|
mmmThe fact that Verizon is up over 30% since the beginning of the year mustve played a small role as well |
|
guppy_fish Premium Member join:2003-12-09 Palm Harbor, FL |
Must have been toughSelling at all-time high for most of the stocks, that was some sacrifice to pay |
|
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to ITALIAN926
Re: mmmVZ is up ~19% YTD excluding dividends. It's worth more to hold VZ than sell it, so I'm sure the conflict of interest was the primary motivation to close his position. |
|
slckusr Premium Member join:2003-03-17 Greenville, SC |
to guppy_fish
Re: Must have been toughsaid by guppy_fish:Selling at all-time high for most of the stocks, that was some sacrifice to pay Its for the greater good, after his role at the FCC is done, he will get paid some fat consulting cash. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to openbox9
Re: mmmsaid by openbox9:VZ is up ~19% YTD excluding dividends. It's worth more to hold VZ than sell it, so I'm sure the conflict of interest was the primary motivation to close his position. I agree. Even when someone does the right thing, there will be those who see evil motivation in anything done by those they oppose. |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170
1 recommendation |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-May-21 9:56 am
Got to dump old conflicts of interest to build the new onesNow AT&T and VZ will simply have to wink-wink him a post appointment job. |
|
skeechan
2 recommendations |
to FFH5
Re: mmmThe right thing to do would be to refuse the appointment based on his lobbying history. |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2013-May-21 10:01 am
Why? If he discloses everything and no longer has ties, why should he no accept the appointment? Perhaps the better question would be to ask why is he being appointed? |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-May-21 10:03 am
said by openbox9:Why? If he discloses everything and no longer has ties, why should he no accept the appointment? Perhaps the better question would be to ask why is he being appointed? Because he gave lots of money to Obama and supported his presidential runs. The same reason every person appointed by the president. |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170
1 recommendation |
to openbox9
No longer has ties? Laughable. He has a future in the industry to protect. He was hip to hip with the industry before, will be during and most assuredly will after. But that future career depends on him playing ball now. |
|
rmdir join:2003-03-13 Chicago, IL |
rmdir
Member
2013-May-21 10:04 am
In that case...Does this mean he'll return all the money he made when he whored himself as a lobbyist "to resolve possible conflicts of interest"? |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
Re: mmmBingo. The problems of our troubled government roll down from the top. Until accountability is restored, nothing is going to change. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon. |
|
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-May-21 10:13 am
He can't control whether or not he was appointed by the most corrupt administration in the history of history but he can control whether or not he takes the job. |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144
1 recommendation |
to skeechan
Ok, I don't dispute any of that. My point is that he is disclosing everything. If he's found to not be disclosing everything, he could be found in contempt and punished appropriately. He'll also be sworn into office if confirmed. If he doesn't abide by his sworn oath, he can once again be held accountable. Of course, none of this matters, because as you've suggested in our other thread, the punishments for allowing the status quo to continue are negligible. Until we actually vote for change, and not just for some slogan claiming as such, we can continue to expect more of the same.
BTW, if the president asked you who should he nominate, who would you recommend to him? |
|
openbox9 |
to rmdir
Re: In that case...No, because those business transactions are already history. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to skeechan
Re: mmmsaid by skeechan:No longer has ties? Laughable. He has a future in the industry to protect. Very unlikely. He is retirement age. This job was a nice plum to cap his working life and a thank you from Obama for all of Wheeler's help in 2 presidential runs.. He isn't like Genachowski, who has decades of work ahead yet. At 67, he will be a shade older than the first and oldest FCC chairman, Eugene Sykes, and twice the age of the youngest, E. William Henry, who was appointed by President Kennedy in 1963. |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to skeechan
He's not appointed until confirmed, but I understand your point. |
|
|
to FFH5
Overpaid "consultants and lobbyist" can work well into their 80's. |
|
Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
to skeechan
Re: Got to dump old conflicts of interest to build the new onesYou got that right, the real conflicts of interest don't show up until the FCC Commissioners leave. The Wheeler appointment looks like regulatory capture to me but hopefully I'm wrong. |
|
|
PacaW97
Anon
2013-May-21 2:25 pm
Revolving DoorIn our face is the reality of the corporate > government > corporate revolving door. I suspect we'll see much of the same from this commissioner as we have from say Micheal Powell or any other former member of government agencies. They will go in, deregulate or repeal some rules in favor of the companies or lobbies they've done business with, finish out their term, then be handily rewarded and go to work for those very companies with fat compensation for their work done.
I don't know what more I can say. I've written my members on congress on this, they haven't responded nor can I expect them to. After all I'm not directly paying for their election campaigns... and can't offer them lucrative compensation for selling out the American consumer.
What can we do that actionable, that's real, that has teeth? |
|
Anonymous_Anonymous Premium Member join:2004-06-21 127.0.0.1 1 edit |
to FFH5
Re: mmmsaid by FFH5:said by openbox9:Why? If he discloses everything and no longer has ties, why should he no accept the appointment? Perhaps the better question would be to ask why is he being appointed? Because he gave lots of money to Obama and supported his presidential runs. The same reason every person appointed by the president. yes we have not had real president since the 60's. Sure most of the newer presidents, have never read the US Constitution. If they did we would not have some phony baloney laws. it's like clicking accept with out read it. US used to be for the people by the people. now in the age it's by big corp for big corp. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2013-May-21 5:51 pm
Sold his stock? Obviously impartial.... snortYeah, I'm sure he's completely objective now. Wonder which one will hire him as a consultant when his revolving door tenure is up? |
|
KrK |
KrK to FFH5
Premium Member
2013-May-21 5:54 pm
to FFH5
Re: mmmWhere do you think that money came from, and why was it "given"?
The puppeteers now await their massive return for their "investment".
Impartial, objective...... indeed. He'll be a good little toadie, I'm sure. |
|
Rekrul join:2007-04-21 Milford, CT |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Why? If he discloses everything and no longer has ties, why should he no accept the appointment? Because even if (and that's a big if) he intends to be impartial, the years he spent lobbying for the industry has to have left an impression on him. He worked in one particular industry for many years and now he's taking a job where his entire purpose is to basically do the opposite of what he used to do. How can there not be a conflict of interest? |
|
rmdir join:2003-03-13 Chicago, IL |
to openbox9
Re: In that case...But the feelings of indebtedness aren't. |
|
2 recommendations |
to FFH5
Re: mmmsaid by FFH5:said by skeechan:No longer has ties? Laughable. He has a future in the industry to protect. Very unlikely. He is retirement age. This job was a nice plum to cap his working life and a thank you from Obama for all of Wheeler's help in 2 presidential runs.. He isn't like Genachowski, who has decades of work ahead yet. At 67, he will be a shade older than the first and oldest FCC chairman, Eugene Sykes, and twice the age of the youngest, E. William Henry, who was appointed by President Kennedy in 1963. This guy supported the AT&T and t-mobile merger. That's all anyone really needs to know about him. |
|
1 recommendation |
Dumped his stock?meaning..gave it to his wife? brother?...
This guy is a telco/cableco lobbyist at heart and won't give a rats tushie for the rights of consumers. It will be a huge gift to the telcos/cablecos when he takes over.
And how much money is he getting under the table or in residuals from the cable/telcos?
He's nothing but a paid lobbyist who managed to become head of the FCC via bribes and dirty tricks. |
|
trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
1 recommendation |
to openbox9
Re: mmmI'd have to say that just about anyone from the editorial staff of this web site would be a good candidate. At the risk of being called a DSLReports/BroadbandReports.com fanboy, Karl Bode would be a good choice.
We need someone who equally hates the communications companies of the US. Someone who will basically call "bullshit" on anything the big companies try to say. So far, Karl Bode seems to fit the bill. |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to rmdir
Re: In that case...Conjecture |
|
openbox9 |
to KrK
Re: Sold his stock? Obviously impartial.... snortHey may have many conflicts of interest. This was one that he mitigated. There's a reason why he's required by law to disclose such potential conflicts. |
|