Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands February 3rd, 2012 12:00am

Would you be in favor of a total ban on financial trading - not just "insider trading" - by current members of the Federal government (Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches)?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

02/07/12 8:53 pm

yes and absolutely no stakes in companies. no loans or donations nothing.

Soitgoes Missouri
02/06/12 1:01 pm

This would apply to federal judges, congressmen, the president, and his cabinet.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
02/05/12 6:03 pm

Only if there's a clear conflict of interest. Otherwise you're limiting the freedom of individuals.

85makin Missouri
02/05/12 4:22 pm

@Tig.... I understand what you are saying, so I would be exempt. Would this apply to lawyers and Judges. Or would this apply to only the people that have power and inside knowledge.

02/05/12 12:32 pm

62Chevy85- I think the question is referring to federal members of the three branches because they make decisions that alter the course of billion dollar business. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a sherriff does not.

85makin Missouri
02/05/12 8:10 am

As a Deputy Sheriff ( part of the Executive Branch) why do so many think I should be unable to participate in The stock market. All answers welcomed...

adig Minnesota
02/05/12 12:06 am

Wouldn't that deny their rights as American citizens?

geoag02 Dallas, TX
02/04/12 11:04 pm

I love how the current insider trading law specifically exempts members of congress. And there are LOTS of laws that do that.

one80 California
02/04/12 7:41 pm

No, they have a right to trade stocks and make investments as do private citizens. Greater oversight and stricter rules on insider trading by fed gov would make more sense.

Wert A picture of my junk
02/04/12 4:31 pm

Impossible to enforce without it, actually.

02/04/12 2:51 pm

I loath wall streeters because their talents are only limited to money and deception which doesnt contribute to the more important advancements that benefit society.

02/04/12 1:15 pm

I could get on board with this.

CDFL alt right, alt snowflake
02/04/12 12:52 pm

If congress was effective, didn't play this party BS, and did their damn jobs for once I wouldn't have a problem with each of them making millions every year.

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/04/12 12:28 pm

I don't think congress should have a salary either

trav Instagram, travisdover
02/04/12 12:25 pm

Aeroworks - we might find better people if we didn't attract the greedy ones

02/04/12 9:41 am

If you lowered the pay of Congress Critters to $1 and gave no health insurance or retirement benefits, they'd all still be willing to serve. This one, probably not so much. Which is exactly why it needs be done. Until Congress is looking out for the country's best interest as a whole we're screwed.

canecorso Las Vegas Nv
02/04/12 8:01 am

Not all government employees, just the ones with the power to vote and make/change laws. An FBI agent is a government employee but as unlikely to influence the stock market as you or I. A senator however has that power.

02/04/12 6:37 am

Yes. It is a direct conflict of interest.

02/04/12 6:23 am

E that we pay for through taxes, even if they only serve for two years in congress

02/04/12 6:22 am

Legislation and executive branches, I feel, should not be allowed to trade on wall street. Judges already are required to recuse themselves from a case if they have a personal interest in the matter. It has happened plenty of times on the supreme court. The other two have a nice retirement packag

02/04/12 2:04 am

It's hard enough to find good people for govt. let alone make it an even more unatractable career then it already is.

Soitgoes Missouri
02/04/12 1:45 am

Yeah but c'mon. Is it really going to be blind. Legislators are going to figure out to make their money as long as they have access to any type of fund. I hear Gingrich's rolladex is worth more than he is...

02/04/12 1:20 am

It doesn't matter what a politician knows if it is a blind trust. In theory, they have no say in how the blind trust's funds are invested. That is why it is called a BLIND trust.

Soitgoes Missouri
02/04/12 1:02 am

There is almost no way of regulating what a politician knows or doesn't know, even in a "blind" trust situtation. Besides, they keep giving themselves raises - they don't need the money.

02/04/12 12:14 am

@mcluke: Great idea, but the flaw in your plan to incarcerate members of Congress is that they are not required to resign. If Congress doesn't vote to have them thrown out or their district does not recall them, they can serve out their term while they are serving their sentence.

PartyFree Nowhere in Particular
02/03/12 11:45 pm

Anyone who holds a position in the 3 branches of government who influences policy should only be allowed to invest if they are not responsible for trading decisions at all. The "blind trust" idea is an excellent one. You can keep your investments, you just can't personally do anything with them.

Soitgoes Missouri
02/03/12 11:35 pm

As it is now, our men and women in congress can use insider info via legislature to invest in the market 100% legally. ANY trading they do is insider trading and that puts investers in the private sector at a risk.

gradsmart Boston, MA
02/03/12 11:25 pm

They need to invest their retirement as well. It's okay.

02/03/12 10:59 pm

get rid of the corruption!!!!!

02/03/12 10:50 pm

federal employees should should be prohibited from trading with information that is not available publicly. Also, their investments should be in a blind trust.

02/03/12 10:49 pm

Why bother? Just put them in jail immediately after they're elected.
That will save us all a lot of time and effort.

yepnope Maryland
02/03/12 9:39 pm

Anything to make the government less corrupt!

n00dles Florida
02/03/12 9:32 pm

Why is insider trading in quotes?

02/03/12 9:25 pm

Having the people who over see and write the laws for these industries, don't need to be participating in them.

02/03/12 9:13 pm

@rj1969 Thanks now I know the rules and shtuff.

RCIfan Ohio
02/03/12 8:57 pm

Government jobs don't pay as high as you may think.

02/03/12 8:49 pm

@Ham- (unfortunately) How right you are!

02/03/12 8:47 pm

Just another example of who sets the rules doesn't have to abide by them.

Emma Austin.ish.
02/03/12 8:42 pm

cmbgator, that's a good idea. wish it would happen (along with campaign finance reform and anything else that has politicians in the pockets of the uber-rich), but really doubt that it ever will. where is the motivation to?

commonsenc District of Columbia
02/03/12 8:15 pm

I support a ban on insider taxing but as long as there is no insider info or conflict of interests it is ok

02/03/12 8:15 pm

@common- So 2 wrongs do make a right? If it's wrong- it's wrong.
But who has a gov't job that doesn't make $$?

commonsenc District of Columbia
02/03/12 8:12 pm

what about gov employs who don't get payed much and rely on the extra income

02/03/12 8:03 pm

it would make the govt way less corrupt.

02/03/12 7:58 pm

@32no- except they make the decisions that also make stocks raise/ fall- when they trade on that- it called insider trading- something you & I go to jail for- but not them because they're politicians. Wrong way amigo!

CDFL alt right, alt snowflake
02/03/12 7:43 pm

Now try getting congress to pass this...

02/03/12 7:40 pm

lagging behind as usual, but at least 60% of you GOPers have it right!