop in the bucket for *some* politicians; shoot, Omar just gave $300,000 to her own husband as a "campaign expense"). So, in my mind, I don't have a problem with what she did. But perhaps you've done more research than me... and can tell me why she should be hanged for what she did?
Burr's "sin" certainly involved alot more cash... but, again: what was he supposed to do? Even though the GOP is investigating him (that's good, right), I guess I don't see the big problem. He sold stock- because he knew it was in trouble. I would've done the same thing (if I was into the stock-market). Now, the issue (I guess) is that he had that information sooner than everyone else. So- what was he supposed to do? Tell everyone else what he knew? Simply hang on to the stock and lose money?
I guess I'm failing to see the big issue here. It's not like they were "making money" off of people (such as the scenario I presented). They simply chose not to lose money. But, I'm open to hearing more details (about what makes their decisions so egregious). Please believe me when I tell you: I am truly open to being persuaded differently. But- as of right now- I don't see the big deal. Again: what would you have done differently, if you were in their shoes?
You don’t see the prospect or actual disaster profiteering as an issue? Slippery slope by allowing this no?
Do you have an issue with CEOs and large corporate shareholders jump ship with inside information before companies fail and investors (stock market players) lose their money? By your logic, what else should they do, sure they can pull their money out based on information they had that the rest of the market didn’t.
It’s not political, I am certain that dems would do the same. It’s the wealthy politician that we have allowed. We have allowed the wolves into the hen house and then said, he’s wolf, what else is he going to do.
America is a dumpster fire
Did any of these politicians cause the virus that led to the market plunge?
Were any of these pols in a position to stop the virus that caused the to market plunge? (if so how?)
i dont think you have an issue with red or blue as much you have a problem with people that have more than you do it seems, and you still think that team blue cares more about the middle class on down than team red... news flash, other than a vote every 2 to 4 years... neither sides elected really cares all that much.
No.
No.
Actually I’m quite good. I am one of the lucky ones. I have zero in debt, plenty of cash, and a position that will stay in demand. I believe in smart capitalism. I give a fuck about all the people who are not so lucky. The ones who get fucked. They are people too, man the GOP used to be the compassionate party. Now it’s the party of go fuck yourself (unless it has to do with religion, then give me your poor, your homeless, your needy, but really don’t)
I just don’t defend dirtbag politicians who have seem to lost their way regarding what their actual jobs are. Are you good with the millions in tax cuts the rich received in the bailout? The same garbage that gets away with this political corporate bullshit disaster profiteering are the same who made those programs a part of the stimulus. They don’t work for you, they don’t care about you. They work for themselves, get fat in the process and leave a mess for the rest of us to clean up. This is both parties, just one seems to be extremely obvious about their shenanigans right now. This country needs a political revolution, maybe it’s a civil war to let the bad blood out, and an establishment of 4 parties (splitting each into two). Maybe then we can get back to being the country that was the shining city upon a hill.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
Before handing all of them, I'd like more information. If 3M stock (for example) suddenly skyrockets... and Amy Klobuchar happened to have stock in 3M (because she's a good Minnesotan): won't she be making money off this? If this example isn't what you're talking about, then you might need to give more details about what you're concerns are. But, in the scenario I suggested, I wouldn't have a problem with her "making money", simply because her stock went up.
I wonder if the reticence to accept Jimmy's proposition is because there is someone specific that the OP has in mind...?
If Klobachar had no money in 3M, had a meeting with US officials about which companies were going to be producing/receiving government contracts, and then purchase 3M stock ahead of time, that’s a party foul. It’s egregious. It is disgusting.
If Amy had money in 3M before this, that’s a different story. One that should considered for debate. A ban on trading stocks should have been and should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Holding your investments in a blind trust is an option or middle ground
The two cases that stick out like sore thumbs would be Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kelly Loeffler, personally benefitting or better yet disaster profiteering.
It seems that America is in a constant political party us versus them, it would make sense that we could all agree that the real us vs them is the people versus the people who we have put into office.
Having done a little research on this... I fail to see what Loeffler did wrong (other than have an "R" behind her name). She found out that the situation was going to be dire... and dumped stock because of it. What was she supposed to do- keep it, knowing that it was in trouble? Yes, she was privvy to that information before most other people... but what would you have done differently? And it was about $100,000 (which- compared to what I make- is alot... but a drop in the bucket for *some* politicians; shoot, Omar just gave $300,000 to her own husband as a "campaign expense"). So, in my mind, I don't have a problem with what she did. But perhaps you've done more research than me... and can tell me why she should be hanged for what she did?
Burr's "sin" certainly involved alot more cash... but, again: what was he supposed to do? Even though the GOP is investigating him (that's good, right), I guess I don't see the big problem. He sold stock- because he knew it was in trouble. I would've done the same thing (if I was into the stock-market). Now, the issue (I guess) is that he had that information sooner than everyone else. So- what was he supposed to do? Tell everyone else what he knew? Simply hang on to the stock and lose money?
I guess I'm failing to see the big issue here. It's not like they were "making money" off of people (such as the scenario I presented). They simply chose not to lose money. But, I'm open to hearing more details (about what makes their decisions so egregious). Please believe me when I tell you: I am truly open to being persuaded differently. But- as of right now- I don't see the big deal. Again: what would you have done differently, if you were in their shoes?
You don’t see the prospect or actual disaster profiteering as an issue? Slippery slope by allowing this no?
Do you have an issue with CEOs and large corporate shareholders jump ship with inside information before companies fail and investors (stock market players) lose their money? By your logic, what else should they do, sure they can pull their money out based on information they had that the rest of the market didn’t.
It’s not political, I am certain that dems would do the same. It’s the wealthy politician that we have allowed. We have allowed the wolves into the hen house and then said, he’s wolf, what else is he going to do.
America is a dumpster fire
Did any of these politicians cause the virus that led to the market plunge?
Were any of these pols in a position to stop the virus that caused the to market plunge? (if so how?)
i dont think you have an issue with red or blue as much you have a problem with people that have more than you do it seems, and you still think that team blue cares more about the middle class on down than team red... news flash, other than a vote every 2 to 4 years... neither sides elected really cares all that much.
No.
No.
Actually I’m quite good. I am one of the lucky ones. I have zero in debt, plenty of cash, and a position that will stay in demand. I believe in smart capitalism. I give a fuck about all the people who are not so lucky. The ones who get fucked. They are people too, man the GOP used to be the compassionate party. Now it’s the party of go fuck yourself (unless it has to do with religion, then give me your poor, your homeless, your needy, but really don’t)
I just don’t defend dirtbag politicians who have seem to lost their way regarding what their actual jobs are. Are you good with the millions in tax cuts the rich received in the bailout? The same garbage that gets away with this political corporate bullshit disaster profiteering are the same who made those programs a part of the stimulus. They don’t work for you, they don’t care about you. They work for themselves, get fat in the process and leave a mess for the rest of us to clean up. This is both parties, just one seems to be extremely obvious about their shenanigans right now. This country needs a political revolution, maybe it’s a civil war to let the bad blood out, and an establishment of 4 parties (splitting each into two). Maybe then we can get back to being the country that was the shining city upon a hill.
well their actions didnt take food off anybodies plate either. I think you just seem to carry a lot of rage.
the gop still plenty of compassionate people, just that they would rather teach a person to fish than to just throw fish at them. they would rather create an opportunity for those that want fist to be able to provide their own fish than to steal fish from others and give them away.
i didnt like the tax breaks for the wealthy or that they are in on the stimulus bull shit at all, but i can about guarantee you that there was plenty of blue behind those parts of that bill as well. when we all learn to scream at the whole problem and not just pieces, or at each other... maybe we get some where.
|
![[Image: RmRIZObd_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1227258037469110272/RmRIZObd_normal.jpg)
