PDA

View Full Version : Interesting observation



pooltchr
01-12-2006, 05:58 AM
I hears someone on the radio last night suggest that whichever party is in the majority is the one that will be likely to be dealing with corruption within the party. His theory is that if someone is going to attempt to bribe a politician, it is reasonable to expect they will go where they can expect the most return. That will always be the majority party since they have the most power. So having more power presents more opportunity for corruption. Looking back over time, it seems to be a valid concept. When the Dems held the majority, we saw much the same with their party that we are getting from some Republicans now. I guess power really does corrupt.
He also pointed out that our representatives really are representative of the population in general...that there are good and bad in the private sector and elected officials are pretty much just a snapshot of society.

So here's the question: Is is possible to give anyone the kind of power and authority we give to elected officials and not expect that some of them are not going to fall victim to the temptation that goes with the office?

Steve

eg8r
01-12-2006, 06:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So here's the question: Is is possible to give anyone the kind of power and authority we give to elected officials and not expect that some of them are not going to fall victim to the temptation that goes with the office?
<hr /></blockquote> Yes, I do believe it is possible. It will definitely not be the norm however.

Based on the observation that you posted, I think there is one point that is being missed. If you are going to report a scandal wouldn't you report the one that makes the most noise. Meaning, there is less (I did not say none) probing into the lives of those in the minority than those in the majority. Whoever has the spotlight will get the most attention, good and bad. Case in point, you have heard very little about the Dems that have been bought by Abramhoff (sp?). He bought off plenty of Dems but they are not in the spotlight right now, so it looks like a Rep scandal when actually it is just a generic political scandal, all parties involved.

I don't believe for one second that the majority is more corrupt than the minority, I truly believe they are close to equally corrupt.

eg8r

JPB
01-12-2006, 08:55 AM
It is no guarantee, and the senate used to be corrupt anyway, but I thnk the best way to try to fight some of this is to go back to the proper way to pick the senate. The senate isn't supposed to be elected by the people, the state legislatures should pick the senators. This means that there is a body of people who owe their allegiance to states and state legislatures, not the booboisie. The house is supposed to be a bunch of spendthrift corrupt provincial jackasses. They pass legislation to spend money and have big projects in their districts, and the senate is supposed to kill it. No compromise committees, etc... The constitutional amendment requiring the direct election of senators has been a disaster IMO. If senators didn't have to run a big pander campaign to the people, they wouldn't have to raise funds. So lobbyists would have less influence. They would also have a smaller group of people to make happy, which ideally would make them a bit more responsible. Probably too late for that though.

This latest scandal looks bad is will hurt the republicans. As it should. The problem though is that both parties are so entrenced in the bureaucratic kleptocracy that I think things will just get worse no matter what in the short and medium term. There is hope in the long term tho.

nAz
01-12-2006, 09:22 AM
Wow I can honestly say that I agree with all three of the previous posters... is the world coming to an end?

You know the Republicans deserve to get bashed but good. they did come in saying they would clean house and give goverment back to the people or something to that effect.

Drop1
01-12-2006, 11:47 AM
They should put out a list,of Democrats,and Republicans that have taken money,and lets call them crooks. The world has been coming to an end,as long as I can remember.

Gayle in MD
01-12-2006, 03:13 PM
True Campaign Reform, government financed, yes, it would be better for all in the long run, with one government cable channel, no more lobbying, no bills hidden inside other bills, one bill at a time, no middle of the night voting on bills that are thousands of pages long. AND absolutely no donations, corporate or otherwise. As long as our representatives have to rely on donations, they will have to give back favors and promises in return.

Gayle in Md.

JPB
01-12-2006, 03:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> True Campaign Reform, government financed, yes, it would be better for all in the long run, with one government cable channel, no more lobbying, no bills hidden inside other bills, one bill at a time, no middle of the night voting on bills that are thousands of pages long. AND absolutely no donations, corporate or otherwise. As long as our representatives have to rely on donations, they will have to give back favors and promises in return.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>


Many of these proposals would make things much worse. There should be only one rule of campaign finance- absolute disclosure. Failure to disclose should be dealt with harshly. I am totally against curtailing free speech in campaigns, and regardless of the rotten supreme court decision on campaign finance reform, the current laws are unconstitutional IMO. I don't want it government financed because I already pay way too much in ttaxes, and I don't want my money going to candidates I don't support. Having one government channel sounds way too much like what is happening in SRussia or the middle east. no thanks. As bad as the problems we have are, things could be worse, and IMO would get worse with many of these proposals. I think the best way to do things is to have very few rules, but some actual standards. Voters have low standards and are wanting to steal from fellow citizens to fund their pet project. Our politicians reflect that. But at least some control can be exercised when they are accountable with a free press and free elections. Government funded elections are not, by definition, completely free.

heater451
01-12-2006, 04:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr>The senate isn't supposed to be elected by the people, the state legislatures should pick the senators. This means that there is a body of people who owe their allegiance to states and state legislatures, not the booboisie. . . .If senators didn't have to run a big pander campaign to the people, they wouldn't have to raise funds. So lobbyists would have less influence. They would also have a smaller group of people to make happy, which ideally would make them a bit more responsible. Probably too late for that though.<hr /></blockquote>Do you think this would also empower the state governments against the Fed, allowing them to make decisions that would better serve their citizens at their level?



===========================

JPB
01-12-2006, 05:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr>The senate isn't supposed to be elected by the people, the state legislatures should pick the senators. This means that there is a body of people who owe their allegiance to states and state legislatures, not the booboisie. . . .If senators didn't have to run a big pander campaign to the people, they wouldn't have to raise funds. So lobbyists would have less influence. They would also have a smaller group of people to make happy, which ideally would make them a bit more responsible. Probably too late for that though.<hr /></blockquote>Do you think this would also empower the state governments against the Fed, allowing them to make decisions that would better serve their citizens at their level?



=========================== <hr /></blockquote>

Yes. A few years back the senator from our state made a big push to limit unfunded mandates on the states. But it didn't do all that much. But if all 100 senators owed their job to the legislature in their state, how many unfunded mandates do you think there would be?

Chopstick
01-12-2006, 05:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Wow I can honestly say that I agree with all three of the previous posters... is the world coming to an end?

You know the Republicans deserve to get bashed but good. they did come in saying they would clean house and give goverment back to the people or something to that effect. <font color="blue">And you're mad at them because you believed them? </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

nAz
01-12-2006, 05:26 PM
yes sir i bought into it, i was actually goose stepping along side thiem /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
01-12-2006, 10:49 PM
BWA HA HA HA...got me again Naz. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
01-12-2006, 11:06 PM
Hey, I'm against curtailing free speech too. As long as private money is the lifeline for election and re-election, there will be corruption, period. And as long as they can hide their favors (Earmarks) inside other bills, they will be paying off their contributors.

Gayle in Md.

JPB
01-13-2006, 09:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hey, I'm against curtailing free speech too. As long as private money is the lifeline for election and re-election, there will be corruption, period. And as long as they can hide their favors (Earmarks) inside other bills, they will be paying off their contributors.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

You cannot separate speech and money. This is why the internet is wonderful. Talk is cheap. You can get a message to millions cheap. Curtailing spending ends free speech.

Gayle in MD
01-13-2006, 09:36 AM
lol,I never thought of it that way...so does this mean that free speech is an oxymoron.....

Gayle in Md.