• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi fires back at '60 Minutes' report on 'soft corruption'

It doesn't take a real genius to figure out something hinky is going one. A simple look at income of all Congressmen and Senators should of given off clues a long, long time ago. They take the job, after one term (in the house) and their income shoots up to over $500K a year and over $1 million a year after the second term. Senators reach the $1 million mark in their first term. Look at Obama as an example, never held a non-political job, but after 1 term in the Senate, his income was near $2 million a year. This from starting salaries of $174 k/year (source: US Congress Salaries and Benefits – Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members). I use Obama as example, not to be partisan but because he is an example of someone who had nothing prior to politics and we have access to information on what he has now. Either they are using insider information or they have the most successful fund managers in history. It would be really nice to have their fund manager if they are not doing something like using inside information.

The fact that 60 minutes, one of the most left leaning news sources, actually called out Pelosi, one of their own, is a strong indicator that this far more common than most of us know. This is also a strong indicator that it is not party limited. If it had only been Republicans doing it, 60 Minutes would of been hounding them for years. Apparently, someone in the left has decided to start dumping the negativity for the party onto Pelosi and let her hang for everything instead of it splashing back on BO or the rest of the party. She actually makes a good lightning rod for the Democrats, short of an actual criminal conviction, her re-election is pretty much guaranteed in her district. Even if she retires or steps aside, that district is only going to go one way.

What a bunch of partisan drivel they investigated both leaders Boehner and Pelosi the fact remains that what they are doing is not ILLEGAL it should be but is not illegal the only way to prevent this wide spread abuse in the markets is to regulate the opportunity out but that is not going to happen, to believe that insider trading is not going on all across the board involving politicians and others who have an in is no different then believing in Santa Claus. A number of members here keep asking how the rich steal from the poor and middle class you don't have to look any further then Wall Street which is the largest scam ever run in the world
 
What a bunch of partisan drivel they investigated both leaders Boehner and Pelosi the fact remains that what they are doing is not ILLEGAL it should be but is not illegal the only way to prevent this wide spread abuse in the markets is to regulate the opportunity out but that is not going to happen, to believe that insider trading is not going on all across the board involving politicians and others who have an in is no different then believing in Santa Claus. A number of members here keep asking how the rich steal from the poor and middle class you don't have to look any further then Wall Street which is the largest scam ever run in the world

What do you think a world without stock markets, and or trade would look like?

j-mac
 
What do you think a world without stock markets, and or trade would look like?

j-mac

We don't have to wonder what happens when the markets go unregulated do we? Maybe some of those who are rich might actually have to work for a living
 




Let me open this by saying that anyone caught using their office to inside trade should end up behind bars regardless of the letter following their name. But it does give me a special warmth to see that Queen Pelosi is being exposed as the crook, liar she is.


j-mac
that's ninja j_Mac.
 

[....] it does give me a special warmth to see that Queen Pelosi is being exposed as the crook, liar she is.
You have neglected to explain how she is a "crook, liar".

Because she sold an IPO at a profit? If so, we're going to need prison housing for millions of new inmates . . . .
 
[...] Demands and gets a 7 series jet to fly coast to coast weekly, and stocks it with 150K of booze and snacks. [...]
All lies. Yet another Pelosi hate thread
bored.gif
 
Does every problem in this world come back to 'It is all Bush's fault'? [...]
He was providing context and balance to a thread which is heading in what I presume is the intended direction (let's dump on Pelosi without any accurate facts nor rational argument).
 
You have neglected to explain how she is a "crook, liar".

Because she sold an IPO at a profit? If so, we're going to need prison housing for millions of new inmates . . . .

She created laws and then excluded herself from them. I consider that right at the top of the crooked list.
 
She created laws and then excluded herself from them. I consider that right at the top of the crooked list.
So might I, if you had explained yourself. Instead, I stand at the foot of a tower called Babel.
 
I knew that it was legal for politicians and those that work for them to engage in insider trading but........

How is this BS going on? Craig Holman at consumer watchdog organization Public Citizen notes, “The Securities and Exchange Act does not apply to members of Congress, congressional staff, or even lobbyists. ” Outraged?

Is Congress Trading Stocks on Inside Information? | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

I wonder how many that find this wrong with vote to re-elect their current representative while claiming outrage?
 
[...] Craig Holman at consumer watchdog organization Public Citizen notes, “The Securities and Exchange Act does not apply to members of Congress, congressional staff, or even lobbyists. ” Outraged? [...]
Yup, although I'd need a better source on the lobbyists. I found this on Congress:

Members of Congress are exempted from insider trading laws and thus can act on information they are bound to gain in the course of their congressional activities, although house rules [22] may consider it unethical.

Insider trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Yup, although I'd need a better source on the lobbyists. I found this on Congress:

Oh, that's fine... if something is unethical, you just do like Mr Sanders and sign your own waivers.
 
