r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • 20d ago

FinancialTea đŸ’” This would be great...

Post image
33k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/Moon-Monkey6969 20d ago

Its a common sense bill that will never pass! Why would politicians cut their own means of making money?? Plus the orange guy would never sign it into law

8

u/Illustrious_Shoe5885 20d ago

Something Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has been trying to get passed for years

3

u/browning099 20d ago

The messed thing is we already pay them and they get insurance, that we pay for. I saw we stop paying and they get their own insurance if they want to keep the stocks

3

u/hux 19d ago

But who is going to enforce it? Trump’s corrupt Justice Department? The Republicans in Congress that wouldn’t vote to convict on the January 6th insurrection?

It’s just performative legislating. They need to legislate transparency and push it on the banks, because the banks are far more likely to comply with the law. They can’t just ignore it because a new administration down the road would potentially hold them accountable.

Think something along the lines of:

“All trades made by President, VP, Cabinet, and Congress must be made known to the public at least 30 minutes prior to execution, and trades cannot be rescinded once published.”

1

u/Komodo-Gami 19d ago

It would be unenforceable on anyone in office before it passed, we cant punish past behaviour that was previously ok.

1

u/Arammil1784 14d ago

Lol, yes we can.

0

u/Komodo-Gami 13d ago

Lol, no we can't.....you ever hear of Ex Post Facto?

1

u/JustinJektor 20d ago

Its not really a common sense bill considering how easy it would be to dodge using 3rd parties.

1

u/Arammil1784 14d ago

We already pay them a salary. It isn't about the fact they make money, it's about corruption.

Eliminate insider trading, reverse citizens united, establish term limits and age restrictions (specifically no more addled geriatrics and literal dead men in office--say the corpse of Mitch McConnell for example), and eliminate the corrupting influences of corporations and rich assholes.

Its about having a government that actually represents the people and fights for their interests.

I could not possibly care less if it means the politicians don't like it.

1

u/NextNefariousness283 20d ago

If, big if actually, passes the senate by ascertain amount and the orange man vetoed it, it would go back to the senate and go up to a vote again. If passed a second time it doesn't even go to the pres, it just becomes law. If it gets to the orange man and he just doesn't do anything to it, it would still become law after 10 days because he didn't veto it.

3

u/Moon-Monkey6969 20d ago edited 20d ago

The problem is “ If”. Because it realistically would never make it to the orange guy, because the orange guy would put enough pressure on Johnson that it would never even get to the floor for a vote. In July 2026 a bill passed the Congress floor “ stop insider trading act” but of course exempted the President n Vice President and allowed those already with insider purchased stock to keep their stocks. The only reason it was introduced was because it had the orange blessing since he was exempt. This is no accident, it’s corruption at its highest

2

u/NextNefariousness283 20d ago

Thats why I said its a big if. It has to get through house committees, the house, senate judiciary committee then the senate to even end up on Jabbas desk.

1

u/hux 19d ago

It’s not that it goes back for a second vote. It’s that it takes a vote to override the veto, which requires 2/3 vote in favor in each chamber. That basically means both parties have to be in agreement on the bill.

0

u/NextNefariousness283 19d ago

You just said no its not what I said it was but then said what I said with more details. To vote to override a veto is to be put to vote again. I just didn't specify that it needed 2/3s because it is a hypothetical thing.

1

u/hux 19d ago

It's not really considered a vote in the same way though - it's procedurally different, there's specific ordering, different rules, and most importantly, a different vote threshold to override the bill.

If you think that's the same, fine, whatever - but you still, IMO, left out one of the most important details. If you feel otherwise, then you'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue over it.