Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

seekingalpha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 382 posts

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#71

Post by jc_811 »

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

I think one issue with this line of thinking is that the USA is completely and fundamentally not a company, and shouldn't be run as such. A company's goal is to maximize profits. A country's goal is to maximize the well-being of their citizens. A company's employees are expendable. A country's citizens need to have their needs looked after 24/7 and are indispensable.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#72

Post by wbsss4412 »

tootallgavin wrote: post #59
wbsss4412 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians don’t receive money directly from lobbyists and donors. Doing so would be a violation of rules against taking bribes. Lobbyists and donors give money to campaigns, which require untold sums of money these days, and a congresspersons power within the party is directly correlated to their ability to fundraise for the party. As to their actual personal means of a congresspersons wealth, they’re paid fairly h…

> Politicians don’t receive money directly from lobbyists and donors. Doing so would be a violation of rules against taking bribes. > a congresspersons power within the party is directly correlated to their ability to fundraise for the party I agree, trading stocks is an easy, relatively passive way of doing this.

I’m not sure what connection you’re drawing here.

The main issue at hand is related to the fact that congresspeople are able to trade stocks on the basis of the insider information they have about upcoming legislation/changes to government policy.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#73

Post by throwaway_4ever »

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k.

You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#74

Post by mfer »

Sevii wrote: post #57
nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

Let's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they are in office.

> they don't get to own stocks or real estate

So, they can't own a home in a location they represent? I don't see that going over well. Your primary home is real estate. So is that little family cottage.

Also, congressional reps need to have a home is Washington. So, they have to rent there?

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#75

Post by thatswrong0 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #19
ckardat123 wrote: post #14

I've been collecting and sharing (@QuiverCongress on Twitter) data on stock trading by U.S. congressmen for the past couple years. While there is currently legislation that requires congressmen to disclose their financial dealings, enforcement around it is incredibly weak. Congressmen are supposed to disclose stock transactions within 45 days of when they are made, but in practice there are dozens of violations of th…

I'm not sure a complete ban is necessasry, but their investments should be moved to a blind trust while they are in office, and perhaps for some time afterwards.

Blind trust, and only allow index funds. Maybe forever after holding office, to further dissuade corruption.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#76

Post by tootallgavin »

ziddoap wrote: post #65
tootallgavin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so how do these members of congress pay for staffing, research, etc? with just 150K per year?

Through your taxpaying dollars, just like every other government worker? > pay for [...] research Thanks for the laugh. They might read research, but they aren't personally funding it. You may wish to read up on the subject of government work, salaries, etc. before you go debating about it on the net. Most of this stuff is covered in early Civics classes, and as someone who presumably pays taxes, you might be interes…

> They might read research, but they aren't personally funding it.

might read, or have someone else tell them the important bits. This cost money either way

> Through your taxpaying dollars, just like every other government worker?

If this were the case, why are the politicians even trading stocks to begin with? if they wanted money why not be a private individual and then there would be no scrutiny on trading stocks.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#77

Post by mfer »

brianwawok wrote: post #58
nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

Lawmaker pay is a rounding error. Clearly we can't pay lawmakers $0 and expert high effort + no corruption. is there any proof of any way that saying pay from 170k a year to ??? 1 million USD? a year would have any impact on the problems? Do countries with less corrupt lawmakers pay more than the US? I doubt that...

> Do countries with less corrupt lawmakers pay more than the US? I doubt that...

This assumes ones level of corruption has to do with income. Is that true or are there other factors?

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#78

Post by hayst4ck »

morninglight wrote: post #17

Let's get real... *** TERM LIMITS *** .

Age limits > Term limits.

My gut reaction is that term limits are a significant change that probably create a lot of unintended downstream consequences.

Of all the things that make me question term limits, the number one is the question of experience. If you have someone with 30 years experience being a politician are they likely to be more effective than someone with 0 or 2 years experience? I think it's pretty jaded to answer no. If everyone has been around for 30 years it creates onboarding problems when people die or leave. I think that is the best argument for term limits.

I also question what is the exact problem term limits are trying to solve? Because I am not sure I understand what problem they are trying to solve.

The problems with American politics are:

  Campaign financing
  Two party system
  The senate representing states (1 Wyoming person has equal say to 30 Californians)
  Lack of faith in the election process/Electoral college
  No way to make changes that are not aligned with the politicians themselves
I don't see how term limits address any of those.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#79

Post by dragonwriter »

ch4s3 wrote: post #39
tootallgavin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?

Senators make $174,000/yr and most are already wealthy before running for election.No one is asking them to give up all income streams outside of their jobs, just to stop trading individual stocks. Senators have a LOT of knowledge about things that will effect stock prices that is outside of the public realm. Trading on that knowledge is a clear violation of public trust.

> Senators make $174,000/yr and most are already wealthy before running for election

I'd have to be pretty independently wealthy before I'd consider applying for a job that practically required me to maintain residences in D.C. and my home state and only paid $174k/year.

I'd have to be wealthier to consider it if it cost an average of over $10 million to put together a competitive application, or I had to reapply every 6 years, and even moreso if, as is the case with the actual Senate, if both of those applied.

(Yeah, you can fundraise for the “application” costs, but that's a whole additional job on top of the job.)

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#80

Post by TameAntelope »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24
morninglight wrote: post #17

Let's get real... *** TERM LIMITS *** .

> Let's get real...term limits This is a proven strategy for tanking legislation. Ten lawmakers on a linear political spectrum. Compromise is at 5. 1, 2, 9 and 10 said no; 3 and 8 grudgingly accepted. The measure looks poised to pass with six votes. What can you do to tank it? Propose a sizzling 3½. 3 can't help but demand it at all costs. It's so juicy! And so close to the real intent behind 5! 8, meanwhile, horrifi…

Good, then we tank legislation. Fewer laws seems fine by me, and the laws that do pass will be based on a groundswell of support that comes in waves.
Post reply on HN