Stock market

1151618202150

Comments

  • nicknyr15
    nicknyr15 Posts: 9,221
    Trend seems to be smart ass condescending remarks with a link to a website or a tweet. Good times here. 
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    mickeyrat said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    Fun fact: Joe Biden doesn't own any stock
    How much does his wife own?
    I think what you meant to ask was, "how much has his wife recently sold?"

    but here you go: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OGE278_2015_Biden.pdf

    that took 10 seconds.  now you go find trumps'.  all of them.  melania, jr, gums, kush.  let's have a little transparency.
    Whataboutisms are great aren't they?


    tng: "whatabout biden's wife"

     it's fine, i'll wait
    I said "how much" and then you turned it into a Trump discussion.

    I'll wait too...
    here you go: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OGE278_2015_Biden.pdf

    agai

    I'll break it down. 
    I asked a question.
    You retorted and made it into a Trump discussion.
    I again reminded you that I asked "how much" not as it being a whataboutism but an actual question, I was curious.
    You then again posted the same link in thinking that I didn't understand the first one you sent.

    We are all clear here now, yes?
    I directly answered your question, twice.  Maybe you didn't understand the first time.  And apparently not the second time either.  

    here you go: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OGE278_2015_Biden.pdf

    again
    just fucking stop all the repetitive fucking bullshit already. goddamn man.
    no.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,383
    aaaaaand down again.

    Man this day is rough.
  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,961
    edited March 2020
    They had his back. Now he has their backs. 


    Falling down,...not staying down
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,408
    Kat said:
    They had his back. Now he has their backs. 


    What a jackass. He name drops Fienstein so then the reporter name drops the Republicans and he tries to ask her why she didn't mention the other names and keeps her mic cut so he can talk over her.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,079
    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?
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    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?
    Why, because four senators may have broken a law, we disallow it for the other 529 members forever more?  No, disagree.  They are still free citizens.  The first thing I learned in management was that you don't punish the 98% who follow the rules, you manage the 2%.  
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    mrussel1 said:
    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?
    Why, because four senators may have broken a law, we disallow it for the other 529 members forever more?  No, disagree.  They are still free citizens.  The first thing I learned in management was that you don't punish the 98% who follow the rules, you manage the 2%.  
    This isn't a 'management' issue

    It's a matter of 'conflict of interest'

    You want to be a public servant?  Then serve the public interest, not your own.  We the people get to set the rules and parameters.  
  • jerparker20
    jerparker20 St. Paul, MN Posts: 2,529
    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?
    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.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    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.  
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    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?
    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. 
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,079
    mrussel1 said:
    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?
    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. 
    A view that 133k is a low salary says a lot.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    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?
    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. 
    A view that 133k is a low salary says a lot.
    For a white shoe attorney, it is.  You're asking them to take on public service but hamstringing them from equity investments.  If you have a JD and put that much time and effort into school and now the federal bench, $133 really isn't obscene.  
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    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
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    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
    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.  
  • myoung321
    myoung321 Posts: 2,855
    edited March 2020
     According to The Hill, U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R), Kelly Loeffler (R), Diane Feinstein (D) and James Inhofe (R) attended a classified briefing in Washington on January 24th with the Trump Administration.  The four engaged in a massive stock selloff over the next week.

    Inhoff (R) Oklahoma - 

    The same guy that brought the snowball to congress to show climate change was a hoax.. 

    Same guy bought Raytheon stock days before it was granted a giant defense contract.

    Between this ... the current Governor tweeting from a restaurant this week,  and the Senators both voting against the CorononaVirus Bill...

     No wonder Oklahoma is always in the bottom 4 or 5 in state rankings.. 

    Post edited by myoung321 on
    "The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
     


  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,079
    The heart of the matter is that we have a sick economic and political system. The current checks and balances do not work and there is a need for significant change. Limiting the for profit activity of public servants in such a way to ensure their decisions are motivated to the public good instead of moneyed interests and financial gain is not a radical or terrible idea. If you want to make money off of financial markets, real estate etc. do so in the private sector. It’s insane to think that anyone with a significant amount of money invested in the private sector won’t be swayed when it comes to make important decisions or votes.  If you want to make money as much money as possible from the markets don’t get into public service, or go do your public service and make your money after.  
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    mrussel1 said:
    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
    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.