Elizabeth Warren proposes a bill banning politicians from owning stock

[TreeFrogTrader]

A capitalist or a socialist may have different opinions on what is right for the country.

But it’s pretty obvious neither are equivalent to a person passing tax subsidies for an industry where he will earn millions. Or someone passing a regulation to make his future employer (in the private sector) happy.

You are smart enough to see the obvious difference.

Campaign opponents and the media and public interest groups can be brutal in exposing conflicts alleged and real. I am saying we should go through a period of full disclosure and let the voters decide- before automatically automatically jumping to the more extreme prohibitions.
If a guy is running for the Senate in west virginia and has three brothers who all work in the coal industry and the candidate is heavily invested in coal, who am I to immediately say the voters cannot sort out whether he is too biased to do his job. They know where he is coming from and can vote for or against.

 

[newwurldmn]

Campaign opponents and the media and public interest groups can be brutal in exposing conflicts alleged and real. I am saying we should go through a period of full disclosure and let the voters decide- before automatically automatically jumping to the more extreme prohibitions.
If a guy is running for the Senate in west virginia and has three brothers who all work in the coal industry and the candidate is heavily invested in coal, who am I to immediately say the voters cannot sort out whether he is too biased to do his job. They know where he is coming from and can vote for or against.

Transparency would be great as well.

Both together can eliminate a lot of potential corruption.

Btw - how do you feel that trump refused to release his taxes? How did your feel that Deutsche Bank got a light sentence for their mortgage abuses because they lent hundreds of millions to the trump organization and the govt had to settle before trump took office?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Transparency would be great as well.

Both together can eliminate a lot of potential corruption.

Btw - how do you feel that trump refused to release his taxes? How did your feel that Deutsche Bank got a light sentence for their mortgage abuses because they lent hundreds of millions to the trump organization and the govt had to settle before trump took office?

Trump is free too reveal or not reveal both his medical records and his taxes. That would be another example where I believe people can shrug and not be concerned or they can treat it as a deal-breaker in regard to voting for him. Voters decide.

I dont want to get to far into the weeds on this because it gets boring, but there are probably constitutional prohibitions against requiring certain disclosures from the President. The Constitution defines who is eligible to run for president and to take office if elected. If the president withholds something that is a deciding factor for a voter, then the voters remedy is to accept that or choose another candidate.

It's a little more complicated with Congress. The Constitution defines who is eligible but also gives Congress authority to make rules about who is seated and or expelled etc. So probably they have latitude to impose additional rules- within reason.

I got your view though and dont consider it to be unreasonable.

 

[DTB2]

Will their spouses still be able to trade cattle futures? Hate to let a talent like Hillary's go to waste.