farker needs to go to jail for insider trading.

Armed revolt by the masses within 25 years. That's where we're heading, unless something DRASTICALLY changes, and people wake-the-fark-up, and quit voting for corporate puppets.

They worked themselves into those positions, if you all were good enough people and worked hard enough you too could get into congress and benefit.

vpb
Insider trading laws don't apply to Congress.

Link (new window)

It's good to be king

If he was really betting on the US economy tanking he would have made more then 28k in profit wouldnt he?

Why not make 2.8 million from the economy tanking?

And of course, when word leaks out the he's betting on the stocks tanking, the stocks might tank because of it. Brilliant.

Hooray for graft.

really? i'm shocked

Well that was a truly balanced article.

/sarcasm off.

realmolo: Armed revolt by the masses within 25 yearsmonths. That's where we're heading, unless something DRASTICALLY changes, and people wake-the-fark-up, and quit voting for corporate puppets.

FTFY, given OWS

derpdeederp: Well that was a truly balanced article.

/sarcasm off.

Why does no one ever consider the good points of institutionalized corruption?

realmolo: Armed revolt by the masses within 25 years. That's where we're heading, unless something DRASTICALLY changes, and people wake-the-fark-up, and quit voting for corporate puppets.

You think it's going to be that long?

I'm suspecting we hit it before 2020.

Giltric 2011-11-15 12:07:31 PM

If he was really betting on the US economy tanking he would have made more then 28k in profit wouldnt he?

Why not make 2.8 million from the economy tanking?

Probably because its a tiny bit of his portfolio that he doesnt really focus on. But whatever, wheres the outrage!

This is so 2008, plus he's a congressman, so he doesn't deserve to go to jail.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: If he was really betting on the US economy tanking he would have made more then 28k in profit wouldnt he?

Why not make 2.8 million from the economy tanking?

The Herman Cain "but what about all those women I didn't sexually harass" defense. Excellent.

Very similar to the "How can you call it 'genocide' when we didn't actually kill ALL of them?" defense used at Nuremberg.

A) Shorting the market doesn't mean that you WANT the market to tank, just that you think that it's the most probable future.

B) Democrats are doing it, too.

C) They'll probably profit, because right now it is the most probable future.

This just in. Subby and possibly writers at Think Progress are retards.

Anyone with a clue about economics and the money to back it up would make these bets in this climate.

Weaver95: WTF man...why is insider trading legal for members of Congress? they should be in jail for that shiat.

A lot of the 60 Minutes stuff was total crap ("someone bought stock in a company that would be potentially eligible for a subsidy if the bill whose text was already made available to the public and was predicted to pass ended up becoming a law!") but you're totally right in general; it is ridiculous.

Of course in this case you'll have half of America saying "he short-sold because he knew his side was going to purposely sabotage negotiations" and the other half saying "he predicted Obama would ruin the economy by not accepting Republican requirements causing negotiations to fail."

Mike_LowELL: Baccus loves this country so much that he put his money where his mouth is. I don't see the problem here.

Sure, but does he love his country enough to cheat on his wife?

What with listening to constituents and legislating the greatest Republic in history, when do legislators have time to bet against it by gambling in the stock market? Can we get them to agree to sell off their entire portfolio, even the real estate (other than one home in their district) between election day and swearing in? Make them invested in T-Bills only during their service.

Benni K Rok: realmolo: Armed revolt by the masses within 25 years. That's where we're heading, unless something DRASTICALLY changes, and people wake-the-fark-up, and quit voting for corporate puppets.

You think it's going to be that long?

I'm suspecting we hit it before 2020.


Maybe. These things move slowly. We're still a wealthy country, and even many of our poor live fairly well, compared to the poor in other countries. We haven't reached the BOTTOM yet, and that's what it usually takes.

Still, all it would take is a few cops working for someone like Scott Walker to kill an OWS protester ("I just meant to shoot him in the leg, you honor.") and we'll be off to the races.

They're just hedging, right? It's like when I bet "Pass" and "Don't Pass" on the craps table. I can't lose!!!

derpdeederp: Well that was a truly balanced article.

/sarcasm off.

Yeah. I'm sure they had patriotic reasons for being deeply unethical, immoral, corrupt, etc. They were probably cashing in to enrich themselves in order to show support for the troops.

realmolo: Armed revolt by the masses within 25 years. That's where we're heading, unless something DRASTICALLY changes, and people wake-the-fark-up, and quit voting for corporate puppets.

