I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
Wow for the first time since I began participating here on AMT we are in complete agreement.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,886
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
so whats been the reported sanction. Specifically Burr for the donor briefing he gave.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,886
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
many of them have been donating to those that would vote them out of committee for a floor vote.......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
Post edited by CM189191 on
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
again you shutting the barn door after the damage has been done
The purpose of the law is to prevent or stop these sorts of things from happening, which obv isn't working.
So the law needs changing.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
1. They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. 2. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. 3. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. 4. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
1. Because history and human nature has set a track record of people in positions of power abusing it for personal gain when they can, or are allowed to. Especially in politics. So much so that it is often accepted by the general public as part of the job. Remove the temptation. Won’t necessarily stop it, but it creates some level of accountability.
2. Senate ethics investigations are a joke, and those found to be in violation ever receive more the a finger shake. History also shows that people in positions of power are seldom seriously punished for financial crimes.
The worse case case for any of these people if guilty will be a monetary fine that will be a fraction of what they cleared and/or they resign from their elected position and end up on the board of directors of a corporation or in an office on K Street. So there isn’t a lot of incentive to not be tempted to act in the manner they’ve been accused of.
3. It’s good that you know you don’t want to be a public servant. It’s not for everyone. I’m a state government employee. I work with people who should get out and go to the corporate world and make the money they believe they are entitled to. I think I do ok financially, but i’ll never clear $100K a year. I’m fine with that. I enjoy serving the people of MN. I get to do cool things.
4. Maybe for some folks it has nothing to do with money. Maybe some feel a desire to give back to their country and serve. Maybe for others they find the power the goes along with the position to be appealing. Working in a government position that lets me interact regularly with both state and federally elected and appointed officials, I’ve encountered both.
This has strayed far of the track of the stock market. Anyways, my funds got kicked hard. Should have bought the VIX (or got some of that classified intel that others got).
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
Tell me again who wrote the laws and rules, besides ALEC?
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
again you shutting the barn door after the damage has been done
The purpose of the law is to prevent or stop these sorts of things from happening, which obv isn't working.
So the law needs changing.
Tell me the law that’s 100% effective please.
No.
I work in risk management, not risk elimination. There is no silver bullet or no perfect solution.
But when you see a problem, you find a way to fix it. You don't just throw your hands up in the air and say, "Well nothing will get rid of 100% of our problems, so why bother trying?"
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
1. They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. 2. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. 3. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. 4. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
1. Because history and human nature has set a track record of people in positions of power abusing it for personal gain when they can, or are allowed to. Especially in politics. So much so that it is often accepted by the general public as part of the job. Remove the temptation. Won’t necessarily stop it, but it creates some level of accountability.
2. Senate ethics investigations are a joke, and those found to be in violation ever receive more the a finger shake. History also shows that people in positions of power are seldom seriously punished for financial crimes.
The worse case case for any of these people if guilty will be a monetary fine that will be a fraction of what they cleared and/or they resign from their elected position and end up on the board of directors of a corporation or in an office on K Street. So there isn’t a lot of incentive to not be tempted to act in the manner they’ve been accused of.
3. It’s good that you know you don’t want to be a public servant. It’s not for everyone. I’m a state government employee. I work with people who should get out and go to the corporate world and make the money they believe they are entitled to. I think I do ok financially, but i’ll never clear $100K a year. I’m fine with that. I enjoy serving the people of MN. I get to do cool things.
4. Maybe for some folks it has nothing to do with money. Maybe some feel a desire to give back to their country and serve. Maybe for others they find the power the goes along with the position to be appealing. Working in a government position that lets me interact regularly with both state and federally elected and appointed officials, I’ve encountered both.
This has strayed far of the track of the stock market. Anyways, my funds got kicked hard. Should have bought the VIX (or got some of that classified intel that others got).
As a state employee, do you think you should be barred from equity trading? I’m guessing not since you’re lamenting not getting into a vix. But why shouldn’t all employees be barred. Let’s take a state thrift regulator, or say a CFPB examiner, or one from the OCC. They can tip the scales more than a senator. They have th empower of regulatory fines, MOUs, MRAs. They can revoke licenses, they can delay them. They can have a more direct effect on a Corp than any senator and there is ZERO oversight on most of them. And they can choose to ignore certain infractions too. Why wouldn’t your rational extend to every state and fed employee?
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
Tell me again who wrote the laws and rules, besides ALEC?
Every law and rule regarding ethics was written and passed by ALEC? I keep learning more every day. Love the hyperbole.
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
Tell me again who wrote the laws and rules, besides ALEC?
Every law and rule regarding ethics was written and passed by ALEC? I keep learning more every day. Love the hyperbole.
Meaning the people that write the rules are the ones abusing them. ALEC was used because there are a lot of representatives that just let ALEC provide them with legislation and don't do any work. Also ALEC doesn't pass laws they just give them to the more crooked lawmakers, but I'm sure you already knew that. The fact that an organization like ALEC can exist is proof that changes need to be made. Lets remove ALEC from the sentence. Tell me again who writes the laws and rules that are being abused?
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
Tell me again who wrote the laws and rules, besides ALEC?
Every law and rule regarding ethics was written and passed by ALEC? I keep learning more every day. Love the hyperbole.
Meaning the people that write the rules are the ones abusing them. ALEC was used because there are a lot of representatives that just let ALEC provide them with legislation and don't do any work. Also ALEC doesn't pass laws they just give them to the more crooked lawmakers, but I'm sure you already knew that. The fact that an organization like ALEC can exist is proof that changes need to be made. Lets remove ALEC from the sentence. Tell me again who writes the laws and rules that are being abused?
So it should be illegal for an organization to write model bills that match their priorities? Why can't liberals get their asses organized in the same way. None of what they do matters unless your side wins elections. ALEC isn't the problem, losing elections is the problem for Democrats.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
Comments
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07%
How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
Or a pension fund?
Or a money market?
Or Treasury Bills?
There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
The purpose of the law is to prevent or stop these sorts of things from happening, which obv isn't working.
So the law needs changing.
2. Senate ethics investigations are a joke, and those found to be in violation ever receive more the a finger shake. History also shows that people in positions of power are seldom seriously punished for financial crimes.
The worse case case for any of these people if guilty will be a monetary fine that will be a fraction of what they cleared and/or they resign from their elected position and end up on the board of directors of a corporation or in an office on K Street. So there isn’t a lot of incentive to not be tempted to act in the manner they’ve been accused of.
3. It’s good that you know you don’t want to be a public servant. It’s not for everyone. I’m a state government employee. I work with people who should get out and go to the corporate world and make the money they believe they are entitled to. I think I do ok financially, but i’ll never clear $100K a year. I’m fine with that. I enjoy serving the people of MN. I get to do cool things.
4. Maybe for some folks it has nothing to do with money. Maybe some feel a desire to give back to their country and serve. Maybe for others they find the power the goes along with the position to be appealing. Working in a government position that lets me interact regularly with both state and federally elected and appointed officials, I’ve encountered both.
This has strayed far of the track of the stock market. Anyways, my funds got kicked hard. Should have bought the VIX (or got some of that classified intel that others got).
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
I work in risk management, not risk elimination. There is no silver bullet or no perfect solution.
But when you see a problem, you find a way to fix it. You don't just throw your hands up in the air and say, "Well nothing will get rid of 100% of our problems, so why bother trying?"
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
...cute...
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
There are no kings inside the gates of eden