Nancy Pelosi still doesn't sound like a big fan of proposals to bar members from trading stocks: "I

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

What happened: Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said she trusts her members not to do anything improper while trading stocks — but also pledged to "review all the bills that are coming in and see where the support is in our caucus" for banning that practice among sitting members of Congress.

She didn't quite close the door:

"To give a blanket attitude of we can't do this and we can't do that because we can't be trusted, I just don't buy into that. But if the members want to do that, I'm okay with it." — Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Her other request: Pelosi wants some transparency from the Supreme Court about their own stock trading and other financial transactions. "When we go forward with anything, let's take the Supreme Court with us to have disclosure," she said.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/01-20-2022/politics-of-stock-trades/

[walkingman]

1. The only thing lower than a Politian is a used car salesman. Trust them, I think not.

[empedocles]

2. Perhaps Pelosi is somewhat like a baseball batter, who does not swing at every

pitch near the plate?

[Haggard Celine]

3. It'll never pass.

I'm surprised she's pretending that it might have a chance of passing. Guess she wants to show she's impartial. But I wonder how many stocks she's traded herself. She isn't exactly middle class.

[George II]

6. "Pretending"? Are you hinting that she is NOT impartial? What's your definition of "middle class"?

[Haggard Celine]

8. Middle class is around $80,000 a year, up to maybe $150,000, I'd say.

Even if its a little lower or a little higher than that, she's way out of that ballpark. Nancy Pelosi not only has a much higher salary, she's pretty wealthy. I'm not talking bad about her; it's not immoral merely to be rich. But I'm pretty confident that she owns stocks and somebody manages them for her. A while back she said that America is a capitalist country and we can't make it illegal for members to own stocks. Now she's tempered her attitude about it, but I think her original reaction is how she really feels about the issue. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just a fact.

[Budi]

10. How many Reps & Senators are millionares?

Where do they move their money?
Which ones never held stocks?
The only one I know of is our President, Joe Biden.


"Millionares & Billionares", ya know.

Oh wait...it's now updated to 'Billionares & Trillionares'
🙄

[Haggard Celine]

12. A lot of them are wealthy and own stocks.

Are they going to pass that law and sell all their stocks? Not bloody likely!

[Hortensis]

14. It's very common for relatively poor people on this forum to assume

everyone who has money is greedy. I don't know if they're projecting their own attitudes on others, unable to comprehend lack of greed for money seemingly within reach, or? But, fwiw, it's not true. Some people are simply not particularly motivated by greed for wealth, and MORE wealth.

Not incidentally, the LAST place for those who are to seek it is through elective office as Democrats. That's silly to even imagine. Everyone with any talent at all for making money before long starts accumulating far more than those who go into public service careers as Democrats. And those friends out of college don't have to start worrying about keeping their job before they're even sworn in.

[Haggard Celine]

19. Yes, it isn't wrong to simply be wealthy.

Some people are born with it, some work hard for it. If a rich person is a bad person, it isn't the money that makes him a bad person. After all the Bible verse says that it's the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil, not the money itself.

I think some people in Congress use the knowledge they have to create more wealth for themselves, but it's hard to tell whether they are or not. It would take a lot more information to be gathered about the finances of members of Congress to determine who is doing that, and that would be very invasive. We'd have a hard time finding people to do the job if we had some sort of agency who spent all their time investigating all the members' financial transactions. It just isn't practical or desirable.

[TheFarseer]

61. If they put their money

in a well diversified mutual fund of US stocks, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But it looks really bad when politicians buy stock in, let’s say Google, and then pass laws that help Google.

[George II]

16. So by definition NO ONE in the House or Senate are "middle class".

[Haggard Celine]

24. I would take into consideration how much they have in assets

as well as their income. At any rate, Nancy Pelosi isn't anywhere near middle class. Her estimated net worth is over $100 million, so you have to look at that as well as her comparatively modest income as Speaker. And she's not the richest person in Congress. I would say, though, that AOC is probably close to being middle class. There are others who probably are in the same category as her, people with fairly modest assets. There's nothing wrong with being as wealthy as Pelosi is, and AOC isn't a better person because she has less. But Congress just isn't going to approve that bill. That's all I'm saying.

[choie]

25. it has nothing to do with which class they're in

it has to do with transparency and NOT using one's office to garner inside information on stocks to enrich themselves and their families.

[Gore1FL]

27. In Missouri it is much, much lower.

Middle class starts at about $46,649. The median household is $57,409. Average per Capita is $30,810.

I realize we are comparing CA nd MO here, but as a MO resident, my jaw dropped when I read your numbers. Ironically, my "critical" response to your post adds more gas to your assessment.

