Insider trading bill

Author
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 9734
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
2023/03/22 10:41:12 (permalink)

Insider trading bill

If anyone happens to see any other info on this, please add. Link is from my phone, so hope it directs to the story (Fox Business - “ Bipartisan trio introduces bill to ban lawmakers from owning and trading stocks in renewed push”).

https://stocks.apple.com/Ahosfa45VSYqFnPMeA0Rj9w
#1

14 Replies Related Threads

    MyWar
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1987
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/22 19:13:54 (permalink)
    Symbolic. Won’t pass either chamber. Would be great if it did, but it’s not like it would be some magic bullet that could magically fix a dysfunctional congress. And Congress would need to do a heckuva lot more than pass this bill in order to restore public faith.
    #2
    Porktown
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 9734
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
    • Status: online
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/22 21:55:15 (permalink)
    No doubt. It would be nice if one of these would get some traction. Would be a great first step in restoring some public faith.
    #3
    rippinlip
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2146
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/09/18 17:12:14
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/23 15:01:31 (permalink)
    now get rid of lobbyists

    You should have been here yesterday.............. Streams are made for the wise man to contemplate and fools to pass by [Sir Izaak Walton]
    #4
    bigfoot
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2549
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/23 15:15:25 (permalink)
    Even if it does pass me thinks they would figure out a way to work around it.
    So many elected officials go in as paupers and retire as a prince/princess.

    "If someone offers you a breath mint, take it.
     
     
    #5
    DeadGator401
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 934
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2013/07/17 22:42:40
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/26 00:08:49 (permalink)
    Nice to see some life here again.

    Insider trading, lobbyists, get rid of it all. Couldn't agree more!
    #6
    bigfoot
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2549
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/26 12:06:34 (permalink)
    As long as there is so much money being pumped into the various political parties and individuals I don’t foresee things changing. How many times have we seen campaign finance rules/laws changed, edited or implemented? To what end? Appears to me the status quo remains the same.

    "If someone offers you a breath mint, take it.
     
     
    #7
    BloodyHand
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2147
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/03/30 08:20:46
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/26 13:43:44 (permalink)
    how bout Term Limits. I'm sure that's a bad word in congress.
     
    BH
    #8
    Porktown
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 9734
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
    • Status: online
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/26 15:24:58 (permalink)
    What is ironic, is that of our Fish Erie political contributors, regardless of left or right, seem to agree on this. I imagine most agree on lobbyists and term limits too. I am 100% convinced the DNC and RNC are working together on most things, but pitting us in cultural wars to divide any support for this. These three items should be priority 1-3 in this country. Likely solving many other issues in the process.
    #9
    DeadGator401
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 934
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2013/07/17 22:42:40
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/27 17:09:55 (permalink)
    Of course they do. 
    Much easier to keep people apart on social issues than non. I doubt many of us are millionaires. 

    No Lobbyists
    Term Limits 
    Max Age for offices


    #10
    bigfoot
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2549
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/28 13:50:28 (permalink)
    In regard to term limits. I used to be opposed to them. I figured if the person elected to office was carrying out the duties of the office to the satisfied of the voters then they should hold the office until such time when that no longer is the case . Now I am all in for limits on federal/state senators and representatives, and federal judges. I also would like mandatory retirement age set for Supreme Court justices.

    "If someone offers you a breath mint, take it.
     
     
    #11
    DeadGator401
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 934
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2013/07/17 22:42:40
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/28 22:58:56 (permalink)
    Supreme court is a great one. Good point. 

    For any office. Max age 67. If you're running for re-election, and you'll turn 67 before your next term ends, you cannot run. 

    Pretty much all agree here, where they separate us is social policies. A **** shame.
    #12
    Porktown
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 9734
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
    • Status: online
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/29 09:05:49 (permalink)
    I'm not sure about age 67 limit, but I wouldn't dismiss it either.  I tend to agree with many in the media talking about cognitive testing, but to me shouldn't be at a certain age.  I don't like the idea of age discrimination, but I can also see the case for it.  There is a definitive scientific link between aging and cognitive decline while adding more health issues in aging that take away from being an effective leader.  The most important aspect to me, these politicians have raked us over the coals long enough, do they really need to keep doing it while they should be retired?  Every year they become more out of touch with the average middle class American that is paying about half of their paychecks in some form of tax.  I would like to see cognitive testing for every candidate in Federal and State elected positions, regardless of age.  Scores to be public record, but not necessarily ban you from running, just to give the public knowledge.  I imagine some of our elected officials in their 40s-50s would have issues scoring above the average of those 67+.  They might be in decline, but started well higher than some others.  If the best candidate is a fully healthy, fully aware person age 68, I am not sure if I would be fine having AOC or MTG morons replacing them, just because they are younger.  I get the political issue of some old Supreme Court justices taking up spots, but they would just work with their party in power to retire and have a new justice in place that very well could be the AOC/MTG types. 
     
    With our political system, they would figure ways around term limits or age limits, of what we think would be a good solution and possibly make things worse.  This is the faith that I have in our political system...
     
    I'm not sure if you picked that age due to Social Security retirement age?  But has me wondering.  67 is already too high for retirement age IMO, going back to the same argument of cognitive decline and health issues.  But for solvency reasons, I understand why it is that high.  I'm sure it will be closer to 70 by the time I am eligible and likely be enough to cover monthly food costs, if that.  Great...  The original Social Security age was 65.  For many now it is 67 with talk of pushing it higher.  Maybe...  Whatever years you add to Social Security original age (65) you subtract from say 70, would be the age you can run for Federal office.  67 is current eligible age, then 68 is limit to run for office.  Maybe it has Congress make Social Security a priority and stop pushing back the age, instead of figuring out other ways to fix it.  I could definitely get more behind age limits if they were tied into something like this.
     
     
    #13
    DeadGator401
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 934
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2013/07/17 22:42:40
    • Status: offline
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/29 21:26:49 (permalink)
    I picked 67 for 2 reasons. One the Retirement age, and 2 because I'm fine with a 63 year old becoming President, and then not running again because they're at that age limit. 

    Social Security won't be there for me. That's almost a guarantee. I don't think we should tie any age limits into it, because can we really count on it being there? Making rules based on something that won't exist is kinda moot imo. 

    We've got 75+ year olds in the most important positions of power in this county, across the board. Many are multi Millionaires many times over. Hopefully - something changes soon. 





    #14
    Porktown
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 9734
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
    • Status: online
    Re: Insider trading bill 2023/03/29 22:19:46 (permalink)
    SS should be there, just not something you could rely coming close to living off of. Right now, the issue is it being solvent, not running out. That is a big difference. There are multiple fixes. As you noted about those in power being multi $M many times over, probably won’t be them paying for it…. Either raise the rate or all of us paying in or raise the age of taking out. Unfortunately having a baby boom age retiring that out weighs those paying in, puts stress on the solvency. But many of them smoked 2 packs a day and down a shot and beer at every meal…. So there is hope for some balance. This would have been completely addressed if we all just let Covid take its course. Lib’s saving boomers is what is 100% to blame.
    #15
    Jump to: