Nancy Pelosi Comes Out In Support of Stock Trading Ban After Trump Says He Doesn’t Really Know About It
a year ago by Redditsux to c/politics
... and has her coffers more than filled 👍
Pulling the ladder up behind you and boomer shit, name a more iconic duo.
She supported it in 2022: https://www.willmarradio.com/...
And in 2019: https://thehill.com/...
And in 2012: https://pelosi.house.gov/...
But yeah she made money on stock trades, and famously did not support it in 2021. So there’s that. https://www.cnbc.com/...
Nah it looks like she was for banning trades using insider trading, and against banning Congress members and their spouses from trading stocks.
If your husband/wife's entire career is trading stocks I highly doubt you'd be for such. It's hypocritical that she would be for it now though. She should have kept her stance that she had in that 2012 article, that increasing scrutiny and verifying their trades should be done to make sure no inside information was used.
https://www.quiverquant.com/...
look at her trading history and answer that yourself
Retire? Oh you're funny.
She is 100% planning on dying in office. She's obviously one those people who are obsessed with leaving a "legacy". In her mind she's going to be remember as the first female member of the House and a groundbreaking feminist who made way for others, etc.
Which would have probably stuck if she'd retired a decade ago. Now she's going to remembered as a greedy ghoul who intentionally sabotaged other politicians and held back society to enrich herself. This is too little, too late.
RBG actually did some good, unlike Feinstein. She hung on too long, but it was for honorable reasons, she just didn't live long enough for the benefits to materlialize.
Feinstein never did anything significant.
a groundbreaking feminist who made way for others
Ah, right, he "woman CEO" 1970s bourgeois feminist trope. But experience has now demonstrated that here's no difference between a male and a female corrupt weasel. Capitalists are still capitalists, and their weasel mouthpieces are still weasels.
Yeah I was gonna say, she's 85 and has insider traded her way to a net worth of ~$250 million. No wonder she's like yeah fuck it lol.
she doesn’t care now
She still cares and if this had a chance to pass shed vote against it
We'll see neoliberals claim to want progressive policy now, because they'll never have to vote on it.
The same way Republicans spent four years demanding Epstein lists, and now that they can release them they won't.
Well, kids these days only care about TikCrafts and their MineToks, so it's our fault she has to stay in power. If we cared more about governance by the people, for the people, instead of streaming Fartnight, she could learn what skibidi toilet Ohio means from her great-grandkids and know why Democrats lose there.
What, for the next generation of unethical legislators?
More correctly, she’s actually a part of the silent generation.
She's a fucking vampire, and she predates the Salem witch trials where she thinned out the competition.
Huh you're the third person who said this exact thing
People have actually died from too many enhancement pills...
lol, she already made her money. I agree with removing it, but that’s a very boomer way of seeing…. “I’ve got mine, so fuck you”.
If it was itd never pass
By saying she supports it, she knows trump will block it
This is the on-brandest
IMBATUKUM
Now that would change things drastically. I would think for the better.
She blocked it when it had a chance of passing. Of course she supports it now that she knows it won't
Pelosi is the poster child (though "child" in this case is woefully inappropriate) for why such a ban is needed.
If it weren't for insider trading, she'd be living in a trailer.
The fact that she's speaking on the topic at all bespeaks a breathtaking level of arrogance and hypocrisy.
If it weren't for insider trading, she'd be living in a trailer.
I don't get what the point of saying stupid shit like this is. She had been speaker of the house for years, and in Congress for decades. Making 170-190k/year. That's not trailer money. Her husband also was wealthy prior to this.
Did they abuse her position for personal gain? Yes.
Would they be poor without it? Fuck no
Is she the worst offender? Also no, but Republicans refuse to admit their own politicians do the same shit, more blatantly and more often. Do she gets criticism from all angles while Republican politicians get it only from the opposition. Being the most prominent member of the house also gave her advise more visibility.
Well, there goes the Nancy ETF.
That's probably the only way to move things forward though. Implement rules that only affect future politicians. Let the current generation have their cake. We can gradually transition to something more sane as they get replaced.
It wouldn't have changed her retirement plans when she blocked the last attempt several years ago
She's following the Feinstein Retirement Plan.
The fix is in then. We know this greedy inside trader doesn't want that.
She definitely got some kind of cutout.
It's cynical, dishonest, manipulative, and completely unproductive.
Based on that alone I completely believe that Nancy Pelosi did the math and realized that Democrats could argue for this out loud maybe even vote for it but there's no chance that it'll ever happen so it's a great chance for her to actually do politics with the voters which I thought she had considered beneath her.
I mean they are. She publicly posted every trade she made for like 2 years and they beat every model out there, and none of the companies had ongoing congressional votes.
Has she made stock trades in the past, probably/possibly. But if you look at the stocks she invests in, it's mostly all large tech companies. She was up 74% in 2024 which is rediculous. That said NVIDIA was up 190% in 2024, which is where she likely got a lot of her gains. She started trading a bunch in 2020.
