The STOCK Act

[AquaMan]

Cautious semantics. Reid never sent it to the president's desk.  Even though the president knew of its passing and his pending signature.  Sure he could have requested it, but the limbo of Harry Reid's chambers offered a good hiding place. The STOCK act was a good bill, but those corrupted by their corporate overlords never intended to allow it to go any further.  It's passage in the House and Senate was a PR stunt.  It's destruction was perfectly timed.  What a bunch of Sh!tbags!

Perhaps there should be a bill introduced stating that when both houses of congress pass legislation it must be sent to the president's desk within 10 days?



Remember the face of corruption.  When you are frustrated because government works against you instead of for you, remember this face.

Make up your mind. First it was the presidents fault (by default), then it was the presidents fault because he didn't request it from a separate powerful segment of government (legislative branch), then it was both houses who deceptively passed it as a PR stunt, then finally you rest it all on the face of Harry Reid.

The elephant is in the front room. Our government is owned by business interests who are the real deal makers and thus has it always been so.

[Gaspar]

Make up your mind. First it was the presidents fault (by default), then it was the presidents fault because he didn't request it from a separate powerful segment of government (legislative branch), then it was both houses who deceptively passed it as a PR stunt, then finally you rest it all on the face of Harry Reid.

The elephant is in the front room. Our government is owned by business interests who are the real deal makers and thus has it always been so.

They are all big balls of crap, with the bigger turds at the top.

[Conan71]

Washington seems to be selectively enforcing their obligations to the electorate, Swake.  Something about budgets comes to mind, in particular.

[swake]

I looked it up. The STOCK act was passed on April 4th, 2012.

It didn't sit on anyone's desk, it was passed over a year ago and then amended this month. Gasp is again misinformed. I wonder how that keeps happening.

Anyway, the changes got through congress by consent, so there's no laying blame for this crap ball on one side or the other, everybody agreed. Everybody.

I think we need more understanding about why the whole Congress and the White House felt that the changes were needed. On the surface it seems bad, really bad.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I don't think you understand what happened.  The STOCK act was passed by the house and the senate and put on the president's desk over a year ago!  It was a good bill.  It sat there for OVER A YEAR with no consideration by the president.   The only good bill to come out of this administration, the STOCK act had overwhelming public support and would end much of the privilege at the root of government corruption. 

Then a couple of weeks ago Senate Bill 716 was introduced by Harry Ried, passed by unanimous consent in both houses, and quickly signed by the president on a day when the media was pre-occupied with other things.  It neutered the STOCK act.  In over a year, the president couldn't find a pen to sign the STOCK act, yet in under 3 days, durring a terrorist attack, he found time to sign the bill that killed it.  OUTSTANDING!

Come ONNNNN.....!!!!  You know how to use Google!!  So, USE it!!  He signed the original law on 4 Apr 2012.  (Final passage of reconciled bill by Senate on 22 Mar, 2012.)

[Gaspar]

Come ONNNNN.....!!!!  You know how to use Google!!  So, USE it!!  He signed the original law on 4 Apr 2012.  (Final passage of reconciled bill by Senate on 22 Mar, 2012.)

You're right. . .but. . .there was not Rose Garden ceremony.  I would have never known about it.  Looks like only Huffpoo reported on it.  He even called it "embodiment of the fundamental American value of fair play to ensure everyone plays by the same rules." 


So, why the reversal?

[heironymouspasparagus]

You're right. . .but. . .there was not Rose Garden ceremony.  I would have never known about it.  Looks like only Huffpoo reported on it.  He even called it "embodiment of the fundamental American value of fair play to ensure everyone plays by the same rules." 


So, why the reversal?

Because they are all d-bags....  and should ALL be voted against at every opportunity!!

And because they have the power!  They have been bought and paid for by Capitalist Monopolism structure in this country!  And will ALWAYS vote against YOUR best interest, no matter what if it doesn't coincide with their owner's best interest!  Simple.

[cannon_fodder]

The bad news is everyone is right... Congress is bought and paid for and it is certainly getting worse, not better.  Since corporations are people and corporations have much more funds available to contribute to politicians, ads, and the like - you pander to the Corporate interests and not the people.  That isn't hard to figure out.  You can either fight for one $100,000 donation from super-mega company or fight for 1000 donations of $100 from individuals (who all wants something different).  Add to that the fact that most corporations have a narrow range of interests that are congruent - they can focus their efforts on a particular item or a select group. In addition to buying influence overtly, they can afford to "education" politicians with lobbyists, seminars, and outside ad campaigns.

The politician with the most money usually wins.  The best way to get money is to pander to large organizations with lots of money.  Therefore, most winning politicians are the ones who pander.

Finally, they have the potential of future employment or "consultant" gigs for politicians in the future.

All as a "business expense." 

Now, as a response, it will be said that the people own the corporations.  But those that own a large enough stake in the corporation to have influence have their interest aligned with the corporations.  And those are the people who probably have the funds to additionally aid campaigns.  Joe Main Street with a 401K doesn't really have a voice either personally or through his investments.

/not a conspiracy, just reality. 

Now the good news is, looking back it has been this way for a very long time and the pendulum does tend to swing back and the Country does seem to just keep moving forward in spite of it.

/down with political parties
//cap political expenditures on a per capita basis ($10 per perspective vote... or whatever)
///regulate third party groups
/// require clear disclosures of backers