Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

  1. #51
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    The level of security risk was one of the main premises for eliminating the key requirement. As Pbrauer already posted, "The reasoning for this change was to prevent cyber criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons." So if staffers and family members are made vulnerable by the requirement, why aren't the congressmen?
    Yes, the risk is the same. The difference is in the amount of risk staffers should be exposed to versus elected officials. That is the part you seem to be having difficulty with. You can keep building this strawman, but it ain't gunna fly. No one has said the risk would be different with the same exposure. You have been continuously less than honest in this thread, please stop.

    Demanding greater transparency of our elected representatives and those who could profit from their connections to them is treating them like ****?
    Demanding people prove themselves innocent in public simply to hold down a job is treating them like ****. Oversight is not the issue. Staffers will still be subject to oversight.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #52
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

    Re: Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Yes, the risk is the same. The difference is in the amount of risk staffers should be exposed to versus elected officials. That is the part you seem to be having difficulty with. You can keep building this strawman, but it ain't gunna fly. No one has said the risk would be different with the same exposure. You have been continuously less than honest in this thread, please stop.
    Strawman? What the hell? Here's an idea, cut the "you're being dishonest" crap. Just interacting with you has been an extraordinary act of charity since upon first entering you have been unbearably condescending and supercilious. Go for a run, have a glass of wine, whatever it takes...chill out. And if you find that interacting with me is too odious, just stop replying altogether.

    Demanding people prove themselves innocent in public simply to hold down a job is treating them like ****. Oversight is not the issue. Staffers will still be subject to oversight.
    By that logic even the requirement for congressmen to be more transparent is unnecessary because oversight exists for them as well. But the increased transparency makes execution of that oversight much more likely.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,264

    Re: Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    Thats the bill as it stands now, it was gutted.
    Really? Where are the amendments? I would have linked Public law 113-7, but it wasn't available when I looked.

    ALL ACTIONS:

    4/11/2013:
    Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2583-2584; text as passed Senate: CR S2584; text of measure as introduced: CR S2593)
    4/11/2013 5:33pm:
    Received in the House.
    4/11/2013:
    Message on Senate action sent to the House.
    4/11/2013 6:07pm:
    Held at the desk.
    4/12/2013 12:52pm:
    Mr. Cantor asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
    4/12/2013 12:52pm:
    Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H1978-1979)
    4/12/2013 12:53pm:
    On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H1979)
    4/12/2013 12:53pm:
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
    4/12/2013:
    Presented to President.
    4/15/2013:
    Signed by President.
    4/15/2013:
    Became Public Law No: 113-7.

  4. #54
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Really? Where are the amendments? I would have linked Public law 113-7, but it wasn't available when I looked.

    ALL ACTIONS:

    4/11/2013:
    Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2583-2584; text as passed Senate: CR S2584; text of measure as introduced: CR S2593)
    4/11/2013 5:33pm:
    Received in the House.
    4/11/2013:
    Message on Senate action sent to the House.
    4/11/2013 6:07pm:
    Held at the desk.
    4/12/2013 12:52pm:
    Mr. Cantor asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
    4/12/2013 12:52pm:
    Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H1978-1979)
    4/12/2013 12:53pm:
    On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H1979)
    4/12/2013 12:53pm:
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
    4/12/2013:
    Presented to President.
    4/15/2013:
    Signed by President.
    4/15/2013:
    Became Public Law No: 113-7.
    No idea, my source was last night's Daily Show:
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •