• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Congress: Trading stock on inside information?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,952
Reaction score
174
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
I heard Shawn Hannity talking about this on his radio show today.
Apparently what would be illegal for us to do re: inside trading, is not illegal for Congress.
Seriously.

I found this comment when doing a search:
"Insider trading by congressmen is legal.. and they refuse to ban it.

I just watched a 60 minutes report on it.
Pelosi bought Visa on its IPO 2 days before congress was going to discuss credit card laws
Baucus bet stocks would go down after being briefed by Bernanke during the financial crisis.

and congress has refused year after year to pass a law banning insider trading by congressmen."



The next national election is now less than a year away and congressmen and senators are expending much of their time and their energy raising the millions of dollars in campaign funds they’ll need just to hold onto a job that pays $174,000 a year.

Few of them are doing it for the salary and all of them will say they are doing it to serve the public. But there are other benefits: Power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country, don’t always apply to them.

When Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and other lawmakers wouldn’t answer Steve Kroft’s questions, he headed to Washington to get some answers about their stock trades.

Most former congressmen and senators manage to leave Washington – if they ever leave Washington – with more money in their pockets than they had when they arrived, and as you are about to see, the biggest challenge is often avoiding temptation.

Play CBS News Video:
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Faster horses said:
I heard Shawn Hannity talking about this on his radio show today.
Apparently what would be illegal for us to do re: inside trading, is not illegal for Congress.
Seriously.

I found this comment when doing a search:
"Insider trading by congressmen is legal.. and they refuse to ban it.

I just watched a 60 minutes report on it.
Pelosi bought Visa on its IPO 2 days before congress was going to discuss credit card laws
Baucus bet stocks would go down after being briefed by Bernanke during the financial crisis.

and congress has refused year after year to pass a law banning insider trading by congressmen."



The next national election is now less than a year away and congressmen and senators are expending much of their time and their energy raising the millions of dollars in campaign funds they’ll need just to hold onto a job that pays $174,000 a year.

Few of them are doing it for the salary and all of them will say they are doing it to serve the public. But there are other benefits: Power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country, don’t always apply to them.

When Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and other lawmakers wouldn’t answer Steve Kroft’s questions, he headed to Washington to get some answers about their stock trades.

Most former congressmen and senators manage to leave Washington – if they ever leave Washington – with more money in their pockets than they had when they arrived, and as you are about to see, the biggest challenge is often avoiding temptation.

Play CBS News Video:
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/

Ibelieve it occurs at the state level as well (surprise :shock: ) as L Alexander made a sweet deal with the UT Trustees in a real estate deal during his early years. No wonder their approval rating is heading toward the single digits-- vote all of them out!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

I could handle that, the trouble is, who is going to enforce those laws?? Like so many laws we have (immigration comes to mind) that are never enforced.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

I could handle that, the trouble is, who is going to enforce those laws?? Like so many laws we have (immigration comes to mind) that are never enforced.


Pass the laws first, worry about enforcement afterwards......you can't enforce what is not law.

Even a 20% compliance would be better than the present situation. Many laws are there to keep the honest ones honest, just like a lock.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
TSR said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

I could handle that, the trouble is, who is going to enforce those laws?? Like so many laws we have (immigration comes to mind) that are never enforced.

Term limits are easy to enforce and they will clean out alot of the problems. They would give the investgators a shorter time frame to investigate if a Congressman walks away from Washington worth ten times more than he/ she was worth when he/ she arrived.

As for stock trading if a congressman has stocks he/she has to put them in a blind trust that is managed for him/her while he/she or any of his/her family have access to inside information. Any eccessive profits are subject to independent investigation to make sure everything is on the up and up.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,952
Reaction score
174
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
On Hannity on TV tonight, Shawn had the author of a book
called Kick Them All Out and he has investigated insider trading
plus he names names of the most corrupt congressmen. That
could be a good read. I hope he watches his back.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

And how do you do that? US Federal representative type Democracy does not have the format set up for voting on initiatives or the referendums process of passing laws...

Any change in the law would have to be introduced in a bill in Congress- and passed by those you are seeking to limit...

GOOD IDEA-- BUT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! None of those folks are going to vote themselves out of their gravy train...

It might even take a Constitutional Amendment to change it- which would take passage in both houses by 2/3 majority- and ratification by the legislatures of three fourths (38 ) states....

Or alternatively 2/3's of the states legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention- and for that Convention to propose such amendments- which then have to be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths (38 ) states...This method has never been used- and considered dangerous by some as it opens up the whole Constitution to changes by this convention...
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

And how do you do that? US Federal representative type Democracy does not have the format set up for voting on initiatives or the referendums process of passing laws...

Any change in the law would have to be introduced in a bill in Congress- and passed by those you are seeking to limit...

GOOD IDEA-- BUT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! None of those folks are going to vote themselves out of their gravy train...

It might even take a Constitutional Amendment to change it- which would take passage in both houses by 2/3 majority- and ratification by the legislatures of three fourths (38 ) states....

