- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mike Johnson says that Congressmen should be able to trade stocks
Posted on 5/17/26 at 1:36 am to HubbaBubba
Posted on 5/17/26 at 1:36 am to HubbaBubba
He makes Pete Buttigieg look like a very straight man.
He is the most twinkle toes gay politician I’ve ever seen.
He is the most twinkle toes gay politician I’ve ever seen.
1
Posted on 5/17/26 at 1:37 am to davyjones
House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed support for a ban on members of Congress trading individual stocks to avoid the "appearance of impropriety." However, he has also voiced sympathy for lawmakers who trade stocks due to the long-standing freeze on congressional salaries.
Johnson stated he is "in favor" of legislation prohibiting lawmakers from trading equities because the practice has been "abused in the past" by a few "bad actors."
He noted that the $174,000 congressional salary has been frozen since 2009. When adjusted for inflation, he argued members earn roughly 31% less than they did 15 years ago, which might lead to "less qualified people" serving.
Johnson suggested that allowing some stock trading helps members "continue to take care of their family" while managing the high cost of maintaining two residences (one in D.C. and one at home).
While supporting a ban on active trading, he has indicated that lawmakers should still be allowed to own stocks and other financial instruments rather than being forced to divest entirely.
Johnson stated he is "in favor" of legislation prohibiting lawmakers from trading equities because the practice has been "abused in the past" by a few "bad actors."
He noted that the $174,000 congressional salary has been frozen since 2009. When adjusted for inflation, he argued members earn roughly 31% less than they did 15 years ago, which might lead to "less qualified people" serving.
Johnson suggested that allowing some stock trading helps members "continue to take care of their family" while managing the high cost of maintaining two residences (one in D.C. and one at home).
While supporting a ban on active trading, he has indicated that lawmakers should still be allowed to own stocks and other financial instruments rather than being forced to divest entirely.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 1:38 am to HubbaBubba
I agree with your premise, especially regarding insider trading and the need for stronger guardrails.
That said, I think there’s an important distinction between corruption and ownership itself. Legislators using privileged information to enrich themselves should absolutely be investigated and punished. But a blanket ban on elected officials owning or trading stocks at all feels like an overcorrection to me.
There’s a difference between preventing conflicts of interest and creating a standard where public office essentially requires people to fully detach from private investment markets altogether. Curbs, disclosures, blind trusts, delayed reporting requirements, sector restrictions, etc. seem more reasonable than an outright ban.
I don’t think Johnson’s broader point was entirely without merit, even if people dislike the optics.
That said, I think there’s an important distinction between corruption and ownership itself. Legislators using privileged information to enrich themselves should absolutely be investigated and punished. But a blanket ban on elected officials owning or trading stocks at all feels like an overcorrection to me.
There’s a difference between preventing conflicts of interest and creating a standard where public office essentially requires people to fully detach from private investment markets altogether. Curbs, disclosures, blind trusts, delayed reporting requirements, sector restrictions, etc. seem more reasonable than an outright ban.
I don’t think Johnson’s broader point was entirely without merit, even if people dislike the optics.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 4:07 am to ataraxia
The problem with this is being politician wasn't meant to be a career. These people need to serve a term or two then go back to whatever they were previously doing. It's so lucrative now they never want to leave DC.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 5:06 am to HubbaBubba
You guys keep chasing this shiny object. Here is some real graft. Pelosi championed the CHIPS act to bolster american manufacturing of chip making. What she didnt tell you that a big benefactor would be foreign companies making them in the US.
Upon the signing of the bill, 280 billion, remember the international dust up where she insisted on flying to Taiwan with a planeload of people liquor and her son in tow and pissing off the chinese? Then she flew on to south korea. And will you look what happened......
TSMC of Taiwan got billions in US grants, billions in tax credits, and further 100a of millions in state tax benes to build in the US.
And Samsung got the same.
Im certain someone like data Republican could dig through the myriad of companies and find where some offshore ngo controlled by Pelosi's son has a good chunk of TSMC and Samsung stock.
My point is, the graft in govts is insane and at all levels, Martha Stewart making a few shekels (for my Jooo haters) is not the problem.
Upon the signing of the bill, 280 billion, remember the international dust up where she insisted on flying to Taiwan with a planeload of people liquor and her son in tow and pissing off the chinese? Then she flew on to south korea. And will you look what happened......
