Stock market

CM189191 said:

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.

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

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.

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.  

jerparker20 said:

mrussel1 said:

jerparker20 said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Overreaction...  

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/488634-ocasio-cortez-members-of-congress-should-not-be-allowed-to-own

Nah, I actually agree w her.

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. 

jerparker20 said:

mrussel1 said:

jerparker20 said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Overreaction...  

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/488634-ocasio-cortez-members-of-congress-should-not-be-allowed-to-own

Nah, I actually agree w her.

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. 

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

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.

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?  

That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.  

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!

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

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.

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?  

That's criminally low pay. It's practically encouraging corruption.  

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.

mrussel1 said:

jerparker20 said:

mrussel1 said:

jerparker20 said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Overreaction...  

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/488634-ocasio-cortez-members-of-congress-should-not-be-allowed-to-own

Nah, I actually agree w her.

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.