Or alternatively 2/3's of the states legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention- and for that Convention to propose such amendments- which then have to be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths (38 ) states...This method has never been used- and considered dangerous by some as it opens up the whole Constitution to changes by this convention...

Yep, Their answer is always, "my term can be limited by the voters at the next election". In a way they are right.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

And how do you do that? US Federal representative type Democracy does not have the format set up for voting on initiatives or the referendums process of passing laws...

Any change in the law would have to be introduced in a bill in Congress- and passed by those you are seeking to limit...

GOOD IDEA-- BUT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! None of those folks are going to vote themselves out of their gravy train...

It might even take a Constitutional Amendment to change it- which would take passage in both houses by 2/3 majority- and ratification by the legislatures of three fourths (38 ) states....

Or alternatively 2/3's of the states legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention- and for that Convention to propose such amendments- which then have to be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths (38 ) states...This method has never been used- and considered dangerous by some as it opens up the whole Constitution to changes by this convention...

I take it from your comment that the status Quo is fine with you eh Oldtimer? :wink: :roll: Why don't you use your influence in Montana to see to it that a few rules are put on those that are to be representing you. As if I remember right the Federal Government is to work for the beneifit of the US citizens, under the power awarded to them BY THE PEOPLE. If the US citizens like you are not willing to put a few restrictions in place to protect against crap like this then you get what you have. CORRUPTION

Or did you forget

the source of governmental power lies with the people. This belief stems from the concept of the social contract and the idea that government should be for the benefit of its citizens. If the government is not protecting the people, it should be dissolved.

•Limited Government - Since the people give government its power, government itself is limited to the power given to it by them. In other words, the US government does not derive its power from itself. It must follow its own laws and it can only act using powers given to it by the people.

I would say the People need to step up and demand changes and anyone that disagree needs to be gone. Enough kissing the feet of those walking on you Oldtimer. :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

And how do you do that? US Federal representative type Democracy does not have the format set up for voting on initiatives or the referendums process of passing laws...


Get behind a movement that is demanding it, and asking candidates to committ to it.

If the candidate commits and reneges, they will be voting out next election.

Sounds like you agree with what the Tea Party has been holding their candidates to, the last couple of years.

Didn't the Tea Party remove more "incumbents" in history?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

And how do you do that? US Federal representative type Democracy does not have the format set up for voting on initiatives or the referendums process of passing laws...


Get behind a movement that is demanding it, and asking candidates to committ to it.

If the candidate commits and reneges, they will be voting out next election.

Sounds like you agree with what the Tea Party has been holding their candidates to, the last couple of years.

Didn't the Tea Party remove more "incumbents" in history?

Since the Dems like regulating people, let them live with a few regulations that rein them in, for the protection of the citizens they are to be representing There has got to be a way around Washington's cronyism!!!!

If the citizens of each individual state elect the people they send to Washington to REPRESENT THEM, then why can't the people in the State set the rules of how long that person is legally quaified to have the job and the rules in which they are to follow while being their representative?

Every election season you see ads for prop this and prop that. These are laws voted on by the voters at state level aren't they? So why not a prop on term limits on anyone representing the state? If all 50 states (57 states in Obama's world :wink: ) passed the same law, why would there be any need for a Constitutional amendment? We all know a constitutional amendment will never pass if those limiting their Washington Career are left up to making the right decision, so take a page out of Obama's play book and sidestep them and executive order it at state level with a state wide vote.

By passing the laws at state level the enforcement of any law regulating those sent to Washington would also be left up to those that send the crook there not to somebody trying to cover up their own corruption by overlooking what others are doing.

The voters need to take their country back just like the Tea Party say and by regulating those sent to Washington at the state level should be the first step. As long as the crooks are overseeing crooks the swamp will never be drained.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

And how do you do that? US Federal representative type Democracy does not have the format set up for voting on initiatives or the referendums process of passing laws...


Get behind a movement that is demanding it, and asking candidates to committ to it.

If the candidate commits and reneges, they will be voting out next election.

Sounds like you agree with what the Tea Party has been holding their candidates to, the last couple of years.

Didn't the Tea Party remove more "incumbents" in history?

Looks like even the Tea Partyiers are changing their tunes now!!

House Republican leader: GOP should keep word on taxes
By Russell Berman

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday sided with conservative activist Grover Norquist in a dispute over his anti-tax pledge, saying lawmakers should keep their word to their constituents if they promised to oppose tax increases.

Several House members told The Hill last week they no longer feel bound by Norquist’s tax pledge, saying they considered it binding for a single term rather than the duration of their time in office. The disavowals led to a sharp denunciation from Norquist, who says members must keep a promise they made to their constituents and that they were informed of the conditions of the pledge when they signed it.

Cantor, a signer of the pledge, weighed in on the debate during his weekly press briefing.

“It’s not about Grover Norquist. It’s about commitments that people make to the electorate that they represent, to the people that sent them here,” the majority leader said. “That’s what this is about. Your word should be good to your constituents, and that’s what we’re dealing with here.”


Tam- do you remember when Conrad Burns ran against Melcher? Conrad was a supporter of term limits- and in his campaign railed against Melcher having been in office too long- and told Montanans that if elected he would only serve two terms...That was in 1988 and he won...Then he ran again in 1994- winning again... I supported the man both times...