Maybe this explains things considering Pelosi doesn't seem to be a fan of having a conscience.

Pelosi whines about Catholics having “this conscience thing” « Hot Air
No, explains nothing.

To recap, I understand that Pelosi bought and sold some stock, at a profit, while a related bill was in the House. On top of that, it was an IPO on which is difficult to not make a profit. But that's it. Now perhaps that should not be allowed, and I would probably like to see it prohibited, but based on what has been presented I see no evidence of wrongdoing.

In fact, I have never seen any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on any of the right's attacks on Pelosi... just disjointed facts spun into a conspiracy, as appears to be the case in this instance. The airplane deal was a post-9/11 security issue mostly requested by the House Sergeant at Arms (and approved by others)[sup][1][/sup], the airplane booze issue was for several CoDels (congressional delegations), some overseas IIRC[sup][2][/sup], and the kids/family airplane rides are reimbursed[sup][3][/sup]. So... the right's track record is dismal.

1. snopes.com: Nancy Pelosi's Jet

2. FactCheck.org : Pelosi’s Party Plane?

3. FactCheck.org : Nancy Pelosi’s Personal Jet
 
Doesn't insider trading require that someone use otherwise secret information to their advantage? If this is indeed true, then this wouldn't qualify. What congress is discussing and voting on is a matter of public record. I certainly disagree with a politician using their power for personal gain like this, but I don't think it qualifies as insider trading.
 
No, explains nothing.

To recap, I understand that Pelosi bought and sold some stock, at a profit, while a related bill was in the House. On top of that, it was an IPO on which is difficult to not make a profit. But that's it. Now perhaps that should not be allowed, and I would probably like to see it prohibited, but based on what has been presented I see no evidence of wrongdoing.

The report wasnt about her specifically. Your arguement above is one example. Congress has created laws against insider trading and secifically excluded themselves from those laws. I believe that indeed does prove the gist of my arguement that Pelosi (and others in Congress that support this) are bereft of a conscience.
 
Doesn't insider trading require that someone use otherwise secret information to their advantage? If this is indeed true, then this wouldn't qualify. What congress is discussing and voting on is a matter of public record. I certainly disagree with a politician using their power for personal gain like this, but I don't think it qualifies as insider trading.

Congressman Smith is on the defense panel and knows they are about to back rewarding big contractor A a huge contract to build helicopters. Before that info is released he buys stock in big contractor A.

Illegal for me, perfectly legal for Congressman Smith.
 
[...] What congress is discussing and voting on is a matter of public record. [...]
Maybe, maybe not. Some committees meet in closed session; some congressmen or staffers may know that a particular bill is about to be introduced (that could dramatically affect a particular industry or company).

In general terms I would favor all congressman, key staffers, and lobbyists putting any investments into a blind trust for the duration of their employment.
 
[...] Congress has created laws against insider trading and secifically excluded themselves from those laws.
That I oppose as well. Vehemently.

I believe that indeed does prove the gist of my arguement that Pelosi (and others in Congress that support this) are bereft of a conscience.
If you want to condemn congress in general, I'm there. If you want to condemn a specific congressperson, well, I'll need something that separates them from the pack.
 
That I oppose as well. Vehemently.


If you want to condemn congress in general, I'm there. If you want to condemn a specific congressperson, well, I'll need something that separates them from the pack.

If we were allowed a full investigation I'm willing to bet that Pelosi is neck deep in insider trading. Being that I can not prove that you can certainly believe otherwise. My arguement certainly does not apply only to Pelosi though but the thread is about her. From what I've read her replacement is every bit as guilty.
 
If we were allowed a full investigation I'm willing to bet that Pelosi is neck deep in insider trading. Being that I can not prove that you can certainly believe otherwise. [...]
My usual practice in these types of situations is that, absent any evidence, to believe nothing at all ;)

Especially if the person in question has no 'history' (which, despite concerted attempts by right wing media to manufacture, does not exist AFAIK).
 
Blind trust, divestiture, or a global market fund that they cannot do anything with while in office. Any of the three solves most problems with them being able to dabble into the market and cherry pick stocks based upon their legislation.
 
We don't have to wonder what happens when the markets go unregulated do we? Maybe some of those who are rich might actually have to work for a living

yes, we do have to wonder what happens when a market goes unregulated.... as it's never happened.
 
My usual practice in these types of situations is that, absent any evidence, to believe nothing at all ;)

Especially if the person in question has no 'history' (which, despite concerted attempts by right wing media to manufacture, does not exist AFAIK).

If you have no knowledge of Pelosi's corruption.. it is not because it doesn't exist.. it's because you have chosen not to inform yourself.
it's not uncommon for a hyperpartisan not to inform themselves of what going on with their party's leaders....willful ignorance runs rampant.
 
Back
Top Bottom