Scott Brown (R-MA) Introduces legislation to prohibit congress from insider trading

[Utilitarian]

Check the fucking date, idiot.

Scott Brown introduced the 'insider trading' bill in November 2011.

Obama gets his panties in a wad about insider trading January 2012.

So.... who got the idea from who?

Your Messiah got it from Brown.

Idiot.

Up to now no previous president, democrat OR republican has gotten their 'panties in a wad' over it. It's just been considered one of the perks.

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

The intent is to reduce corruption. No law can truly remove corruption from business, but we at least attempt to clean up the process.

 

[Meister]

Check the fucking date, idiot.

Scott Brown introduced the 'insider trading' bill in November 2011.

Obama gets his panties in a wad about insider trading January 2012.

So.... who got the idea from who?

Your Messiah got it from Brown.

Idiot.

Up to now no previous president, democrat OR republican has gotten their 'panties in a wad' over it. It's just been considered one of the perks.

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

I can see why it's illegal. I'm one of those who likes an even playing field, it's hard to get one right now when it is illegal.

 

[California Girl]

Up to now no previous president, democrat OR republican has gotten their 'panties in a wad' over it. It's just been considered one of the perks.

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

I can see why it's illegal.

So can I. If we're really, really lucky, congress will have to abide by the same laws as the rest of the world.

 

[The T]

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

I can see why it's illegal.

So can I. If we're really, really lucky, congress will have to abide by the same laws as the rest of the world.

^^This...and WE should demand it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Up to now no previous president, democrat OR republican has gotten their 'panties in a wad' over it. It's just been considered one of the perks.

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

The intent is to reduce corruption. No law can truly remove corruption from business, but we at least attempt to clean up the process.

Really? How is it corruption for me, being an employee, to make money because I know something about what the company is going to do? Corruption would be me taking money to make sure it didn't work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Up to now no previous president, democrat OR republican has gotten their 'panties in a wad' over it. It's just been considered one of the perks.

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

I can see why it's illegal. I'm one of those who likes an even playing field, it's hard to get one right now when it is illegal.

Could it possibly be uneven because it is illegal?

 

[The T]

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

The intent is to reduce corruption. No law can truly remove corruption from business, but we at least attempt to clean up the process.

Really? How is it corruption for me, being an employee, to make money because I know something about what the company is going to do? Corruption would be me taking money to make sure it didn't work.

It doesn't work in the company I work for...and WOE unto you that operates outside thier interests...it's called integrety...

 

[Utilitarian]

I don't see why insider trading for anyone is illegal in the first place, but if it is, it should be illegal for everyone.

The intent is to reduce corruption. No law can truly remove corruption from business, but we at least attempt to clean up the process.

Really? How is it corruption for me, being an employee, to make money because I know something about what the company is going to do? Corruption would be me taking money to make sure it didn't work.

Part of what led to the financial crisis was the bolded part. Goldman Sachs used AIG to engineer a crash. What they did was very similar to insider trading.

More often than not, insider trading involves someone with insider knowledge engineering a devaluation and then profiting from it via selling stocks.

It's a bit more complicated than what you're talking about. In order for you to have any worry of being charged with insider trading, you'd have to be rather high up in your company, and it would have to be proven that you engineered a market change that you profited from.

Unless you're a major investor in a company or a legislator with the power to change laws in which you can profit from them, then you should have no worry of being charged with anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The intent is to reduce corruption. No law can truly remove corruption from business, but we at least attempt to clean up the process.

Really? How is it corruption for me, being an employee, to make money because I know something about what the company is going to do? Corruption would be me taking money to make sure it didn't work.

Part of what led to the financial crisis was the bolded part. Goldman Sachs used AIG to engineer a crash. What they did was very similar to insider trading.

More often than not, insider trading involves someone with insider knowledge engineering a devaluation and then profiting from it via selling stocks.

It's a bit more complicated than what you're talking about. In order for you to have any worry of being charged with insider trading, you'd have to be rather high up in your company, and it would have to be proven that you engineered a market change that you profited from.

Unless you're a major investor in a company or a legislator with the power to change laws in which you can profit from them, then you should have no worry of being charged with anything.

I was treating you like an intelligent person, my mistake. I just refiled you as a conspiracy nut so I can properly deal with you in the future.

 

[Utilitarian]

Really? How is it corruption for me, being an employee, to make money because I know something about what the company is going to do? Corruption would be me taking money to make sure it didn't work.

Part of what led to the financial crisis was the bolded part. Goldman Sachs used AIG to engineer a crash. What they did was very similar to insider trading.

More often than not, insider trading involves someone with insider knowledge engineering a devaluation and then profiting from it via selling stocks.

It's a bit more complicated than what you're talking about. In order for you to have any worry of being charged with insider trading, you'd have to be rather high up in your company, and it would have to be proven that you engineered a market change that you profited from.

