21–30 of 38 posts
You should be aware that she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Some suggestions of "she would only backoff because of ..." don't take that into account. She's not rich because of stock trading. He/she was already plenty of rich/successful before anything happened that people now accuse her of. Like: they already had plenty of successful investments…
I'm sure we all get the sense that there's probably going to be a big fat loophole somewhere. I think what might have been wiser is better transparency from politicians and their families. Either having a real-time trading dashboard that announces all of their trades in real-time, or set a requirement for them to pre-announce trades at least 1 day before. "If Apple's price is below $X tomorrow, then I intend to buy X…
Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties.
Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not saying they shouldn't ban it for people in Congress. I'm saying that if it's corruption you're looking to stamp out, then politicians should be forced to use ONLY public funding for political campaigns AND be banned from holding lobbying or lobbyist-adjacent positions for 6 years after leaving Congress.
The only reason she would back this is if: a) there are giant loopholes b) it doesn't ban her husband from buying individual stocks c) she knows there is no way this passes
I'm sure we all get the sense that there's probably going to be a big fat loophole somewhere. I think what might have been wiser is better transparency from politicians and their families. Either having a real-time trading dashboard that announces all of their trades in real-time, or set a requirement for them to pre-announce trades at least 1 day before. "If Apple's price is below $X tomorrow, then I intend to buy X…
The main issue with corruption in politics has little directly to do with stock trading. The main issue is access. Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties. Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not s…
I'd also ban the next 2 generations in the family from going into politics. If grandpa did it, you can't, and you can't benefit from his connections. It's not like we are talking about a lot of people.
The main issue in politics IMO is that greed is a human characteristics that we aren't likely to soon be rid of.
I'm sure we all get the sense that there's probably going to be a big fat loophole somewhere. I think what might have been wiser is better transparency from politicians and their families. Either having a real-time trading dashboard that announces all of their trades in real-time, or set a requirement for them to pre-announce trades at least 1 day before. "If Apple's price is below $X tomorrow, then I intend to buy X…
The main issue with corruption in politics has little directly to do with stock trading. The main issue is access. Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties. Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not s…
Access isn't the root problem though: ask yourself why anybody wants to pay money to speak to those charlatans.
The root problem is that the politicians can control who the winners and losers are. So long as that variable exists, any attempt to stamp out corruption is like trying to drain water out of a bathtub with a bucket that has a hole in it.
> politicians should be forced to use ONLY public funding for political campaigns
Maybe there's a good answer to this, but this sounds like a way to ensure that the Democrat/Republican duopoly continues indefinitely. Certainly Greens, Libertarians, and others are going to qualify for public funding in exactly the same way as they qualify for debate appearances.
The only reason she would back this is if: a) there are giant loopholes b) it doesn't ban her husband from buying individual stocks c) she knows there is no way this passes
She's in her 80s. She's got maybe one more congressional term in her.
I'm sure we all get the sense that there's probably going to be a big fat loophole somewhere. I think what might have been wiser is better transparency from politicians and their families. Either having a real-time trading dashboard that announces all of their trades in real-time, or set a requirement for them to pre-announce trades at least 1 day before. "If Apple's price is below $X tomorrow, then I intend to buy X…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears she doesn't back/support it. From another article: "I just don't buy into it, but if members want to do that I'm OK with that," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference.
Source? Because the Axios article says she changed her tune on supporting a ban. If the quote is from a year ago maybe it’s no longer accurate.
To be honest I just googled and clicked the first recent result because I was curious if this was a backtrack or she's just putting it up. It seems like the Axios article is conflating her not blocking it with her supporting it. I don't see any quotes from her saying she supports it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main issue with corruption in politics has little directly to do with stock trading. The main issue is access. Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties. Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not s…
I'd go further and say once you've been a politician at a certain level, you should be banned from being in politics for the rest of your life. Why? Because if a person's total purpose in life is to be a politician, IMO they will eventually be a bad / corrupt one. If a person goes into with "here's my attempt to make things better for 4 years", great. But that's all you get. I'd also ban the next 2 generations in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd go further and say once you've been a politician at a certain level, you should be banned from being in politics for the rest of your life. Why? Because if a person's total purpose in life is to be a politician, IMO they will eventually be a bad / corrupt one. If a person goes into with "here's my attempt to make things better for 4 years", great. But that's all you get. I'd also ban the next 2 generations in the…
I've always wondered about using a lottery system for public service, other than jury selection.