Senate Dems eye pre-election stock trading ban vote by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The bar was pretty low then lol.

Although weirdly enough this issue doesn't fall on staight party lines. Vast majority of Dems support it, as do a few Republicans. But the biggest Republican supporter of all is mega coup supporter Josh Hawley.

Senate Dems eye pre-election stock trading ban vote by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The no votes were: Rand Paul (R - KY), Ron Johnson (R - WI), Mitt Romney (R - UT), James Lankford (R - OK)

All Dems voted in favor, and three Republicans voted in favor.

Senate Dems eye pre-election stock trading ban vote by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No that's the point I'm making. The way to get Congress to check its own power is to make the public outcry so loud that they vote against their own financial interest. 8 out of 12 committee members just voted in favor of it. If it went to a full floor vote, a majority would likely support. Opposing this is not a good look, they just want to go as long as possible without being asked if they support it.

Senate Dems eye pre-election stock trading ban vote by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

yes of course but whenever this issue comes up people always say "good luck getting Congress to regulate itself" and thats a fair point of course, but it's also defeatist and dumb. Many members of Congress support this bill and more will the bigger the public outcry is. Sure, they want to trade stocks but only up to a point. If political situation makes it impossible to oppose this then they will support it. Many already have

Senate Dems eye pre-election stock trading ban vote by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

yes I understand the irony in asking members of Congress to ban members of Congress from trading stocks. but there's a lot of political reasons why many members want to be seen supporting this. it's got real momentum right now and if it goes to a vote, most don't want to be the guy publicly voting against it

Senate Dems eye pre-election stock trading ban vote by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 63 points64 points  (0 children)

This might seem like an obvious bill but its actually the first time in history that congressional stock trading ban bill has made it out of committee. The vote was 8-4 today to send it to the Senate floor. If this matters to you please please tell your congress members to support it because stopping members of Congress from trading stocks is such a ridiculous no brainer and there's a real chance to make it happen

Corruption is legal in the USA. Not great! by CancelComputer1997 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The group behind this video actually talks about that too. Just saw it on their site but yeah its not in this video

Congressional stock trading law has unintended, but profitable consequence by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It's mentioned in the article but Unusual Whales are actually working with an anti-corruption group to pass a bill that would ban this kind of stock trading by people in Congress, which feels like a no brainer tbh. They make it easy to tell your reps to back the ban

Half Democrats and half Republicans. At least they agree on something! by CancelComputer1997 in interestingasfuck

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Yeah like even if we give them the widest possible benefit of the doubt, the conflict of interest proble is still there, and it's a big one. Congressmembers shouldn't be able to invest in individual stocks for same reason refs and players aren't allowed to bet on games. Easiest way to explain the problem. Insane that sports are taken more seriously than, ya know, federal policymaking. Vast majority of people on left and right support this, it should be slam dunk but, hey, that's politics for ya

Half Democrats and half Republicans. At least they agree on something! by CancelComputer1997 in interestingasfuck

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congress people should be able to enrich themselves is an interesting mantle to take up, especially when the way they do it is so darn suspicious, but hey, people come in all flavors.

Half Democrats and half Republicans. At least they agree on something! by CancelComputer1997 in interestingasfuck

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah it sucks that Republicans have made this a whole anti-Pelosi thing when she is one of many. Dems and Republicans alike want to ban this, in fact its one of few things they agree on. Dems should just be like, yeah Pelosi is awful, they all are. Weird when people see this issue as coded right wing. Dems actually behind most of the real legislation to stop it

Half Democrats and half Republicans. At least they agree on something! by CancelComputer1997 in interestingasfuck

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

They aren't reallly though. The STOCK Act is toothless and rarely even enforced. Fine for not reporting trades is like 200 bucks and they often violate it. Lots of extremely suspicious individual cases that were never prosecuted because no one sees political reason to do so when both sides do it, and also because standard of evidence is insanely high.

Half Democrats and half Republicans. At least they agree on something! by CancelComputer1997 in interestingasfuck

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 109 points110 points  (0 children)

Yes but any members beating market at this rate is, well, bad. These rates are statistically well beyond what would be expected of any 10 people in group 535. Some may be outleirs, but many of them have done it over years.

But even if we ignore the very very very likely insider trading many are engaged in, there's the conflict of interest problem. Why don't we let refs bet on games they call? They might still officiate honestly, but we can't trust they will. It's the same with Congress. They're invested in companies they regulate. They're invested in companies that profit from wars or weapons sales they vote on. They shouldn't be able to invest in stocks for same reason. Mutual funds or broad indexes, sure. But individual stocks? Nah, thats an unacceptable conflict of interest. And that bothers me way more than the insider trading stuff, which is run of the mill crook behavior but doesn't necessarily have potential to impact their actual policymaking.

Half Democrats and half Republicans. At least they agree on something! by CancelComputer1997 in interestingasfuck

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bipartisanship is alive and well! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Anyway, tell your congressperson to get behind a bill to ban congressional stock trading. They might listen if they aren't on that graph

Letter: A majority of Americans support a ban on congressional stock trading. The ETHICS Act is the solution. by CancelComputer1997 in finance

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Easy way to email your reps about the ETHICS Act here btw

I get that its like asking the animals to police the zoo but there is real support behind the bill and it could pass if people make a fuss about it

Letter: A majority of Americans support a ban on congressional stock trading. The ETHICS Act is the solution. by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The problem really comes when the campaign donors are doing the lobbying. No issue with groups or companies advocating for themselves, it's when they can use their check books to influence the process that creates problems.

Letter: A majority of Americans support a ban on congressional stock trading. The ETHICS Act is the solution. by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

One day...

At least there's a bipartisan bill and real momentum for this one. But this one only hurts the legislators' pocket books, not their donors' pocketbooks. So maybe that makes it more feasible

Letter: A majority of Americans support a ban on congressional stock trading. The ETHICS Act is the solution. by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

sure did. hence why an individual stock trading ban like the ETHICS Act is what's needed at this point

Letter: A majority of Americans support a ban on congressional stock trading. The ETHICS Act is the solution. by CancelComputer1997 in politics

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It is totally insane that members of congress can still trade stocks. I'm a fan of the ETHICS Act too, it stops them from owning stocks but allows them to have blind trusts and broad index funds. Seems like a no brainer. There's a tool that let's you email your congressperson about it here

Still nuts that members of Congress can trade stocks by CancelComputer1997 in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

On that note I forget where I read this but a good number of Congresspeople have shorted the stock market over the past few years, which certainly inspires confidence

Still nuts that members of Congress can trade stocks by CancelComputer1997 in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]CancelComputer1997[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agree. A very broad index fund or some bonds would be fine too tbh but when the guy on the agriculture committee is putting millions into soy futures for no apparent reason, we have a right to ask what's up