House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading

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

#111

Post by ckardat123 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

melony wrote: post #70

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I haven't even unlocked the downvote button, and certainly don't have anyone on my small team downvoting you.

I don't think that anything in my 5 HN posts and handful of comments warrants a ban.

I've been posting less and less on Reddit recently, but I believe that if you block me on that platform my future posting should be hidden. Reddit posting was definitely big for early traction on my site, but I never used any inorganic methods to promote my work.

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

#112

Post by twblalock » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73

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…

> 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.

We also want successful, competent people to enter politics and we should not be giving them reasons to avoid it, such as forcing them to sacrifice their financial freedom and success.

Also, there is a very clear correlation between low legislator pay and corruption in other countries. Let's not make bribes and kickbacks more attractive by taking away other options politicians have for building wealth.

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

#113

Post by daenz » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

chabes wrote: post #13

matt3210 wrote: post #2

Lol this win never happen. Politicians will never vote to bankrupt themselves

How would that lead to bankruptcy?

I think the parent post is using it as a figure of speech, as in, they won't ever vote to "drain their money"/bankrupt

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

#114

Post by Larrikin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #79

ch4s3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

If the job pays 3x the median salary to maintain two homes, maybe it will get politicians to consider the needs of the constituents who maintain one home on the median salary.

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

#115

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

IX-103 wrote: post #96

tootallgavin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just to stop trading individual stocks Why? Is buying a particular car not an investment? what about a house? Buying and selling assets should not be criminalized. Having privileged knowledge is part of the game. Someone who cannot read and write is going to have a tough time in life. Insider trading is already illegal. Also, investing in a publicly traded company is a weird way of violating public trust. Its as if…

It's not insider trading if a congressman does it. That's the problem. And the public do not know what their politicians are investing in. Congressmen are supposed to report their trades within 45 days, but that's too long to make a difference in something like the current stock market.

> And the public do not know what their politicians are investing in.

> Congressmen are supposed to report their trades within 45 days

contradiction

> But that's too long to make a difference in something like the current stock market

I disagree, the strategy an investor deploys could make the difference. Blindly following someone else's trades is likely not a good strategy

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

#116

Post by tomohawk » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #61

This is dead on arrival. They aren't even going to get a solid majority of Democrats on board and there's going to be absolutely zero Republican support. I would honestly be amazed if it even made it to the house floor.

The bill has Republican co sponsors.

The title of this thread is pretty misleading as members of both parties have been taking pot shots at each other over this issue for some time now.

Nancy Pelosi in particular has taken quite a bit of heat for years as her husband has made some amazingly well timed trades.

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

#117

Post by vkou » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #74

Sevii wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> So, they can't own a home in a location they represent?

They could always try renting. A lot of people manage to get by doing just that.

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

#118

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

tootallgavin wrote: post #53

ziddoap wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Am I mistaken? I thought most political position are paid positions. Currently north of $150,000 USD for members of congress, I think?

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

"Research" comes from lobbyists, who don't charge money but have other expectations about compensation.

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

#119

Post by listless » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

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…

"few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work."

Is there any data to back that up? Because it seems to me like people are falling all over themselves and saying all kinds of crazy shit just to get into office. It looks to me like we have the opposite problem - certain kinds of people CRAVE this power and attention and will do anything to get it.

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

#120

Post by vasco » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73

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…

> 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.

Why? I mean you just say that as if it's some universal truth. I don't see how focusing on civic duty is any better as a way to find good candidates than optimizing for high achieving people looking for lucrative fields to work on. I don't know which would yield better results but none is better by default in my view unless you have some romantic view of what politics should be, rather than what it is, a job.