Stock market
Comments
-
Wow for the first time since I began participating here on AMT we are in complete agreement.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.0 -
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.0 -
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.0 -
so whats been the reported sanction. Specifically Burr for the donor briefing he gave.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Post edited by mickeyrat on_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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.jerparker20 said:
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.static111 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:
Nah, I actually agree w her.mrussel1 said:
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.Post edited by jerparker20 on0 -
#BURRisma is trending....So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me0 -
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.0 -
many of them have been donating to those that would vote them out of committee for a floor vote.......jerparker20 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.jerparker20 said:
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.static111 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:
Nah, I actually agree w her.mrussel1 said:
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.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
0 -
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.jerparker20 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.jerparker20 said:
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.static111 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:
Nah, I actually agree w her.mrussel1 said:
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.
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.Post edited by mrussel1 on0 -
That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.mrussel1 said:
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
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 on0 -
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.CM189191 said:
That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.mrussel1 said:
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
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.0 -
So they can get a second job?mrussel1 said:
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.CM189191 said:
That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.mrussel1 said:
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
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.0 -
again you shutting the barn door after the damage has been donemrussel1 said:
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.CM189191 said:
That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.mrussel1 said:
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
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.
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.0 -
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.CM189191 said:
So they can get a second job?mrussel1 said:
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.CM189191 said:
That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.mrussel1 said:
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
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.0 -
Tell me the law that’s 100% effective please.CM189191 said:
again you shutting the barn door after the damage has been donemrussel1 said:
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.CM189191 said:
That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.mrussel1 said:
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
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.
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.0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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.jerparker20 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.jerparker20 said:
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.static111 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:
Nah, I actually agree w her.mrussel1 said:
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.
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.
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).0 -
Tell me again who wrote the laws and rules, besides ALEC?mrussel1 said:
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.jerparker20 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.jerparker20 said:
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.static111 said:
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?tempo_n_groove said:
Nah, I actually agree w her.mrussel1 said:
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.
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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Don't be lazy.mrussel1 said:
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.CM189191 said:
So they can get a second job?mrussel1 said:
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.CM189191 said:
That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.mrussel1 said:
.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?CM189191 said:
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
there are plenty of capable peoplemrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.mrussel1 said:
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.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said: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
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
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.
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.
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.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help