I submit, there needs to be a way to accommodate investments by those in service to the government. While blind trusts or putting money into ETFs and other investment avenues may cover some of that, but even the most generic of these (index funds, for example) still could present a bias. I don't know how to solve all of the the problems and conflicts that may arise from investing, but I can't see denying investments as an option. The only reason I am going to be able to retire is because of investments. I am not going to begrudge anyone that!

Jimmy Carter got to put his peanut farm in a blind trust. He sold it after he left office. He, clearly, would have know if a sale had happened during his term. How blind was that?

I am trying to see this from all sides. My apologies if this seemed like a ramble; despite the low wages, medical marijuana is a thing here.

[Haggard Celine]

32. It would be a big mess if we decided to stop letting them invest.

It would be difficult as hell to devise some system for them to manage their assets in a manner that would guarantee their investments were all above board. It might even be impossible. Can you imagine all the controversy there would be over how much these people had and innuendo about how they got it? I think it would paradoxically cause people to have even less faith in government and especially the Congress, and we definitely don't need more of that. They have a committee on ethics; let them investigate alleged violations. It would just be a big mess to disallow investments in stocks by members, and everyone knows it, which is why it'll never pass.

[azureblue]

26. in the usual fashion

of finding anything to bash her with - previous repeated efforts to block insider trading have been blocked by Repubs.
And take note that the Repubs who have been blatantly insiders trading for decades, and no one tried to stop them.

[Budi]

4. Expect nothing less but a dig at Pelosi from the RW rag Politico.

The Rupert Murdoch of Europe, Axel Springer, expects a return on his billion $$$ investment.

Politico's on it!

[brooklynite]

7. And the dig is...quoting her?

[Budi]

11. Its not the quote, its the interpretation. By the RW rag Politico.

[brooklynite]

15. What interpretation? They reported what she said.

[Budi]

18. Lol. Politico was recently purchased for a billion$$ by a foreign media mogul,

named Axel Springer, known as the Rupert Murdoch of Eu.

You can't put enough lipstick on that Politico pig to dress it up as fair & balanced.

They are the Media source that helped give us Trump. They are the Media source that would have gone belly-up had the Fairness Doctrine been allowed to be reinstated.

"Money & Media" is literally the motto of RW rags like Politico.

[brooklynite]

20. "that helped give us Trump"

So "recently purchased by a foreign media mogul" was irrelevant?

[Budi]

31. Politico was always in the bag for anybody but Dems. Nothing's changed but a billion$$ deal from a

..global foreign RW media corporation.
He expects a return on his investment, & Politico is just the tool to give it to him.

Politico has never presented Dems in a favorable truth telling light.
Why start now?

[George II]

35. That was prior to being purchased by a right wing German media company. You may recall years ago....

The NY Daily News was a right wing publication, but the NY Post was a left wing publication.

Now they're both the opposite - NY Daily News left wing and NY Post right wing. Both due to their change in ownership.

[SouthernDem4ever]

49. I don't think there is a "Lean Right" category

all those in the Lean Right belong in Right

[Celerity]

21. Once again, even after you have been corrected multiple times, you STILL push a false statement

First off, before I once again correct you, it is correct that Politico (which I have called trash for ages) was purchased by a RW German publishing firm in late 2021. That firm's name is Axel Springer SE.

Now for you continuing false statement:

The Rupert Murdoch of Europe, Axel Springer, expects a return on his billion $$$ investment.

Axel Cäsar Springer (2 May 1912 – 22 September 1985), the founder, has been dead for 36 years and 4 months.

Axel Springer SE is a publicly traded company. Its single biggest shareholder is an American investment firm, KKR & Co. Inc. (formerly known as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.)

Please stop with the false statement, it is a really bad look, especially as you have had multiple people correct you and yet you just keep repeating it over and over.

[Budi]

28. Ya. You may copy & paste all the "proof" you want to validate Politico's RW

..RW rag mag, but the truth of politico remains in its own reporting. Yesterday & today.

You got nothing.

[Celerity]

33. I am not validating anything, I detest Politico. I am simply once again correcting your continued

false claim about a person someone arising from the grave to direct a billion dollar transaction over 36 years after he died.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

You got nothing.

That would be you with this continuous and by now obviously wilful false positing.

[Budi]

36. You are validating nothing. Carefully & professionally selecting scripts to copy & paste

...try again.
Cuz you omitted a big glaring chunk of data.

Back on ignore with ya.

[Celerity]

40. 'Carefully and professionally selecting scripts'? I have no clue what you are on about. All I did

was show (with extremely simple, direct links) that a person you claim (and have claimed multiple times in the past) is directing all this now, in the present, is a person who has been dead for 36 years and 4 months.

