• Trump's Cabinet Pick Invested In Company, Then Introduced a Bill to Help It
    33 replies, posted
[quote]Washington (CNN)Rep. Tom Price last year purchased shares in a medical device manufacturer days before introducing legislation that would have directly benefited the company, raising new ethics concerns for President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services secretary. Price bought between $1,001 to $15,000 worth of shares last March in Zimmer Biomet, according to House records reviewed by CNN. Less than a week after the transaction, the Georgia Republican congressman introduced the HIP Act, legislation that would have delayed until 2018 a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulation that industry analysts warned would significantly hurt Zimmer Biomet financially once fully implemented.[/quote] [url="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/tom-price-bill-aiding-company/"]CNN[/url]
Color me surprised.
[QUOTE=The golden;51681719]Yeah but what about Shillary? right?....guys?[/QUOTE] The proper response is clean up the Democratic party so they don't lose to an orange Cheeto yet again.
lol "raising ethics concerns" aren't concerns what you have [I]before[/I] something like this happens? Like having concerns about a person's health post-death.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51681725]The proper response is clean up the Democratic party so they don't lose to an orange Cheeto yet again.[/QUOTE] Unless Bernie runs in 2020, or a true grassroots, working class candidate is endorsed by him, Trump will win again.
I just find it funny how, here in Australia, a state Premier (Australian equivalent of a Governor) was forced to resign because he failed to declare a gift of a bottle of wine, and a House Speaker also had to resign because she once took a $5,000 helicopter trip instead of a two-hour commute by car, but news stories like this pop-up on a weekly basis from the United States, and it's almost as if it's business as usual.
[QUOTE=BF;51681752]I just find it funny how, here in Australia, a state Premier (Australian equivalent of a Governor) was forced to resign because he failed to declare a gift of a bottle of wine, and a House Speaker also had to resign because she once took a $5,000 helicopter trip instead of a two-hour commute by car, but news stories like this pop-up on a weekly basis from the United States, and it's almost as if it's business as usual.[/QUOTE] Because it is business as usual here. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVkJVtKXZEU[/media]
How are we supposed to respond to this news exactly? Nobody's surprised anymore, and nobody ever does anything about this blatant corruption. You can be openly corrupt these days and get away with it scot-free in this country.
[QUOTE=The golden;51681719]Yeah but what about Shillary? right?....guys?[/QUOTE] Imagine the nuclear meltdown GOP would be having if Crooked Hillary was getting this close with business interests, and was having Chelsea Clinton sit in on meetings with foreign leaders/prime ministers/etc.
[QUOTE=Govna;51681789]How are we supposed to respond to this news exactly? Nobody's surprised anymore, and nobody ever does anything about this blatant corruption. You can be openly corrupt these days and get away with it scot-free in this country.[/QUOTE] Nobody ever does anything because people are lazy and think they can't change things. Run for local government, get involved in your local governmental meetings. Call your representatives, hold them accountable. If they don't represent you, then primary them. For example, "Progressive" Cory Booker voted against Sanders' amendment to lower drug costs by importing them from Canada. That same day, his office was inundated with calls from angry constituents and progressives. On the other side of the aisle, people in Colorado were angry with Rep. Mike Coffman and his position on the ACA repeal to the point where he had to sneak out of the meeting. This happened soon after. [media]https://twitter.com/9NewsEducation/status/820394795961040896[/media] It's all about coming together, tossing aside race, gender, sexuality, and religion, and holding them accountable.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51681741]Unless Bernie runs in 2020, or a true grassroots, working class candidate is endorsed by him, Trump will win again.[/QUOTE] i don't think that's strictly necessary just to win, but it [I]is[/I] necessary if the Democrats want to win by margins that aren't completely embarrassing to the United States and humanity in general
[QUOTE=Cone;51681839]i don't think that's strictly necessary just to win, but it [I]is[/I] necessary if the Democrats want to win by margins that aren't completely embarrassing to the United States and humanity in general[/QUOTE] This election was evidence that the working class has no faith in the Democratic party in critical states that would've let Clinton prevail over Trump. The only other candidate that brought millions into the process was Bernie. If he doesn't run, or the DNC doesn't give the light of day to his endorsed candidate, we will see the same result. This is absolutely necessary to win.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51681741]Unless Bernie runs in 2020, or a true grassroots, working class candidate is endorsed by him, Trump will win again.[/QUOTE] A lot can happen in 4 years. 4 years ago nobody thought Trump would be president.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51681901]It doesn't take that long to destroy a country, especially when the foundation is dry-rotted to hell.[/QUOTE] I maintain if we can survive Bush we can survive Trump. Just don't assume the voters will come to you on a silver platter. [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51681943]I would rather have Bush. IIRC, he was fine the first 4 years.[/QUOTE] Other than making up a reason to go to war? Yeah I guess Bush would be better, it's pretty stunning that we found someone worse than him.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51681870]This election was evidence that the working class has no faith in the Democratic party in critical states that would've let Clinton prevail over Trump. The only other candidate that brought millions into the process was Bernie. If he doesn't run, or the DNC doesn't give the light of day to his endorsed candidate, we will see the same result. This is absolutely necessary to win.[/QUOTE] imo the main priority is for Democrats to get the house and for the DNC to actually, you know, [I]fund[/I] all their state offices year-round instead of just a couple every election. they need a top-down redo more than they need a hero. and although Bernie is that hero, he's always stressed that all levels of government need to be focused on, not just the presidency. and i think provided these problems are remedied [I]then[/I] there's space for another Obama. otherwise yeah, they need a guy like Bernie.