TSMC of Taiwan got billions in US grants, billions in tax credits, and further 100a of millions in state tax benes to build in the US.
And Samsung got the same.
Im certain someone like data Republican could dig through the myriad of companies and find where some offshore ngo controlled by Pelosi's son has a good chunk of TSMC and Samsung stock.
My point is, the graft in govts is insane and at all levels, Martha Stewart making a few shekels (for my Jooo haters) is not the problem.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 5:25 am to HubbaBubba
Mutual funds/ bonds only.
No stocks.
Cheating bitches.
No stocks.
Cheating bitches.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 5:41 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
There needs to be curbs, and also need to be charged for using or revealing insider trading information.
We should adjust their salaries that have been frozen for 17 years. We should forbid trading in all but a few broad funds. And we should get rid of their health care plans and make them get the same healthcare as ordinary Americans.
Remember that Mike Johnson has two sets of constituents now - the citizens from his district who elect him to Congress and the congressmen who elect him to Speaker. He has to keep the latter group happy too.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 6:35 am to HubbaBubba
Index Funds while in office. It is pretty simple.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 6:43 am to HubbaBubba
He’s right. You won’t attract quality people if you start restricting stock trading. You’ll have more AOC types in Congress
Posted on 5/17/26 at 6:56 am to HubbaBubba
So $174,000 base pay is insufficient to take care of a family???
There are multiple problems with this. First off is the idea that you can't rise provide for a family on less than $174k/yr. Then there's the idea that someone would base their life's financial success upon being elected to federal office (which speaks volumes as to why they are so desperate to hold on to it). Add to this the idea that he is making bank on stock trades as INCOME to provide for his family - not simply investing long-term for a retirement portfolio (and bear in mind that he'll receive a federal pension after leaving office as well).
This is all KINDS of f'*ed up and tells us all so much about why things are like they are in DC these days.
These are NOT public servants looking out for their constituents. These are Mafia dons looking out for their own well-being and damned be anyone who gets in the way.
There are multiple problems with this. First off is the idea that you can't rise provide for a family on less than $174k/yr. Then there's the idea that someone would base their life's financial success upon being elected to federal office (which speaks volumes as to why they are so desperate to hold on to it). Add to this the idea that he is making bank on stock trades as INCOME to provide for his family - not simply investing long-term for a retirement portfolio (and bear in mind that he'll receive a federal pension after leaving office as well).
This is all KINDS of f'*ed up and tells us all so much about why things are like they are in DC these days.
These are NOT public servants looking out for their constituents. These are Mafia dons looking out for their own well-being and damned be anyone who gets in the way.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:02 am to Ostrich
quote:
You won’t attract quality people
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:11 am to HubbaBubba
It's not hard.
Any company that's is directly involved in legislation or contracts, is simply exempt from being traded.(as an example)
So have a person compile a list and keep adding and dropping companies that are forbidden. And they can trade anything else, just not those.
Start somewhere and keep making it better and better
Any company that's is directly involved in legislation or contracts, is simply exempt from being traded.(as an example)
So have a person compile a list and keep adding and dropping companies that are forbidden. And they can trade anything else, just not those.
Start somewhere and keep making it better and better
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:11 am to Mo Jeaux
So you don’t want successful people in Congress?
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:14 am to HubbaBubba
I have zero sympathy. In fact, I have antipathy. They will do just fine without trading stocks. They knew the salary going into office.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:15 am to HubbaBubba
They should be limited to ETFs with at least 20 holdings. Govern with the the betterment of the country as a whole. I’m sick of picking the winners based on investments
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:16 am to Ostrich
quote:
So you don’t want successful people in Congress?
I don’t want people in congress to be able to conduct transactions in securities that would get you and me prosecuted.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:17 am to HubbaBubba
Limit oneself to five two year House terms or two six year Senate terms.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:20 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
I don’t want people in congress to be able to conduct transactions in securities that would get you and me prosecuted.
Insider trading is still illegal for members of Congress.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:21 am to Ostrich
quote:
Insider trading is still illegal for members of Congress.
Oh frick off.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:23 am to Mo Jeaux
Look up Rep. Chris Collins… pardoned by Trump
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News