House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading

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

#121

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #91

tootallgavin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure we could find some Members who think this number inadequate. that number could fund about 8 people's salary per year, is that enough staff to do the job? I don't know

Did you mean to reply to me here? I was trying to clear up your confusion that staff (and other expenses) were paid out of a congresspersons $150,000 salary (which is also a bit higher than that btw).

I am not particularly confused about the salary though I see how my comment point to that.

I am trying to assert that political machines require money. Taxpayer money is one avenue the stock market is another.

I am also saying that the money allocated, by taxpayer money, may not be enough. One way to alleviate this tension is investing in the stock market.

If I am not mistaken, if this ban passes, would they not also vote to increase their salaries? (I would think so, because a source of income was made illegal) So, to conclude, I don't want to give more money to politicians. Let them make money in the stock market and actually enforce the laws already in place that governs their trades.

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

#122

Post by JoblessWonder » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

listless wrote: post #119

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.

I think he is confusing it with "few people can realistically run for federal office already."

As you mentioned, people love power. But there is a very, very thin slice of the population that has the ability to run for a federal office.

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

#123

Post by twblalock » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #86

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.

I'd take it further: $1M/year for life, have to divest all investments they own coming in to office (i.e., turn them to cash). Accepting any third party payment during or after being elected (and during campaigns) is treason. If their kids accept their inheritance, the rules apply to them too. The rules always apply to spouses. Let them invest in whole-market funds / ETFs, but only allow withdrawls 5 years after leav…

Nobody sane would take that deal.

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

#124

Post by seibelj » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates…

I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.

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

#125

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #114

dragonwriter wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

No, you’ll get politicians for whom maintaining two homes, one in a high CoL location, isn't significantly difficult even without the income from the job. I mean, we’ve actually done the experiment and can see the results.

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

#126

Post by axlee » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #124

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates…

I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.

> On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country.

They know what is best for them. It has nothing to do with what is best for the country.

As you are advocating for an oligarchy, I suggest you take a look at all the oligarchies around the world: don't you notice that they are all, without exception, terrible places to live, and not even good places for striving economies? Surely, there must be some fault in your reasoning.

On the contrary, most great countries in the world have something in common: they tend to be democratic, they tend to be quite equal in the distribution of income, and they also tend to be run as social democracies.

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

#127

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #72

tootallgavin wrote: post #59

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. > 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.

I know. There always going to people smarter than me in more privileged positions than me. It would be weird if said people acted in a way that would incapacitate themselves. (Here, I am referring to the congresspeople)

There are laws in place that govern congresspeople's trades. These are ignored. They should be enforced. If congresspeople (or who?) are ignoring/not-enforcing the previous laws, what are they going to do with these new ones?

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

#128

Post by com2kid » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:55 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 want to pay people in positions of power so much money that they are afraid of losing their salary by being caught up in a corruption scandal.

This is how America got rid of large swaths of police corruption. Go back 100 years and bribing police was trivial, they made so little money that taking bribes was how they kept afloat financially.

Now days? An officer making $120k a year isn't going to take a $100 bribe to let a drunk driver go free.

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

#129

Post by _8j50 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #95

_8j50 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better Idea: $300k base and a performance bonus up to 100% more based on sponsored laws and an additional 100% for passed laws with an extra 100k for no votes missed or abstained. So a perfectly performing congressperson gets a mil.

I don't think number of laws passed is a good performance metric... it is basically like paying developers per line of code.

More like bonuses for LoC . The idea is to encourage decision making and discourage gridlocks and not attempting to pass laws because they don't have support.

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

#130

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #86

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.

I'd take it further: $1M/year for life, have to divest all investments they own coming in to office (i.e., turn them to cash). Accepting any third party payment during or after being elected (and during campaigns) is treason. If their kids accept their inheritance, the rules apply to them too. The rules always apply to spouses. Let them invest in whole-market funds / ETFs, but only allow withdrawls 5 years after leav…

I agree. Make them wards of the state. Corruption has been far more destructive than incompetence, because corruption filters for and protects incompetence. Let public servants make a sacrifice.