That said I'm sure her trading will slow/stop soon enough, it appears her husband just had a kidney transplant (her daughters kidney) so I imagine he'll kick the bucket soon enough. He's 85 from what I just saw.
Buffett is what, 480x her worth, with most of his money coming from investment banking as well. The Pelosis out performed him for the last ten years but she only made 250 million in that time supposively.
To put that in perspective buffet makes her net worth twice a month. That's at 5% growth, and the 10 year market average is over 10. Meaning he really should be making $1 billion dollars a month with average market investments.
If you have money to invest the markets make you stupid money, the problem is that most people will never have money to invest like they do. Then again if everyone did, inflation would skyrocket as well.
Our capitalistic system is designed around those who get ahead taking off, and the majority griding day after day filling their pockets. Banning Congress from trading stocks may help some day, but only if there was some way to make people impregnable to greed. Otherwise guess what, Buffet who wasn't in Congress keeps going, Pelosi's kids take control of assets and invest, the Trump organization is split between names, so nothing stops Ivanka/Jr/the rest of them from making the trades. Hell they can just make the trades in their kids names and the kids can say they are just taking care of their elderly parents anytime they want to buy something. (Those people are to old to use anything really) But the same principle applies elsewhere.
Its better to just make strict regulations with a 3rd party investigative body.. or put wealth caps, or if we could, come up with a new system. A democracy would be nice. A democratic communist society could be nice as well. Haven't seen many of those outside of small pirate crews.
Hey, she already got her millions, so who cares. In fact, she's a hero for supporting this legislation that would have prevented her insider-trading husband from accumulating so much wealth had it been in place when she took office. Let's throw her a parade.
To everyone here dismissing this and saying “too little too late..”
What are republicans doing or saying that comes even close to this?
Like sure this is bullshit, but can anyone say when republicans even came close to the lowest fake ass shit you’d pretend this to be ?
She's commenting in support of a Republican's bill. This is Hawley. It's performative. They all know it won't pass.
I don't trust these kinds of bills because voters don't know enough to have a say.
Politicians will announce policy MONTHS in advance. People don't care because CNN or whatever didn't make it consumable. And then politicians make moves on the stock market. And then people accuse them of insider trading.
The last few times Pelosi has went viral, the policies were hashed out ad nauseum and even made headlines well in advance. Way before she made her moves.
People have no idea what's going on and then a bill like this appears?
Edit: the amount of people who take this further is rare. It's all about "insider trading." But what about the things they actually do to profit off governance?
Politicians will announce policy MONTHS in advance.
So, what you're saying is we should just read the congressional record and day trade?
There are professionals that make millions a year trying to figure this stuff out while managing their funds. Just to eek out an extra percent or two over A&P. Do you really think they never thought to look at the text of potential bills before?
But congressmembers routinely vote those returns out of the water. And that's just something they do on the side, from their full time job as a politician...
You actually believe that?
Trump Says He Doesn’t Really Know About It
I feel like this is a big list.
Yeah, she can go F' herself here. She blocked it last time progressive brought this up and this just more performatory BS from disingenuous Democratic leadership.
Says the highest stock earner in Congress.
She was #10 in returns in 2024.
I stand corrected.
Info he's referring to: Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC): 149.0% Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): 142.3% Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): 123.8% Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX): 111.2% Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY): 105.8% Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN): 98.6% Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX): 95.2% Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): 77.5% Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN): 71.5% Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): 70.9%
149% in a year, that's wild. Must have owned mostly NVidia
Yeah, you only get those kinds of numbers (usually) from something like crypto - of course, it could easily swing the other way, since it tends to be extremely volatile.
The article says this:
Rep. David Rouzer’s impressive returns in 2024 were a result of shares of Nvidia, Mastercard (NYSE:MA), and Visa (NYSE:V) and other funds he’s held for years, according to Unusual Whales.
By the way, my comment that she's #10 is not meant to make an excuse for her. Just because she was beat by 9 others doesn't make it right...in fact, it's still quite infuriating and most Americans support putting an end to this insider trading.
You can get those numbers reading options. If you know a company is about to get a $100 million government contract, which might bump up the stock like 10-20%, you can buy options that multiply those returns because you know how quickly it will jump
Well the truth is likely different than people want to hear. Every trade over $1000 dollars has been reviewed by an ethics committee since the stock act was passed back in 2012. It made sure Congress members trading with insider information was a crime. Aka, everyone who's bitched about insider trading since 2012 has been going off their feelings of how it's unfair rich people can make money off the insane amounts of money they have.
She's barely in the top 10.
Lol. She's got her $200mil, she can pretend to care at this point.
There's no need to be cruel.
The Crypt Keeper doesn't deserve to be compared to someone like her.
Nancy is a fascist and needs to be taken out with the rest of the trash
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Of course she doesn't care now, she's only a few years away from retiring or dying on the job anyways
save