Cantor: Ya know what, let's ban insider trading for the white house too!

[FBD]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/cantor-to-senate-ban-insider-trading-in-the-white-house-too-video/#ixzz1l5Urzzxf

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called on the Senate to “strengthen” the language of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which would ban insider trading among members of Congress and federal employees, so the same rules apply to the executive branch.

“The bill does not adequately cover those connected with the federal government in the executive branch that are in positions with access and are privy to information that could be used to personally benefit those individuals, so we’re looking at ways that hopefully the Senate can work on that language, strengthen the language so that the same rules apply to executive branch personnel,” Cantor said in a press conference outside of the Capitol Tuesday.

Cantor was asked why Congress has not banned members from trading stocks. (RELATED: Full coverage of Eric Cantor)

“I’ve always been one, whatever the subject is, is to make sure the public is enjoying it’s right to know and if you’ve got to wait a year to know what your elected representatives are doing from a financial transaction standpoint, I don’t that that is a timely enough schedule for the members of the public to realize that right to know,” Cantor responded.

The most recent version of the bill would require members to report financial transactions within 30 days

[JoeyB]

STOCK is a good bill and should be passed. People don't realize that democrats have proposed this a number of times over the years but could not get it passed. It came up again recently and was met with a groundswell of support, the republicans tried to stop it a couple of months back but realized the tide had turned on them. So now they are pretending to embrace it by not only backing the original concept, but introducing one that has expanded the scope of what it covers. This is done to make it appear they are morally behind something they had tried to kill. Hmm. Whatever.

That said, I support both the original bill and the republican expansion, and this will be one more nail into the proverbial 'rich becoming richer' coffin that is so prevalent among political leaders.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/cantor-to-senate-ban-insider-trading-in-the-white-house-too-video/#ixzz1l5Urzzxf

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called on the Senate to “strengthen” the language of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which would ban insider trading among members of Congress and federal employees, so the same rules apply to the executive branch.

“The bill does not adequately cover those connected with the federal government in the executive branch that are in positions with access and are privy to information that could be used to personally benefit those individuals, so we’re looking at ways that hopefully the Senate can work on that language, strengthen the language so that the same rules apply to executive branch personnel,” Cantor said in a press conference outside of the Capitol Tuesday.

Cantor was asked why Congress has not banned members from trading stocks. (RELATED: Full coverage of Eric Cantor)

“I’ve always been one, whatever the subject is, is to make sure the public is enjoying it’s right to know and if you’ve got to wait a year to know what your elected representatives are doing from a financial transaction standpoint, I don’t that that is a timely enough schedule for the members of the public to realize that right to know,” Cantor responded.

The most recent version of the bill would require members to report financial transactions within 30 days

So do you have an opinion why they should be allowed to do this? Or are you in agreement?

[Muddy]

So do you have an opinion why they should be allowed to do this? Or are you in agreement?

No, he just has a hard on because one of his righty tighties mentioned the white house... Guh huhhh.. Lol

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I think its bullshit. We should all have the same rules

[Muddy]

Agreed..

[DemonGeminiX]

I think its bullshit. We should all have the same rules

We should also take away their power to give themselves raises. I know, I've posted that before and it's starting to sound like a broken record.

[Muddy]

Another agree..

[PorkChopSandwiches]

yep, its buillshit

[Muddy]

Level the playing field!!

[Acid Trip]

People don't realize that democrats have proposed this a number of times over the years but could not get it passed.

Do you have references/proof for that claim? If it's true I'd like to see who was against it to make sure they never get my vote.

[FBD]

People don't realize that democrats have proposed this a number of times over the years but could not get it passed.

heh, yes, please tell us who sponsored it and whether it was one or both sides that responded with crickets chirping...

[JoeyB]

Do you have references/proof for that claim? If it's true I'd like to see who was against it to make sure they never get my vote.


heh, yes, please tell us who sponsored it and whether it was one or both sides that responded with crickets chirping...

As I advised you before: DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

But, this was put forth before.

This particular bill was fought against by the republicans a couple of months ago.

Public opinion dictated it would not be easily defeated this time.

Republicans flip flopped and added this additional provision, in what can only be seen as a calculating attempt to look involved in something they tried to defeat.

Douchebaggery!

[Acid Trip]

As I advised you before: DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

But, this was put forth before.

This particular bill was fought against by the republicans a couple of months ago.

Public opinion dictated it would not be easily defeated this time.

Republicans flip flopped and added this additional provision, in what can only be seen as a calculating attempt to look involved in something they tried to defeat.

Douchebaggery!

Reid is the one stalling:

"Democrats controlled all three branches of government for the first two years of President Barack Obama’s presidency and did nothing to advance congressional insider trading reform. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) have been cited as among Congress’s worst abusers of using nonpublic information to influence their private stock trades. And until his State of the Union speech last week, President Obama had said nothing publicly about the issue–ever.

