Stock market
Comments
-
No.mrussel1 said:
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.
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?"0 -
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?jerparker20 said:
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 -
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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 -
Every law and rule regarding ethics was written and passed by ALEC? I keep learning more every day. Love the hyperbole.static111 said:
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.0 -
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?mrussel1 said:
Every law and rule regarding ethics was written and passed by ALEC? I keep learning more every day. Love the hyperbole.static111 said:
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 -
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...0 -
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.static111 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
Every law and rule regarding ethics was written and passed by ALEC? I keep learning more every day. Love the hyperbole.static111 said:
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.0 -
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.CM189191 said:
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...0 -
mrussel1 said:
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.CM189191 said:
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?0 -
🤣CM189191 said:mrussel1 said:
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.CM189191 said:
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Doctors regulate doctors.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said:
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.CM189191 said:
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?0 -
Which explains why our health care system is perfect and has absolutely no issues whatsoever.mrussel1 said:
Doctors regulate doctors.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said:
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.CM189191 said:
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?0 -
Uh yeah. Im sure that's the reason. So you think that's unique to the States? You think a board of medicine should be overseen by people without a medical degree? Perhaps a political officer would be a good choice.CM189191 said:
Which explains why our health care system is perfect and has absolutely no issues whatsoever.mrussel1 said:
Doctors regulate doctors.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said:
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.CM189191 said:
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?0 -
mrussel1 said:
Uh yeah. Im sure that's the reason. So you think that's unique to the States? You think a board of medicine should be overseen by people without a medical degree? Perhaps a political officer would be a good choice.CM189191 said:
Which explains why our health care system is perfect and has absolutely no issues whatsoever.mrussel1 said:
Doctors regulate doctors.CM189191 said:mrussel1 said:
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.CM189191 said:
So the honor system? That's your solution?mrussel1 said:
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.CM189191 said:
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.
...cute...
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
How about medical professionals shouldn't have their retirement funds tied up in pharmaceutical companies?0 -
First, there is a giant difference between being an elected/appointed government official and a government employee. One difference is that I don’t receive classified briefings regarding national security issues.mrussel1 said:
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?jerparker20 said:
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).
As a state employee I’m barred from all kinds of things such as holding a second job (I have to disclose my intent to get a second job, fill out disclosure forms, and the job is reviewed for conflicts of interest), joining a board for an organization, or running for and holding an elected office position.
if I use my position in an adverse way that violates the law or is ethically questionable, I lose my job. That means I lose my income, healthcare for my family, possibly my pension, and will never be able to work for the state again, unless I manage to run and be elected to the legislature. Should I engage in any of the activities you mentioned I will most likely be charged with a crime and sit in jail. Citizens generally don’t approve of state employees engaging in fraud, bribery, or other forms of corruption.
As for my investments, as a state employee I’m given few investment options: mutual funds and Roth IRA, plus a pension. As to owning individuals stocks, I have a very small amount of my personal money invested. It’s more of a hobby/learning tool to learn more about the markets. Even in this the majority is in index etfs. Again, I have no access classified national intelligence and would face significant consequences for using my job for personal gain, so the incentive to do so isn’t there.
i think I’ve made my position clear. Let the thread go back to its original topic.Post edited by jerparker20 on0 -
Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.0 -
If they would get away with it, how do you know about it?CM189191 said:Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.0 -
I'm not trying to insult you, I'm pointing out that lots of government employees, not just justices and elected officials, have the opportunity to use their positions to influence market prices and/or take advantage of knowledge that others don't have. Yet they are not barred from trading nor has anyone here suggested they should be. There's a clear inconsistency in logic on this front. We should trust certain employees who don't even have to file disclosures, but not elected officials that do. Makes no sense.jerparker20 said:
First, there is a giant difference between being an elected/appointed government official and a government employee. One difference is that I don’t receive classified briefings regarding national security issues.mrussel1 said:
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?jerparker20 said:
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).
As a state employee I’m barred from all kinds of things such as holding a second job (I have to disclose my intent to get a second job, fill out disclosure forms, and the job is reviewed for conflicts of interest), joining a board for an organization, or running for and holding an elected office position.
if I use my position in an adverse way that violates the law or is ethically questionable, I lose my job. That means I lose my income, healthcare for my family, possibly my pension, and will never be able to work for the state again, unless I manage to run and be elected to the legislature. Should I engage in any of the activities you mentioned I will most likely be charged with a crime and sit in jail. Citizens generally don’t approve of state employees engaging in fraud, bribery, or other forms of corruption.
As for my investments, as a state employee I’m given few investment options: mutual funds and Roth IRA, plus a pension. As to owning individuals stocks, I have a very small amount of my personal money invested. It’s more of a hobby/learning tool to learn more about the markets. Even in this the majority is in index etfs. Again, I have no access classified national intelligence and would face significant consequences for using my job for personal gain, so the incentive to do so isn’t there.
i think I’ve made my position clear. Let the thread go back to its original topic.0 -
We also know about a bunch of Trump's shit.mrussel1 said:
If they would get away with it, how do you know about it?CM189191 said:Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.
People's frustrations are legitimate. A certain class of people are immune to real repercussions.
Look to the 2008, 09 financial crisis for reference. The system needs real fundamental changes.0 -
I'll buy that argument. Let's see how this plays out before saying these four senators have no repercussions. If a law is toothless, that's a different assessment. The argument that no elected official or judge should be able to buy equities is both extreme and uneven in the declaration. You would have to extend it to every federal employee, and certainly the staffers of all elected officials too. They know everything that is happening.dignin said:
We also know about a bunch of Trump's shit.mrussel1 said:
If they would get away with it, how do you know about it?CM189191 said:Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.
People's frustrations are legitimate. A certain class of people are immune to real repercussions.
Look to the 2008, 09 financial crisis for reference. The system needs real fundamental changes.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K 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