[unsnap_biceps]

Of so many democrat congresscritters.

Really if they were interested in helping out the systemic issues, the right would be supporting bills that remove the ability of congresscritters to trade individual stocks. This has been attempted over the years, a great example is S.3631 in 2022 or S.1171 in 2023. It would be amazing to get it codified rather then witch hunting that's going on now.

[citizenpaul]

Restricting the rights of those with the power making the rules never works.

Its best to just accept a certain level of corruption so its at least out in the open. It is and always will happen, in fact its part of the very foundation of power structures and cannot ever be removed. All laws will do is increase the layers of deceit making it even more difficult to see why bad things are happening.

I always think it is weird that so many people that don't work in government have this odd belief that government work should basically be a vow of poverty. To pretend that people pursuing positions of power would accept universally that they should be poor is to deny human nature, which never works.

[tzs]

> I always think it is weird that so many people that don't work in government have this odd belief that government work should basically be a vow of poverty. To pretend that people pursuing positions of power would accept universally that they should be poor is to deny human nature, which never works.

Members of Congress make $174k/year, with the Majority and Minority leaders making $193k, and the Speaker of the House around $223k. They also get various allowances for expenses related to doing their job such as a travel allowance.

They get good healthcare benefits and a pension that vests after 5 years.

Restricting their stock trading while in office is not going to plunge them into poverty.

[CrimsonCape]

> Restricting the rights of those with the power making the rules never works.

Why use fallacy in argument? It's poor rhetoric and easily ignorable because it's a fallacy.

> Its best to just accept a certain level of corruption so its at least out in the open.

Or maybe it's best to uncover and destroy corruption as swiftly as possible.

> It is and always will happen, in fact it's part of the very foundation of power structures and cannot ever be removed.

Such black and white statements ignore the chilling, strongly deterrent effect of taking-down high-social-status people. In today's world, we hardly see examples of well-connected people being broken and losing their social status by being found corrupt and losing assets. In fact, I would argue there is practically no other way to have an effect on corruption without symbolically and visibly ruining corrupt people.

> All laws will do is increase the layers of deceit making it even more difficult to see why bad things are happening.

Laws should be a means to uncover and punish corruption. If a law isn't serving that purpose, it should be re-written and remade to be effective. Like you point out, laws are constantly under attack by deceit, and it should be the people's obligation to craft laws that can be nimble and adaptive to deceptive attacks from deceptive erosion by corrupted politicians.

> I always think it is weird that so many people that don't work in government have this odd belief that government work should basically be a vow of poverty.

The annual salary of a US Senator is $174,000... you think that is poverty?

> To pretend that people pursuing positions of power would accept universally that they should be poor is to deny human nature, which never works.

This point you raise is an excellent point and should be the focus of government. It should be codified into law that "we cannot trust ourselves to be uncorruptible, therefore it is necessary for government to demonstrate exemplary denial-of-human-nature via sacrifice, service, and swearing of vow of poverty."

My words can't do this theme justice. It's much larger and existential than simple words. The strife of humanity is the two sides of the existential coin: on one side, you can dedicate yourself to collecting money as a demonstration of your worth/genetics/legacy/etc; on the other side, you can demonstrate your understanding of the moral failures of men and use wisdom to demonstrate your worth/genetics/legacy.

[ceejayoz]

> The annual salary of a US Senator is $174,000... you think that is poverty?

DC is expensive, they have to maintain two households, and a lot of travel and eating out. That salary largely makes it the realm of the independently wealthy, or at least the well-off.

(It also hasn't gone up in 15 years, IIRC.)

[citizenpaul]

>The annual salary of a US Senator is $174,000... you think that is poverty?

You are proving my point. This cherry pick data point always comes up. One of the highest most powerful government jobs which there are a small fixed number of in existence, pays what is barely average for a mid career professional.

The overwhelming majority (state,city,county,federal) of elected positions pays closer to under <$45k a year (it might be less but thats close enough for discussion).Also remember there are far more non federal elected jobs out there. At these rates why would anyone with a logical brain go into politics unless they fully intend to manipulate the system to their own ends? Climbing the ladder till they reach something like senator where they can really stuff their pockets?

[rat87]

It shouldn't be a vow of poverty but it shouldn't open corruption shouldn't be acceptable. Instead we should raise their wages a bit

[citizenpaul]

Try suggesting that and watch the reaction. Its actually shocking how aggressively against decent pay people are for government officials. It makes no sense to me.

I'm even more shocked by how often people will state that people should do government work as a service to their community. Of course they themselves won't do it because they don't have time with their job and all, someone else should do it....

[tzs]

Or let them trade but with one or both of these restrictions:

1. Make them subject to the Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act rule against short swing trades by insiders.

2. Their trades must be pre-announced to the public. Allow others to piggyback on those trades. E.g/, if a member of Congress announces they are going to buy 50000 shares of a particular stock in 7 days, other investors can queue buys of that stock to occur at the same time conditioned on the Congress member actually making their pre-announced purchase.

[HPsquared]

It'd take quite a lot of "willpower" for congress to enact such a law.