Skip to main content

View Diary: LOOKS LIKE INSIDER TRADING ERIC CANTOR, Please Explain (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm, doesn't look like illegal or even (4+ / 0-)

    unethical insider trading to me.

    I'm actually surprised that as a board member the Cantor's don't own more shares.

    And I despise Cantor. I opened this diary hoping for good dirt.

    I just think Cantor going to a Britney Spears concert a couple years ago was creepier and more scandalous than this.

    •  Insider trading doesn't seem to be illegal for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melo

      Congress members.

      Congress FUNDS the SEC.  See any problem with this cozy arrangement?

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:46:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Insider trading requires profiting from non-public (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, dannyinla, VClib

        information. Yet it is and should be ok to be an insider, do your job, and even profit.

        You didn't make the case that illegal non-public information was being traded on.

        Actually... you made the opposite case.

        Congress FUNDS the SEC.  See any problem with this cozy arrangement?

        No. I don't see a problem. They also fund the FBI. As long as they give both enough money to do their job.

        It's up to the President to appoint the head of the SEC... that is what matters.

        But I do support the recent congressional anti-insider trading law that has been proposed. To avoid ANY conflict of interests.

        •  years of packing compliant tools in agencies (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error

          does wonders for evading compliance with annoying laws and regulations... blind lapdogs do not cause problems...

          This "Up to the President" idea assumes that the agencies mentioned and many many more are staffed mostly by neutral high minded professionals... uh-huh...

          The reality is that any president's hands are tied on who clogs up most lower positions and people in the right positions can stymie the best intentions of appointees... so saying that a president can magically fix it somehow means there is either nothing that needs fixing or the president is a knowing participant in a policy of looking the other way. I think the inertia of 8 years of numerous, comprehensively and strategically placed Bush appointees is enough to explain most of the apparent lack of progress.

          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

          by IreGyre on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:09:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, what is your argument? (0+ / 0-)

            Eliminate the SEC and all over sight because it's not effective enough?

            That sound like a brilliant plan.

            •  no... keep electing progressives and over time (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              War on Error

              replace or reassign the corruption enablers in ALL agencies... and make the SEC and the others more resistant to moles frustrating the intent of the law.

              The point is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater... it is to work to make the agencies effective again so that a president does not have a bunch of stonewalling corporate moles frustrating transparent and honest government. But like I said... will not happen overnight and Obama cannot be held responsible for the actions of people he cannot remove. If and when he can actually get appointments approved the appointees still will be lumbered with a load of subtle saboteurs.

              So the message is not end oversight... the message is don't lay the problems entirely at Obama's feet... and in the meantime try to work around the dysfunctions by all executive means available and work to get more progressives elected to congress...

              Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

              by IreGyre on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 07:53:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, I sure didn't advocate eliminate oversight (0+ / 0-)

                like the SEC.

                You said it well.

                Years of packing agencies with Yes People and the lure of much bigger money to be made as an insider instead of a regulator makes keeping good people difficult.

                It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                by War on Error on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:15:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  The Bernie Madoff story is a perfect example (0+ / 0-)

              Proof was dumped on their desks for years and they did nothing.

              It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

              by War on Error on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:13:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site