GOP lawmaker brutally mocked for bizarre 'murder' analogy during hearing on Congress members owning stocks
On Thursday, April 7, Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia spoke during a congressional hearing on the proposal that members of Congress be banned from trading or owning stocks — a proposal that he is against. And the Republican congressman is being mocked on Twitter for the way in which he worked the subject of murder into the debate.
The 58-year-old Loudermilk told his colleagues, “Look, we cannot change behavior. At the founding of our country, there were four federal felonies. Four. Today, we have rooms of codebooks of laws, but yet, murders still happen. If government could change behavior, we would have no murders. We would have no thefts. We would have no fraud.”
Loudermilk continued, “So, we can’t change behavior. If we enact a law that prohibits members of Congress from owning or trading stocks, it will still happen by bad players.”
Robert Maguire, research director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), found Loudermilk’s reasoning to be flawed, posting:
In a congressional hearing discussing banning members of Congress from trading and owning stocks, Rep Loudermilk argues against new rules by saying we have laws against murder, but people still get murderedpic.twitter.com/OUqW3L0RN2— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1649342757
Did not expect the hearing on whether members of Congress should be able to own stocks to turn into a debate on whether we should have\u2026any laws?— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1649343301
Here are some more responses to Loudermilk’s comments:
This member of our government is making the case that government is pointless, you can't improve society in any way through laws. You could not make this up.— Rachel Cole (@Rachel Cole) 1649345744
The GOP: "We are the law and order party!" \n\nAlso the GOP: "Yeah, why do we need a law for that, it'll still happen anyway?"— Dennis Koch (@Dennis Koch) 1649343729
If laws are worthless then why do we need......lawmakers? It seems like he's inadvertently arguing against the need for himself to be employed. I reassert my opinion that there should be an IQ test for Congress. I know all the reasons why they're shouldn't and I still want one.— Rich Henderson (@Rich Henderson) 1649345277
Without laws, we wouldn\u2019t need Congresscritters like Loudermilk. So he\u2019s arguing his job shouldn\u2019t exist?— Eyvindur Kane (@Eyvindur Kane) 1649343323
So is @RepLoudermilk saying it\u2019s wrong to establish any rules restricting behavior? Does he, for example, disagree with the 10 Commandments? Perhaps he\u2019d like to reveal much money he\u2019s made trading and owning stocks as a member of Congress.— StandUpForDemocracy (@StandUpForDemocracy) 1649345860
This argument is so thin you\u2019d need lasers to measure it. And laws do in most instances CHANGE behavior. They just don\u2019t absolutely prevent behavior. I\u2019d guess if there were no laws re: murder penalties the rate would be a bit higher— Yerply Derp (@Yerply Derp) 1649345534
Should we repeal the law against murder, @RepLoudermilk? Why or why not?— Eric Owens (@Eric Owens) 1649343784
So they are just regurgitating their talking point about guns. if we ban guns, bad people will still get them.— David Tokash (@David Tokash) 1649345974