[QUOTE=Cone;51682036]imo the main priority is for Democrats to get the house and for the DNC to actually, you know, [I]fund[/I] all their state offices year-round instead of just a couple every election. they need a top-down redo more than they need a hero. and although Bernie is that hero, he's always stressed that all levels of government need to be focused on, not just the presidency. and i think provided these problems are remedied [I]then[/I] there's space for another Obama. otherwise yeah, they need a guy like Bernie.[/QUOTE] Oh of course, 2017 and 2018 take utmost priority, and Bernie's rallies on Sunday was an amazing start before Trump takes office. The turnout almost reminded me of primary season
Ok that is explicidly against the STOCK act, doubt we will see any charges though
Just to clarify: the regulation he opposed is a general regulation that applies to the entire industry, not this specific business. How far does this go? Can a politician who introduces a bill to lower corporate taxes not buy stocks for anything because his bill will help to raise all businesses bottom line? Or can a politician who supports less business regulation generally not invest in any business that might benefit?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51682063]Just to clarify: the bill he introduced is a general bill that applies to the entire industry, not this specific business. How far does this go? Can a politician who introduces a bill to lower corporate taxes not buy stocks for anything because his bill will help to raise all businesses bottom line? Or can a politician who supports less business regulation generally not invest in any business that might benefit?[/QUOTE] Yes they should not, Ditto. Trump and his cabinet should resist trying to make money for their tenure, that's not their job.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51682070]Yes they should not, Ditto. Trump and his cabinet should resist trying to make money for their tenure, that's not their job.[/QUOTE] Furthering Lambeth's point, the reason why Congress and the president are paid so well is to discourage corruption or conflicts of interest.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51682070]Yes they should not, Ditto. Trump and his cabinet should resist trying to make money for their tenure, that's not their job.[/QUOTE] Well, I guess we disagree, then. Your rule would essentially bar all republicans from any investment in the stock market.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51682083]Well, I guess we disagree, then. Your rule would essentially bar all republicans from any investment in the stock market.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a pretty good idea to me
[QUOTE=sgman91;51682083]Well, I guess we disagree, then. Your rule would essentially bar all republicans from any investment in the stock market.[/QUOTE] It should bar EVERYONE from touching the stock market or making money outside of their government jobs.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51681811]Nobody ever does anything because people are lazy and think they can't change things. Run for local government, get involved in your local governmental meetings. Call your representatives, hold them accountable. If they don't represent you, then primary them. For example, "Progressive" Cory Booker voted against Sanders' amendment to lower drug costs by importing them from Canada. That same day, his office was inundated with calls from angry constituents and progressives. On the other side of the aisle, people in Colorado were angry with Rep. Mike Coffman and his position on the ACA repeal to the point where he had to sneak out of the meeting. This happened soon after. [media]https://twitter.com/9NewsEducation/status/820394795961040896[/media] It's all about coming together, tossing aside race, gender, sexuality, and religion, and holding them accountable.[/QUOTE] How much you wanna change things? I have a few suggestions. One: create collectivized businesses. Use the profits to help out local folks and lobby government for change. Instead of relying on the government for health care, create your own group which provides health care. Two: Educate the public on various political ideas out side the left right spectrum in ways the lay person will understand. lve created a thread in the video forum to start this process. There are a lot of people who feel they don't fit in either party's views. Showing they have more choice will break the left right polarization, thus making it easier to focus on corruption. Three: create new ideas that re define what left and right means. I've done this with hemlock theory. I'm still developing it. If you wanna help, I will offer money to do so. Four: The E lon Musk route. Start a business with intent of bringing products and services to make things better out side the halls of DC. Five : Disruption. This is basically making problems in society worse to the point it forces both sides of the political spectrum to come together on the same issue. Its amazing how quickly people quit bickering and work together when they are in the same burning building.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51682091]It should bar EVERYONE from touching the stock market or making money outside of their government jobs.[/QUOTE] You may want that, but it currently isn't the law. Congressmen are only barred from trading stocks based on information that they would only know as a congressman. As far as I can tell, this isn't the case with Price. He accurately reported all his trades and they were based on freely available information.