nedboy7 Posted Monday at 09:54 PM Posted Monday at 09:54 PM This is terrible. No criminal will want to run for Congress anymore.
sherpa Posted Monday at 09:56 PM Posted Monday at 09:56 PM 31 minutes ago, K D said: Both sides can agree on this right?? Not me. We need to attract the best people for public service. Denying them the opportunity to participate would be a major deterrent. My view is that a blind trust should be established, managed by a competent, approved group. The Representative is allowed to participate to whatever level they desire, but has no influence over the portfolio.
nedboy7 Posted Monday at 09:56 PM Posted Monday at 09:56 PM 35 minutes ago, K D said: Both sides can agree on this right?? We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961-2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time. https://rantt.com/gop-admins-had-38-times-more-criminal-convictions-than-democrats-1961-2016
K D Posted Monday at 10:03 PM Author Posted Monday at 10:03 PM 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: Not me. We need to attract the best people for public service. Denying them the opportunity to participate would be a major deterrent. My view is that a blind trust should be established, managed by a competent, approved group. The Representative is allowed to participate to whatever level they desire, but has no influence over the portfolio. They can put their money in a normal fund like what most employers offer or just basic s&p500. The problem is trading individual stocks or investing in companies directly which should definitely not be allowed. This one is a no brainer for both sides.
sherpa Posted Monday at 10:05 PM Posted Monday at 10:05 PM 1 minute ago, K D said: They can put their money in a normal fund like what most employers offer or just basic s&p500. The problem is trading individual stocks or investing in companies directly which should definitely not be allowed. This one is a no brainer for both sides. That is what I am suggesting. 1
K D Posted Monday at 10:06 PM Author Posted Monday at 10:06 PM 1 minute ago, sherpa said: That is what I am suggesting. Yes sorry for some reason I didn't read that 2nd part. That sounds agreeable Next up...term limits! Gittrdun 1
sherpa Posted Monday at 10:17 PM Posted Monday at 10:17 PM 8 minutes ago, K D said: Yes sorry for some reason I didn't read that 2nd part. That sounds agreeable Next up...term limits! Gittrdun I'd be all over it. Jack Kemp made a compelling case against it, but in the decades since, it has gotten way more desirable, and I think, necessary. 1
Recommended Posts