Unless you're a major investor in a company or a legislator with the power to change laws in which you can profit from them, then you should have no worry of being charged with anything.

I was treating you like an intelligent person, my mistake. I just refiled you as a conspiracy nut so I can properly deal with you in the future.

How would you explain the crisis?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Part of what led to the financial crisis was the bolded part. Goldman Sachs used AIG to engineer a crash. What they did was very similar to insider trading.

More often than not, insider trading involves someone with insider knowledge engineering a devaluation and then profiting from it via selling stocks.

It's a bit more complicated than what you're talking about. In order for you to have any worry of being charged with insider trading, you'd have to be rather high up in your company, and it would have to be proven that you engineered a market change that you profited from.

Unless you're a major investor in a company or a legislator with the power to change laws in which you can profit from them, then you should have no worry of being charged with anything.

I was treating you like an intelligent person, my mistake. I just refiled you as a conspiracy nut so I can properly deal with you in the future.

How would you explain the crisis?

Over confidence? Unless you think that the fed was being deliberate when it thought the housing market was strong enough to ride out anything that happened.

For the record, there was no conspiracy to undermine anything, nor did anyone set out to destroy the economy. Making a bet against something while simultaneously betting on it is called hedging your bets in an attempt to limit your losses. If it had worked there would not have been a crisis.

 

[Utilitarian]

I was treating you like an intelligent person, my mistake. I just refiled you as a conspiracy nut so I can properly deal with you in the future.

How would you explain the crisis?

Over confidence? Unless you think that the fed was being deliberate when it thought the housing market was strong enough to ride out anything that happened.

For the record, there was no conspiracy to undermine anything, nor did anyone set out to destroy the economy. Making a bet against something while simultaneously betting on it is called hedging your bets in an attempt to limit your losses. If it had worked there would not have been a crisis.

So, you're admitting that hedging caused the crisis, correct?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How would you explain the crisis?

Over confidence? Unless you think that the fed was being deliberate when it thought the housing market was strong enough to ride out anything that happened.

For the record, there was no conspiracy to undermine anything, nor did anyone set out to destroy the economy. Making a bet against something while simultaneously betting on it is called hedging your bets in an attempt to limit your losses. If it had worked there would not have been a crisis.

So, you're admitting that hedging caused the crisis, correct?

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What I said is that the crisis happened despite the attempt to hedge the losses. If it had actually worked AIG would not have needed a bailout.

 

[Full-Auto]

How would you explain the crisis?

Over confidence? Unless you think that the fed was being deliberate when it thought the housing market was strong enough to ride out anything that happened.

For the record, there was no conspiracy to undermine anything, nor did anyone set out to destroy the economy. Making a bet against something while simultaneously betting on it is called hedging your bets in an attempt to limit your losses. If it had worked there would not have been a crisis.

So, you're admitting that hedging caused the crisis, correct?

SWING and a miss.

 

[Utilitarian]

Over confidence? Unless you think that the fed was being deliberate when it thought the housing market was strong enough to ride out anything that happened.

For the record, there was no conspiracy to undermine anything, nor did anyone set out to destroy the economy. Making a bet against something while simultaneously betting on it is called hedging your bets in an attempt to limit your losses. If it had worked there would not have been a crisis.

So, you're admitting that hedging caused the crisis, correct?

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What I said is that the crisis happened despite the attempt to hedge the losses. If it had actually worked AIG would not have needed a bailout.

Well, I can see you can't debate without resorting to insults. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, you're admitting that hedging caused the crisis, correct?

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What I said is that the crisis happened despite the attempt to hedge the losses. If it had actually worked AIG would not have needed a bailout.

Well, I can see you can't debate without resorting to insults. Welcome to my ignore list.

Oh no, not the ignore list.

 

[California Girl]

So, you're admitting that hedging caused the crisis, correct?

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What I said is that the crisis happened despite the attempt to hedge the losses. If it had actually worked AIG would not have needed a bailout.

Well, I can see you can't debate without resorting to insults. Welcome to my ignore list.

That's not fair! If Quantum's on your ignore list - I wanna be on it too!

Thin skinned, whiny assed, twit.

 

[California Girl]

I notice that rdean has not been back to defend his ridiculous assertion that the bill came after his Messiah spoke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What I said is that the crisis happened despite the attempt to hedge the losses. If it had actually worked AIG would not have needed a bailout.

Well, I can see you can't debate without resorting to insults. Welcome to my ignore list.

That's not fair! If Quantum's on your ignore list - I wanna be on it too!

Thin skinned, whiny assed, twit.

I am not even sure where I insulted him, I just pointed out that what he said had no correlation to what I wrote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I notice that rdean has not been back to defend his ridiculous assertion that the bill came after his Messiah spoke.

You noticed that too?