I've been thinking about that a lot, but armed revolutions suck. Mass casualties. Famine, disease, destruction.

I think the way to go about it is internet organized boycotts of the corporations that buy the politicians. Our votes mean nothing, but if we organize we can take down the corporations that are buying the politicians. No blood, no discomfort, no leaving the safety of mom's basement.

The hard thing is keeping track of all the corporate entities and what pie they've got their fingers in, but that could be managed centrally. On the individual end, you'd go to a site like consumer reports whenever you were going to do something big, and have a phone app that scans bar codes and tells you whether what you're looking at is sold by a company that aligns with your ideology.

I envision it as a non partisan thing... you'd register, fill out a form describing what you like politically and what you don't, somethign like a dating service. The system could use that data to help you keep your business relationships in line with your beliefs.

It's kind of back door democracy. Taking control of the companies that control the government.

AcneVulgaris: The hard thing is keeping track of all the corporate entities and what pie they've got their fingers in, but that could be managed centrally. On the individual end, you'd go to a site like consumer reports whenever you were going to do something big, and have a phone app that scans bar codes and tells you whether what you're looking at is sold by a company that aligns with your ideology.

it's easier to just line them up and shoot them.

Insider treason.

/It's amazing there's not more "backlash" against some of these congress critters.

[checks calendar]
Well, I'll be damned. The name of today's name doesend in a "y!"

ManateeGag: Pete Rose got thrown out of baseball for making those kinds of bets, but he never bet against the Reds. (or so he says)

I guess it's different who you call it an "investment"

Well, to be fair, the crooked Congress people mentioned here did take some time to play minor league baseball during the break, so no harm.

DrPainMD: A) Shorting the market doesn't mean that you WANT the market to tank, just that you think that it's the most probable future.

B) Democrats are doing it, too.

C) They'll probably profit, because right now it is the most probable future.

It doesn't matter if you want it to crash, they are benefiting from insider information that nobody else has which is as good as money. Giving a politician a bribe is illegal, but giving them info that can make them millions isn't. Plus they are still in a position to influence business and the stock market, which creates a conflict in interest.

Trying to defend this issue is pathetic, it doesn't matter what party is doing it, this behavior should clearly be illegal, as it would be in any other profession.

I think this is why the guillotine was invented.

The pay per view revenues of a series of beheadings would halve the national debt

nobodyUwannaknow: What with listening to constituents and legislating the greatest Republic in history, when do legislators have time to bet against it by gambling in the stock market? Can we get them to agree to sell off their entire portfolio, even the real estate (other than one home in their district) between election day and swearing in? Make them invested in T-Bills only during their service.

No need to do that. I think is SOP for the president to put their holding into a trust and sellect someone to manage their funds. No crosstalk is allowed and the elected official should not know what is in their holdings.

BloodySaxon: Anyone with a clue about economics and the money to back it up would make these bets in this climate.

So why would Congressmen be doing it then?

/too easy

historycat: Weaver95: WTF man...why is insider trading legal for members of Congress? they should be in jail for that shiat.

Why are congressmen allowed to own stock anyway? Seems like everything they do could be a conflict of interests.

Public Service should involve sacrifice, not just another way to make yourself rich.

I ranted about this yesterday - public office means you have greater responsibilities than the average private citizen. It might seem fair, but avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is part of the job. Don't like it? Don't run for office.

So....

Back in 2008, when the Democrats had a lock on Congress, and could pass or block any legislation they wanted, a Republican looked around and figured out that the Democrats were going to tank the economy, no matter what he did. So he bet some of his own money that the Dems would do exactly what everyone thought they would do. This action had zero effect on legislation or any actual functions of Congress. The only way to stop the screwup would be to block the legislation, which the Republicans could not do at that time.

And now the Dems are mad because a Republican lawmaker predicted just how badly the Dems would screw things up.

Yeah. Hm.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was telling everyone how we needed credit card reform REALLY badly, but once the Visa folks gave her a sweetheart deal, she blatantly blocked every single reform that was proposed (pissing off her own people while she was at it), and made a huge pile of money on a deal that nobody ever gets if they're not a huge bank or an investment fund. But that's not important, is it?