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51682083]Well, I guess we disagree, then. Your rule would essentially bar all republicans from any investment in the stock market.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah I'm sure letting your politicians have vested interests in the companies that operate under their governance isn't going to lead to heinous conflicts of interest. Nah, totally fine. Not like the legislators are fallible bags of meat that could just push a law or two to see what they can get away with. If you're in politics you shouldn't have any kind of relation to a business that could benefit you via your role. This is how corruption and shit-awful anti-consumer, anti-worker laws are made.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51682124]Oh yeah I'm sure letting your politicians have vested interests in the companies that operate under their governance isn't going to lead to heinous conflicts of interest. Nah, totally fine. Not like the legislators are fallible bags of meat that could just push a law or two to see what they can get away with. If you're in politics you shouldn't have any kind of relation to a business that could benefit you via your role. This is how corruption and shit-awful anti-consumer, anti-worker laws are made.[/QUOTE] You and I have different outlooks at reality. I don't think it's possible to take away personal interests from politicians. You think it is possible. I see politicians as citizens of the country who should still have their basic rights intact unless it's proven that they're doing something illegal. Investing in the stock market is a basic way of building your retirement, for example. Even with that said, so called "pro-worker" laws can be just as biased in favor of some corporations over others. Business regulation in general favors large companies over small, for example. Big companies have an easier time bearing the cost, therefore making them less prone to outside competition starting up.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51682135]You and I have different outlooks at reality. I don't think it's possible to take away personal interests from politicians.[B] You think it is possible. [/B] I see politicians as citizens of the country who should still have their basic rights intact unless it's proven that they're doing something illegal. Investing in the stock market is a basic way of building your retirement, for example.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure where you got this from? I know you can't stop a politician from holding certain beliefs that may make them more likely to legislate in favour or things that benefit things they support. But we can sure as shit try to mitigate their reasons for doing so. I wouldn't call investing in a company a "personal interest" either, it's a business interest. It generates income for them, and as a result could influence their decision making in favour of maximising profit for their investments even if it isn't the best choice. There's plenty of other ways to build pensions without introducing bastard huge conflicts of interest. For starters a larger state pension for those who actively served the government could help. It's not like politician are paid peanuts either, just slap some of that in some long term savings or something.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51682160]I know you can't stop a politician from holding certain beliefs that may make them more likely to legislate in favour or things that benefit things they support. But we can sure as shit try to mitigate their reasons for doing so.[/QUOTE] To a point, sure, but they can just have their family invest instead of themselves. It's just so easy to get around. I would rather it be transparent and out in the open than have them hide it all under the table. [QUOTE]There's plenty of other ways to build pensions without introducing bastard huge conflicts of interest. For starters a larger state pension for those who actively served the government could help. It's not like politician are paid peanuts either, just slap some of that in some long term savings or something.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean by "long term savings." Anything not involved with the stock market is going to have laughably small returns. Large state pension based on what? I assume a stock investment [editline]16th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51682177]Why don't we just skip the shit and jump straight to a CEO and Board-filled congress?[/QUOTE] I mean, we've had it the way I'm describing since the founding of the country. So unless you think that we currently have "a CEO and board-filled congress," then your statement is nothing more than baseless exaggeration. Congress people didn't even have to report their stock trades until very recently.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51682135]You and I have different outlooks at reality. I don't think it's possible to take away personal interests from politicians. You think it is possible.[/QUOTE] Yes you can? In a hypothetical scenario, A politician wants their child to have a job. They can't hire them to be their chief of staff or whatever because we have nepotism laws. In a perfect world, hiring your kids or investing stocks in a business shouldn't be an issue. But it's ethically a bad idea because the potential for abuse is too great.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.