As reported by Politico, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined with all Democrats on the committee to advance a bill to ban stock trading by elected officials. However, to get Hawley’s vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
As if Trump needs more money.
He’s dependent on government assistance
Quite ironic, isn’t it?
Like rain on your wedding day?
A free bribe, when they’ve already paid.
He does to pay off all his mistresses
Or help skirting the law.
That’s weird…
Earlier today, I saw a news story here on Lemmy about how it’s Hawley’s bill and the Democrats were making their support conditional on it covering the Mango Mussolini and the couch fucker too.
Fucking WONDERFUL to see the Dems cave yet again AND their PR arm Politico rewriting the narrative to cover their asses yet again 🤬😮💨
👆This should be the headline story.
The Republicans are probably thinking therewon’t be another president
However, to get Hawley’s vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
Imagine if Obama or Biden did shit like this. Unreal.
These people are such unbelievable suckups. For all their talk about real bigly manly men (see that dumbass on Faux always talking about what “real men” should do), these people are all such cucks and they gladly bend over for Taco.
Fine. Pass this and we can deal with Trump another way.
Hawley took heat from fellow Republicans on the committee for advancing the legislation, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who accused his Missouri colleague of demonizing the wealthy.
“I don’t know when in this country it became a negative to make money,” said Scott. “How many of you don’t want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?”
The bill doesn’t demonize the wealthy, it rightly demonizes those who use their public position to increase their personal wealth at the expense of their constituents, you dildo. If you are in public office to make money, then you should not be in public office.
Rick Scott of course knows this already, but I’m sure some of his constituents swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker.
Also, does Scott think we shouldn’t demonize other forms of insider trader? Seems like the country has cared about that for quite a while.
Rick Scott got his political start with the largest Medicare fraud in history of course he wants to continue anything that defrauds Americans and makes him money.
If you know anyone that works in companies involved in trading, you’ll find out that it tends to be treated VERY seriously for the average American.
If you are one of these special people, though…I guess insider trading is just fucking fine.
The bill doesn’t demonize the wealthy, it rightly demonizes those who use their public position to increase their personal wealth at the expense of their constituents, you dildo. If you are in public office to make money, then you should not be in public office.
Yeah, but that’s been an old chestnut with the wingnuts forever - { someone criticizes some supposedly rich douche like Musk/Taco } - “Why do you hate successful people and hate the free market? These people are just really good at it!”
It floors me that “fuck off with your bad-faith nonsense, you lying piece of shit” isn’t the standard rebuttal to that.
This should be an absolute no-brainer, and should most ESPECIALLY apply to those in the WH - and their families. Especially if no one is going to stop the lawlessness of Taco and his illegal tariffs and the related market manipulation there.
Hell, those of use that are attached to companies that do anything in the financial space know full well that WE are under a microscope when it comes to OUR money moves - and there are tools that exist that attach to your bank account(s) directly to enforce this.
There is no FUCKING WAY that it’s fair that all of us plebes that this applies to have this level of oversight and these motherfuckers haven’t had it for years.
Honestly, fine, if it gets it through. He’s not gonna make it much longer anyway, and he’s doing it either way.
The thin veneer of legitimacy has been completely eroded. Each branch of government is captured and completely controlled by a wealthy aristocracy, not unlike the aristocracy we fought a revolution to break away from. Dissolution is imminent.
I think those in Congress should be allowed to park their money into a Boglehead style three-fund portfolio - with some percentage in bonds, some in S&P and the third portion in international stocks and you freeze the percentage at the outset of your term.
Each term you serve, you have a new opportunity to rebalance (based on risk you want to take on - less as you grow older), and that’s it. They can do dollar cost averaging into those three funds, but that’s it - it has to be at the same percentage split they decided at the outset of their term. No selling of any of these for their entire term - it’s buy and hold, baby.
That’s plenty of opportunity for them to still take part in the market - and they could dial up/down the amount of dollar cost averaging as much as they want and whenever they want (although those would get close inspection based on timing in the event of someone like Taco messing with the market over tariffs).
This is more than enough engagement with the market and plenty of opportunity to make money. Plenty of Americans do far less market engagement than this.
Boglehead style three-fund portfolio
You mean like the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) funds that Federal workers – but not politicians, for ‘some’ reason – already get their retirement funds invested in?
It’s funny how we’ve long since created an obvious solution here, but Congress has been unwilling to restrict itself to it.