Despite the Obama campaign and Sen. Reid’s contentions, Republican Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) is one of the cosponsors to the Senate version of the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act and urged Mr. Obama after his State of the Union speech to put pressure on Sen. Reid to move the bill forward."

Video of Scott Brown urging Obama to get Reid's butt in gear:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GehsmsOD0&feature=player_embedded

[JoeyB]

Reid is the one stalling:

You have it all wrong. Again. The republicans wanted to kill this off. They could not. So now they are pretending to be behind it and also claiming that the president is stalling.

That is profoundly steeped in hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, just got this form email:

Just leaving the Senate floor now, but I wanted you to be the first to know that the Senate successfully passed the STOCK Act.

Thanks for your support – wouldn’t have happened without the outpouring of support from people like you.

Sent by Kirsten Gillibrand, democrat...the people who created and pushed for the passage of this bill despite republican attempts to block it.

Listen, I can't stress this enough...but trying to stop a bill like this, failing, and then jumping on the bandwagon and pretending to be a champion of not only the bill but of justice in general is insulting to the American people, and a true sign of how pathetic and immoral these current republicans are.

Maybe you feel comfortable with that degree of two-faced asshattery, but I do not.

[Richard Cranium]

Wow, you really are fucking delusional...

[JoeyB]

Wow, you really are fucking delusional...

How? By stating the facts of what has happened and calling bullshit on what they did? How is that delusional?

Perhaps some of you find the facts inconvenient, but tough.

[Acid Trip]

Wow, you really are fucking delusional...

:+1:


How? By stating the facts of what has happened and calling bullshit on what they did? How is that delusional?

Perhaps some of you find the facts inconvenient, but tough.

Stating what you think and what is fact are two totally different things. We said "prove it" and you deflected the request like a child.

THAT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY! YOU FIND MY NON-EXISTENT, UNPROVABLE FACTS AND YOU'LL SEE I'M RIGHT!

When your temper tantrum is over we'll still be waiting for your proof.

[JoeyB]

:+1:



Stating what you think and what is fact are two totally different things. We said "prove it" and you deflected the request like a child.

THAT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY! YOU FIND MY NON-EXISTENT, UNPROVABLE FACTS AND YOU'LL SEE I'M RIGHT!

When your temper tantrum is over we'll still be waiting for your proof.

I did not deflect like a child. I did what I promised before...I used to provide facts and extensive data "on demand", and you would ignore that as well. Total waste of my time. So as I mentioned previously, I now instruct you to do your own research if you doubt me.

I don't demand that you to validate your comments, I simply do the research.

Demanding I substantiate everything over and over after I have clearly stated I am no longer doing that for you; now that is being childish.

I do however find the absolute fanatical approval and blind trust in your leaders to be fascinating. If we could get people to be that loyal to someone who was actually doing good, as opposed to committing two faced hypocrisy, this country could achieve wonderful things. Actually...it's less fascinating and more depressing when you mull it over a bit.

[Acid Trip]

I did not deflect like a child. I did what I promised before...I used to provide facts and extensive data "on demand", and you would ignore that as well. Total waste of my time. So as I mentioned previously, I now instruct you to do your own research if you doubt me.

I don't demand that you to validate your comments, I simply do the research.

Demanding I substantiate everything over and over after I have clearly stated I am no longer doing that for you; now that is being childish.

I do however find the absolute fanatical approval and blind trust in your leaders to be fascinating. If we could get people to be that loyal to someone who was actually doing good, as opposed to committing two faced hypocrisy, this country could achieve wonderful things. Actually...it's less fascinating and more depressing when you mull it over a bit.

Still no evidence and still deflecting, nothing new there. It's pretty clear you've never read a thing I've posted if you think I have "blind trust in my leaders".

[FBD]

I did not deflect like a child. I did what I promised before...I used to provide facts and extensive data "on demand", and you would ignore that as well. Total waste of my time. So as I mentioned previously, I now instruct you to do your own research if you doubt me.

I don't demand that you to validate your comments, I simply do the research.

Demanding I substantiate everything over and over after I have clearly stated I am no longer doing that for you; now that is being childish.

I do however find the absolute fanatical approval and blind trust in your leaders to be fascinating. If we could get people to be that loyal to someone who was actually doing good, as opposed to committing two faced hypocrisy, this country could achieve wonderful things. Actually...it's less fascinating and more depressing when you mull it over a bit.
The issue is, Joey, that you're taking a snapshot and calling it the entire story.

When Harry Reid has a hand in writing a law, you just about KNOW its crafted badly without even having to read it.

I mean really...its just been discovered that Obamacare basically taxes itself - who read that before voting on it? :lol: You present these very finely crafted slices of reality and you're expecting us to believe you're presenting an entire smorgasbord of factual evidence, when you dig at it and find all of it, you're plain wrong as usual. This bill you're referring to does what you say it does just like Obamacare will cost less than a trillion and at the same time cover tens of millions more people - all while letting you keep your doctor and private insurance


...with the fine print saying "if it still exists after we're done implementing this...which, it wont if we happen to finish"