4d ago

Mike Johnson says lawmakers should be able to continue owning stocks

www.businessinsider.com Mike Johnson says lawmakers should be able to continue owning stocks

Johnson suggested that a ban could discourage people from running for office. He had earlier voiced support for a Congressional stock trading ban.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said that members of Congress should be able to continue owning stocks.

He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.

Earlier this year, Johnson expressed support for a ban, citing the "appearance of impropriety."

44 comments

Hard no. Govern for us and not for your purse. Represent the people — not yourself.
If it discourages people running, that’s great. We don’t need them.

He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
Good. The type of people who would be discouraged by this are exactly the people we want to keep out of power.

US T-Bills only.
- And an annual salary equal to the national median income.
- That's actually a really good idea.

If someone is discouraged from running for office because it's no longer a corrupt as fuck get rich scheme, good fucking riddance.

Awweeeeee is someone not paid enough by their job 😭😭 fucking cry about it, suit

We SHOULD discourage people who want to run for office for the stock trading opportunities from running for office. FUCK those people.

If Carter was willing to give up his farm, you can muster up enough balls to stop trading stocks while you're in office.
And if it discourages people running for office, that seems like a feature, not a bug.

This fuckwad wouldn’t know a conflict of interest if it bit him in the ass or his son found it while searching through his father’s porn history.

He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
People like you maybe. Hopefully.
- A kickass healthcare plan, a lunch allowance, an office allowance, a good salary, no minimum work hour requirements, and a kickass pension not enough for you Mike?

People in positions of power, should be barred from stocks, have fixed and modest incomes attached to the poverty line, and other such fiscal limitations. It has been proven time and again, that the rich will do anything to become richer, no matter who else it hurts.
And no, I am not going to believe people who say "this doesn't reward merit". That is a belief espoused by fools or grifters.
The average income should allow the ordinary person to own a house, be free of debt, and enjoy life. Dickheads like Mike Johnson are far beyond what allows a person to be happy.

I wonder if Johnson is honest with himself about being a vile, corrupt piece of shit. Or if he kids himself that he's righteous and doing good things in Congress.
When all this is over for maga, he'll still carry the Trump-sized hand impression up his puppet ass for the rest of his days. History will paint all of them exactly as they are.
- In "Inglorious Basterds" Christopher Waltz plays Col. Hans Landa a villain for the record books. When asked about it, Christopher Waltz says he achieved this by not playing Landa as the evil character he is written as, "because no one believes themselves to be evil."
  In some weird twisted way I believe these Maga believe themselves to be saving the soul of America. These fanatics are so far removed from reality they're literally delusion in their believes they're doing the right thing.
  
  But how would stock trading relate to "saving the soul of America"? A lot of their disgusting actions like gerrymandering or bending to knee to Trump could be painted as a means to stay in power and thus allowing them to be able to continue "saving" America. But personal stock trading?...
- Pretty convinced at this point that all these dickweeds are in some kinda shared psychosis, where in their world of entitlement they get to have it all and being all righteous about it because it's their God-given right goddamn it. Money, power, control over other humans because they never learned how to control themselves.
  Buncha king wannabes.
  Fuckers be living in fantasy land.

You can still own stocks, you just can't TRADE on insider information, dipshit.
Keep in the indexes like every other schlub has to. That'll give you a bit more incentive to not sell out your fucking country and ensure a HEALTHY market instead of tilting it every which way in favor of whichever lobbyist is currently licking your taint.

Wrong again, doesn’t he get tired of being utterly and completely wrong?

Don't let this pedophile protector fool you, the bill states they can only have INVESTMENT accounts like the rest of us have. Mutual funds, 401k, IRA.
They SHOULD NOT be able to trade stocks as they are insiders and that is a felony for the rest of us who aren't politicians.
Very cut and dry what he is saying, he wants to continue to scam us and do insider trading, while the rest of us struggle to gain 4-13% a year in growth.

Sure, in a blind trust.
- Honestly I wouldn't mind if they weren't allowed to even own stocks at all.
  
  I wouldn't mind that either, but I feel a blind trust for them and all immediate family members is the bare minimum.

He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
That’s exactly the fucking point. We don’t want stock trading people running for office.

Corrupt oligarch says what?

Wasn't he also the guy that claimed he didn't have a bank account?

Good! The LAST thing we Want is for Politicians to take the Job to HELP people! That would be TERRIBLE! I WANT my Politicians to ONLY do whatever will Make them RICHEST!

"Corrupt politician says politicians should be allowed to be corrupt."

Have funds in an index fund but not specific stocks.
I could accept owning stock, but no buying or selling as of the moment you register as a candidate until a year out of office
- That’s still a conflict of interest - while it would prevent trading on insider information, it does enable making decisions what will increase returns on your investment.
  There’s an entire universe of indirect investments where you’re not directly involved in decisions. That should be the requirement

He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
That's precisely the point. If you need 'encouragement' in the form of millions of dollars in personal gain in order to be a government official - you're not the right person for the job.
- "If we're not allowed to be corrupt, who want this job?"

Lawmakers should be pilloried.
- You can run for office for a maximum of 12 years and then you're summarily executed.
  
  It's good we're offering serious alternatives instead of nonsense that will be easily dismissed.

You apparently don't even have a checking account, Mike. On these matters, I trust you as far as I can throw you. Which isn't very far, by the way; I'm not that fit.

How about we eliminate corruption eh?
- Principal–agent problem
  If you've solved it, please let us know. Nobel in Economics is in your future.
  
  What's the point of being negative here?

Erm, owning stocks and actively trading them using insider information or being able to actively manipulate said stocks are not quite the same thing.

And I say no.

Interesting idea. I can see it as a real disincentive to capable people who might otherwise be interested in politics. I was thinking perhaps they could be limited to index funds. Otherwise a politician might try to hide their deals via a spouse, family member, or even something more extreme.

44 comments