Then in 2000 he flipflopped:

In February 1999, he announced that he would break his 1988 promise to only hold office for two terms, claiming "Circumstances have changed, and I have rethought my position."

I could no longer support him- not only because of this- but because of the crooked lobbyiest issues coming out about him...But he won...His cult members stood behind him and didn't seem to mind being lied to or his pork sell outs with their tax dollars...

And then even after being center staged in the Abramhoff scandals- and shown to be one of the biggest pork slingers of taxpayer dollars in D.C. as long as the lobbyiests stuffed his pockets- he ran again in 2006.... I did not support him again this time- and thank God this time the rest of the state saw what a crooked old hypocrit he was and he was beat out by Jon Tester...

Tam--Did you support him- even tho his promises meant nothing to him?
I know of several on this site that did- thinking his lying to them meant nothing since he was a good old boy member of their cult-- and the cult comes first !!!! :wink: :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Like I said OT......


If the candidate commits and reneges, they will be voted out next election.

Took two elections and 6 years after reneging to get rid of Conman... How long do you think it would take to get rid of enough legislators to change the law :???:

Nope- too much partisanship to get a Congress that will agree to term limits... Would you vote for a Democrat in the next election if they promise to support term limits- when the Repub candidate hasn't made that promise :???:

Too many old fogies too deeply entrenched- and by the time they are ready to go-- the new guys now are the old fogies that have forgot all their past promises...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Like I said OT......


If the candidate commits and reneges, they will be voted out next election.

Took two elections and 6 years after reneging to get rid of Conman... How long do you think it would take to get rid of enough legislators to change the law :???:

Nope- too much partisanship to get a Congress that will agree to term limits... Too many old fogies too deeply entrenched- and by the time they are ready to go-- the new guys now are the old fogies that have forgot all their past promises...


The heck with term limits, how long will it take you to get rid of the obama "conman"?

Why not just vote them out after 8 years? They'll soon get the point........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The "seniority" systems of Congress (set up by Congress)- which gives those that have served the longest the highest ranking and power-- also lends itself to those who have been there the most years being the most likely to stay...

With the power attained thru senority- comes the ability to buy the big dollar campaign donations to stay in office- which now with the corporates being considered "a person" they will able to get campaign assistance in anonymity too without anyone knowing who is buying them....

And so we end up with the best government money can buy!!
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Oldtimer said:
The "seniority" systems of Congress (set up by Congress)- which gives those that have served the longest the highest ranking and power-- also lends itself to those who have been there the most years being the most likely to stay...

With the power attained thru senority- comes the ability to buy the big dollar campaign donations to stay in office- which now with the corporates being considered "a person" they will able to get campaign assistance in anonymity too without anyone knowing who is buying them....

And so we end up with the best government money can buy!!

Does this mean you don't support or vote for max bacus oldtimer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Time the voters pass a few laws themselves to govern those that govern them. TERM LIMITS AND BAN ON INSIDER TRADING should be put on the ballots and let the voters decide, not those that will never vote to pass either.

And how do you do that? US Federal representative type Democracy does not have the format set up for voting on initiatives or the referendums process of passing laws...


Get behind a movement that is demanding it, and asking candidates to committ to it.

If the candidate commits and reneges, they will be voting out next election.

Sounds like you agree with what the Tea Party has been holding their candidates to, the last couple of years.

Didn't the Tea Party remove more "incumbents" in history?

We ought to get Grover Norquist to make them sign a pledge for term limits. What do you think about that Hypo and Tam
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
The "seniority" systems of Congress (set up by Congress)- which gives those that have served the longest the highest ranking and power-- also lends itself to those who have been there the most years being the most likely to stay...

With the power attained thru senority- comes the ability to buy the big dollar campaign donations to stay in office- which now with the corporates being considered "a person" they will able to get campaign assistance in anonymity too without anyone knowing who is buying them....

And so we end up with the best government money can buy!!

Does this mean you don't support or vote for max bacus oldtimer?


Did you vote for Burns- even tho he broke his term limit promise to Montana :???:

I'm not a Baucus fan--but never heard Max Baucus ever make such a pledge- and this last time around there wasn't even a realistic/credible R candidate running against him...Did you actually vote for Kelleher? :???: The Republican Party wouldn't even let him in the convention after he won the nomination- they stuck him in a little room of his own :wink: :lol:

But that election was a great example of what seniority will do-- where a candidate is in so long- and bringing home so much pork for the home folks (with an opportunity to earmark for home lots more now in his 6th term as chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance)- and has built up such a campaign warchest and corporate lobbyiest backing that no credible opposing party candidate will even run against them....

He actually ran on his seniority- and the power he would have if re-elected...
(As of 2010 he is the longest-serving Senator from Montana, and the fifth longest-serving U.S. Senator in office.)

He collected 73% of the vote- to Kellehers 27%....
Do you really believe 73% of Montanans are Democrats :???: - or did many of your fellow R cultists think maybe some of the riches would rub off on them :???:
 

Latest posts

Top