Dan posted about not being used by users, which seems reasonable. However, when it comes to politicians, I'd argue that any politician who amasses vast personal wealth while allegedly engaged in public service is the very worst kind of user. We see plenty of examples of members of congress using their insider knowledge to make millions in the stock market. We see people regularly manage to amass tens of millions of dollars wile earning less than $200,000 a year. I'm suggesting that those who pardon family members who've engaged in influence peddling, or who've engaged in spreading lies about political opponents, are also users.
I'm not advocating for users, I am suggesting that to focus on one or two users (especially one whose net worth dropped while in office), while remaining silent on a multitude of others is probably driven by partisan hatred than by principle.
6 comments:
Don't be used by a user. Don't be deceived by a conman...
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-donald-trumps-net-worth-2014-2024/
Dan
For what it's worth, I am, of course, opposed to anyone making huge profits by trading directly on their time in office. The thing is, for the Bidens, Trump's and many congress people, they're not breaking laws with what they do to capitalize on their office. We, the people, should place more stringent policies in place.
What I object to is the hypocrisy of blaming a Democrat for having a speck in their eye while ignoring the Republican with a plank in theirs.
Transparent divestiture should be mandated.
Stock trading gains should be banned for representatives and their immediate families.
Hiring off the book billionaires to cut spending and departments (with NO transparency!)when they clearly stand to gain and make money/avoid criminal charges should be eliminated.
Regardless of party.
Perhaps we could agree?
And I'm sorry you (somehow) have problems with questions seeking clarity, but I don't know how to seek clarity with asking direct, reasonable questions.
I can't tell you how odd it is that this is something you object to.
Dan
Like y'all were so deceived by Biden?
Given the fact that, absent one new business venture, Trump's net worth hasn't had any massive jumps, and certainly none directly related to his service as president, and that the chart mysteriously ends on the day that this new communications company went public (almost a year ago), I'm not sure I see the relevance.
I certainly don't see the relevance given that Trump has an explainable source for his wealth that is totally unrelated to his service as president. Unlike those who've managed to amass vast fortunes while earning relatively low salaries for service in Congress.
As usual, "proof" that doesn't prove much nor bear much relationship to the topic.
Interesting defense of using ones "public service" and insider trading to build a personal fortune. Much like your silence on the fact that BLM raised huge amounts of money which never actually managed to do anything except enrich the founders.
Since I literally, intentionally, did NOT engage in "blaming a democrat" in the post, (I did mention Biden's pardon of his family members as an example) nowhere in my post do I advocate for ignoring actions based on party. But I guess you've got to lie about something.
Divestiture is a step to far. Placing the assets and investments in a blind trust is probably sufficient.
When you say idiotic things like this (presumably from ignorance) you just look stupid. If the ability to profit from insider trading (blind trust) is removed, then there is no reason to punish people for the profit they make.
By all means, let's punish people for the things that they might, possibly, maybe do.
I agree than there need to be across the board rules.
As far as your last two lines, I fail to see how making up some bullshit about something that I literally didn't say, helps you in the least.
"Transparent divestiture should be mandated."
I totally disagree with the notion of forcing a politician to stop making money from his already owned businesses and companies. The issue has to be about proof that chicanery was employed by a politician to profit by his position. This is something the TDS people insist is always the case where Trump is concerned, because where to the left, if Trump is doing something, it can't be anything else but unethical, illegal and a mortal sin. But even where a hotelier like Trump uses his own properties to accommodate foreign dignitaries, members of Congress or anyone else connected to his work as POTUS, the government is going to put them up somewhere and his properties are supposed to be very nice. He knows they're nice. Most people agree. That his properties make money on the proposition is not an abuse, especially if those welcomed are free to stay where they like.
The punchline is that I don't see that elected officials need to stop making money just because they got elected, so long as there's no true conflict of interest.
"Stock trading gains should be banned for representatives and their immediate families."
This is similar to the above and supported by too many conservatives. Playing the market with one's own income is no one's business and just because someone is an elected official doesn't mean they are acting criminally by investing. The notion of insider trading requires that info upon which they act is not available to the general public. Where that might be the case, one might have a case against such an elected official. But even where one is working toward legislation which would impact prices of stock in industries related to it, more often than not, it's public info that bills are proposed and one can watch whether or not action is taken on the bill. A savvy investor might care to watch the workings of Congress to see what they're doing in order to decided on what to invest and in what way. Peter Schweitzer writes of some who may invest in a company they are legislating against. They don't feel their legislation will get much traction among their colleagues, so they sell short instead of going long, because without the legislation, the company he's looking at won't fare well. Conversely, if he feels the bill is likely to pass, he might invest in the other direction. All the while, it's not necessarily kept from the public what's being proposed, and an investor would see opportunities where others might not. Insider trading is basically getting info first and acting immediately, except that the law demands the info must be made public without which there is an unfair advantage.
In the meantime, to suggest that a family member must also be denied isn't fair to the family member who is making decisions of his/her own based on what he/she discerns on his/her own.
The bottom line is there must be some solid evidence of wrongdoing and merely investing isn't evidence of wrongdoing, nor is profiting from the investment. And worse, the subject might never see a need to invest in anything about which legislation is being debated and to deny such is unAmerican. I always hope my elected officials are serious about being good servants of the people (as well as wise servants, unlike Dems), but I don't need for them to be impoverished.
Pretending one knows the intentions of Elon Musk as haters like Dan does is contemptible. But that's how he rolls. If it's Trump or conservatives, the motivations simply must be evil. To suggest one of the richest men in the world needs to rob the American taxpayer...or even desires to do so...requires more than this uninformed grace embracing hateful assumption. It's not that someone is looking for and finding waste and fraud. It's that it's Trump doing the looking. Dan doesn't care about the waste and fraud.
Art,
I agree that forced divestiture is an extreme overreaction. Especially as such divestiture might cause people to lose money that they invested long before they considered running for office due to market conditions.
Trump is fairly unique in that his wealth has come virtually entirely from his business ventures, not from using his position or influence. I'll note that while his current ventures into selling bibles, watches, and other things is somewhat unsavory, it's not really much different from selling books about his political life.
I have no objection to elected officials continuing to profit from previous businesses and investments, I strongly object to them using insider information and political connections for financial gain. I'd argue that even the giving of massive advances on books, when the books sales end up being horrible could fall into this category as well.
Again, I would not ban investments in equities and the like. I would be for placing those equities in a blind trust, managed by a third party, while serving in government. I'd even be fine with allowing additional deposits to those accounts, as long as they were not tied to specific trades. The goal is to stop the use of insider information to make millions, not to stop legitimate investment income.
The family issue is a little tricky, I'd argue that spouses should be limited at a minimum. As we've seen Pelosi's husband has made bank off of Nancy's position, as did Hunter Biden (who likely kicked some back to Joe). In any case, insider trading by family members should be monitored and dealt with when/if it happens.
It's a fine line. Obviously it is illegal/unethical to trade based on insider information or to share confidential information to allow others to benefit, yet I don't think that Dan's sledgehammer approach is the correct way to handle it either.
Post a Comment