Cuz you omitted a big glaring chunk of data.

What data? You are the one who omitted the fact he has been DEAD since 1985, whilst claiming he just a couple months back somehow magically, from the grave, bought up that shitrag Politico.

[oldsoftie]

29. Ouch.

Sometimes facts can be a bitch!

[Budi]

34. ROFL...😄 "EVEN AFTER I'VE BEEN CORRECTED." No less!!

Ooohhh my. And its all professionally selected & copied & pasted for PROOF!
RIGHT THERE!

JFC.

[oldsoftie]

50. So you think that guy is still alive? And the company is owned by a person? This isn't Parler.

Their criticism is valid; you posted junk claims that were proven false

[BlueTsunami2018]

5. They all make a ton of money from inside knowledge.

I can’t see them ever giving up this easy cash cow.

[Yandex]

9. Not good n/t

[Blue_playwright]

13. Ok. A thought...

So many investments are based on stocks for retirement. And many of the congress critters are not Mitch level scum earning money under the table, I bet. Few honest ones will write books or make tons of money. There are reasons for us to allow them lucrative investments but it has to be fair and allow them to grow money for the future. Maybe similar to what Cheney did as VP. I don’t know. Just thoughts.

[George II]

23. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton when he accepted bush's offer to run as VP with him.

[ripcord]

62. They need to be required to put their assests into a blind trust

We have lawmakers who own stocks in industries that their committees regulate, this is just wrong. The majority of Americans want lawmaker to stop trading stocks but they resist, it seems they are more interested in serving themselves than the people.

[No Vested Interest]

17. Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, was a very successful business man before Nancy

ran for election. His business included investments in Property in what became Silicon Valley. She also came from a MD family that had business interests as well as the well-known political involvements. The family wealth was more than average throughout her life.
One can have wealth and be a moral person.
All wealth is not obtained by immoral means.

A family member who knows of Paul Pelosi through a club membership in San Francisco reports that Pelosi did not flaunt his money or political advantage; in other words, Paul Pelosi seemed to be a decent moral person who kept a low profile politically, etc.
The dilemma is excluding a person from public office whose business is primarily in financial trading, etc.

Is that really a good idea?

Might those people have good ideas and good morals as well?
I believe Diane Feinstein's husband is also a financier or similar. Whether or not he has profited from her position I do not know, but if he was in that business when she entered politics, must he give up his career?

I am not a Californian and do not know all the intricacies of CA politics, so those closer to these people and their issues may have better information than mine.

[cadoman]

42. the Pelosi's are highly skilled at trading stocks

I would not want to stop trading if I was doing as well as they have over the years either. Really they are at a Buffet level.

My hope is that some sort of trading regulation will come into play though. Public service should have some level of sacrifice, and maybe profiting from active trades needs to be one of those sacrifices. Let them use blind trusts or passive, publicly disclosed investment methods.

Sometimes the appearance of lack of impropriety is just as important as the actual lack of it.

[No Vested Interest]

44. Should the spouse have to change career because of the congressperson's occupation?

In the US in the 21st century, each person's occupation is considered separate from the partner's, for obvious reasons. - 1 reason being the fragility of marriages/partnerships.
Most people would say common respect for the individual would allow each to have his/her own career without being affected by a partner's occupation.
We know that there has been no real pushback on Justice Thomas' wife Ginny re her political causes.
Why should public service have some level of sacrifice? Is it not enough to give the hours of one's life in (relatively lowpay) service? How much sacrifice is necessary to satisfy that belief?
Sometimes the appearance of impropriety is in the eye of some beholders but not in others.
If a person is truly honest and moral, how far does one have to go to appease the naysayers?

[cadoman]

46. all jobs, positions, and agreements involve some sort of "sacrifice"

The level of sacrifice, in this instance, should be whatever is necessary for a legislator to legislate impartially with respect to their purely speculative investment positions. Basically, legislators shouldn't be able to write themselves a winning trade.

Perhaps a middle ground would be to allow them to trade during times when the legislature is not in session?

To your point, there has been legislation attempted at this before, with the blind trusts, and it ultimately was compromised by rethuglicans.

https://dailyreckoning.com/dodge-taxes-legally-become-treasury-secretary/



Sometimes it feels like heads we lose, tails we lose too.

[betsuni]

45. +1

[Gore1FL]

22. I don't know what it means to "trade stocks." Does this include ETFs, Mutual Funds, Bonds, etc.?

It's stupid to not be able to invest at all. A blind trust would make sense as an option. It seems like that's an over-simplified solution. I don't know what happens when a spouse of an official has a job where owning stock in the company is expected. There needs to be guidelines and better definitions.

I agree with her, whatever the details, if it gets put in place, it needs to cover all three branches.

[oldsoftie]

30. Buying Moderna before its announced they got the vaccine bid is far different than an ETF

Or dumping Merck before its announced that they DIDNT get the contract.
Just an example; I don't know if any of them did that

[Gore1FL]

38. I definitely get the distinctions you make.

I just don't know what is being proposed relative to those distinctions.

[Lucky Luciano]

37. Hedge funds often have a compliance department that you have to ask to approve all trades.

Generally, mutual funds are always ok.

Others have varying degrees of strictness. When I was at Balyasny, we could never trade ANY individual stocks, ETFS, FX, or futures in our PAs (personal accounts). The only exception was government bonds of the US and mutual funds. They overcompensated with their compliance to ensure nobody ever stepped out of bounds. You were allowed to hold stocks you had when you joined the company. You could only sell down your shares (with pre approval), but can never add to your position. You also couldn’t add to your position with an automated dividend reinvestment plan which is a bit much, but whatever.

The appearance of a possibility for cheating was too much of a risk for them. Why can’t the same standard be used for politicians? I think we know why.

I now work at an elite prop trading firm that is looser, but we still have to disclose all PA trades we make of course using only approved brokers from whom they can receive statements.

[Gore1FL]

39. That's certainly reasonable.

I am just not sure what is being proposed.

[Orrex]

41. This is why so many people think 'Dems and Repubs are the same'

Because, when it gets down to collecting their dividend checks, they are.

Positioned as they are to have a direct impact upon and reasonable foreknowledge of stock market movement, they should obviously be barred from trading in instruments that might be affected by their actions.

It is asinine to suggest otherwise, and any argument in favor of politicians holding such assets is an example of a peon desperate to prostrate themselves before their owners.

[Lucky Luciano]

43. You are correct!

As a side note, I’m rather confused by your sig line and it is causing some upheaval.

[TiberiusB]

47. It's not as though there is any stock trading abuse under the current anemic rules...oh, wait...

https://truthout.org/articles/investigation-finds-at-least-48-members-of-congress-have-violated-stock-act/

It's not stock trading that's the issue, its INSIDER trading. The disingenuous pretense that Congress should be allowed to trade on stocks their legislation may directly impact, or use their access to non-public information to trade stock, because "Capitalism", is pretty offensive.

[Raine]

48. When is enough enough??? Seems like too much is never enough. 🤑

Politicians no matter what party always want more more more so much they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes.

[Voltaire2]

51. Such bullshit. People hate the obvious corruption.

There is bipartisan support, at least out here in the real world, for doing anything to limit the corruption.

[Mysterian]

52. Pelosi is wrong

Democrats should be leading the way to root out corruption.

[Budi]

53. Pelosi is never wrong And Democrats have ALWAYS been the Party that's rooted out corruption

Rooting out corruption has ALWAYS been lain on the shoulders of the Democratic Party.

Along with every fking thing else the dumb glassy eyed voters undo.
Free shit & populist promises of "the deal of a lifetime", and emails of "send $27, $3 cuz we're fightin for YOU!"
That's who is wrong.

[Mysterian]

54. Yeah, OK, never wrong

Okey dokey.

[Budi]

55. Glad you agree. Never wrong 👍

[Jedi Guy]

56. "Pelosi is never wrong..."

Uh, no. She's not infallible. She is capable of being wrong, and she is wrong in this instance. And slavish devotion to a politician to the point of saying they are never wrong should really be left to the other side to practice. She's most certainly one of the most consequential politicians in US history and arguably the best Speaker of the House in history, but prostrating yourself at her feet by saying she's "never wrong" is just absurd.

[Budi]

57. LOL... whose the Jedi. Oh look, it's from POLITICO!

She's not wrong.
She is the true Jedi of US House Speakers.
She's doing her job as Speaker long before the media chatter even arrives..

No she's not wrong.

[Jedi Guy]

59. On this issue, she's wrong in my opinion.

You're free to disagree, of course. But it's absurd to say that she's never wrong. She's human just like the rest of us, and therefore fallible.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to make an issue of my screen name, or of the fact that it's a Politico article. Unless your assertion is that they misquoted her, all you're doing is attacking the messenger.

[ripcord]

60. She is wrong

All lawmakers and executives in the federal government should be required to place their holdings into blind trusts, the chances for abuses are too high. Also a large majority of Americans feel it should stop because it grants them an unfair advantage, it will be interesting to see who tries to kill Ossoff's bill because you know they don't want to have to put themselves on record with a vote.

[ripcord]

58. They should have to set up blind trusts nt