The U.S. is in a road which can ONLY end in eventual despotism......

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The evidence doesn't appear to bear this conclusion out. Perhaps you're letting your own prejudices cloud your judgement on this point.

Not at all. Bring out the evidence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for the moron part... well... he's making tons of money... you're not... connect the dots

So, Sava, what you are saying is that Rush Limbaugh is a genius?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Not at all. Bring out the evidence.

Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?

[HershOstropoler]

cyclotron7:

"Surely, somebody as seemingly intelligent as you doesn't think Fox News is my only source of information..."

Doesn't matter. What are your sources? CNN is not much different.

Tell me more about that european corruption.

"Sheesh, I thought you were talking about the recent corporate collapses here."

They are just a symptom of a broader problem.

"Unless you consider campaign contributions to be generally corruption (in which case, you don't have a clue what corruption is)"

Campaign contributions, no. Contributions that result in specific favours is corruption. And I know the term I'm using. (just in case, spare me the argument by dictionary)

"I don't see why it is immoral for them to give money, just like I do, to the candidate that stands for what they stand for."

No problem, but that's now how it works. The candidate stands for what the contributors pay for.

"Oh, I forgot, all business is evil."

Not at all. My economic views are not leftist, if that is what you imply. I consider Alan Greenspan a goddamn pinko commie who's gone completely gaga, so much for my leftism.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?

"econometric analysis" ???

You don't expect me to take that seriously, do you.

If you genuinely do, I'll check that crappola.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
You don't expect me to take that seriously, do you.

You don't have to if you don't care too. You could just provide me with something concrete to support your hyperbole wrt the "the whole campaign financing system" of the US.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Doesn't matter. What are your sources? CNN is not much different.

Most of my news gathering is done via newspaper and careful internet searching. I watch very little TV.

Tell me more about that european corruption.

Ok, here's something else. Italy's PM is being tried on corruption charges.

They are just a symptom of a broader problem.

Perhaps, but it's not a governmental problem. Enron, Worldcom, and other scandals have nothing to do with the government or government corruption.

No problem, but that's now how it works. The candidate stands for what the contributors pay for.

Word games. Obviously, the candidate will say what people want him to say, because the job of a politician is to represent constituents. The companies pay for what the candidate stands for. Corporations are the backbone of the American economy and are vital to the nation; it's obvious to any politician that American business interests need to be protected and businesses contribute to the candidate that does so.

The only way your point makes sense is if you are against all private funding of government. Otherwise, it just looks like you're attacking corporation for no reason. What you describe is not corruption; and yet you conveniently overlook the corruption charges against the very heads of such European nations as France and Italy.

[Al B. Sure!]

is anyone shocked by this coming from a communist?

As for the moron part... well... he's making tons of money... you're not... connect the dots.

saying someone is good because they are making money...

[HershOstropoler]

DD:

Well I could list a lot of sources from say http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp or http://www.opensecrets.org/

What's the point of your study? Econometrics is useless in economics, it's even more useless in politics. Is it the old "there's trillions in public funds, but just billions in bribes" argument?

cyclotron7:

"Most of my news gathering is done via newspaper and careful internet searching. I watch very little TV."

That's much better. How many non-US sources?

"Ok, here's something else. Italy's PM is being tried on corruption charges."

Yes, and Berlusconi, just as Chirac, is a corrupt pig. Berlusconi is being prosecuted, Chirac will be prosecuted after his term ends.

How many bigheads get prosecuted for corruption in the US? Even for lower Members of Congress, it's rare. If Berlusconi and Chirac were US politicians, they would have sucked money for legislative and administrative favours legally, safe from any prosecution - but they would still be the same corrupt pigs.

Of course you can conclude that the absence of prosecution means there's no crime. Just as the Breshnevs were never prosecuted for corruption in the old USSR.

"Perhaps, but it's not a governmental problem. Enron, Worldcom, and other scandals have nothing to do with the government or government corruption."

Now that's hopelessly naive. First Enron, Anderson etc were heavy donors. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/enron/index.asp
Second, there is a revolving door between the SEC and the corps, as between the boardroom and politics. Third, the whole fun and games is also heavily related to the big wall street firms, like Goldman Sachs (and bond trader Rubin was a key player in engineering financial bailouts). This swamp breeds legislation with little teeth, and enforcement that is just a token joke. The slap on the wrist for the wall street firms in the recent settlements is a sick joke, however.

"The companies pay for what the candidate stands for."

The issue is, how specific is the quid pro quo. If companies eg lobby for less free trade, fine. If they pay for having anti-dumping fines imposed on a foreign competitor, it is corrupt.

Or if a company says: Here's 10 million, lift the restriction in the wild reserve X for me. How's that different from going to the city clerk with here's 10.000, give me the building permit I want.

"The only way your point makes sense is if you are against all private funding of government. Otherwise, it just looks like you're attacking corporation for no reason."

Look, it is pointless to try to put ideas into my mouth that stem from the US political sides of the issue. On some issues I'm far right of your Reps, on others far to the left of your Dems. Why do you think this is an anti-corporation argument? They, just as every special interest group, are just taking advantage of a rotten system - stupid would the be, if they didn't.

Also, I'm against the placebos a la McCain. Lift all limits on the amounts of contributions.

"What you describe is not corruption"

So what is it then? Special interest whoring? Cronyism?

"and yet you conveniently overlook the corruption charges against the very heads of such European nations as France and Italy."

How do I overlook them? See above. But what's the point of you raising them?

[Whaleboy]

I think we see a general consenses from all but those mesmerised by the flag that the US is showing signs of backpedalling from the grand principles of civil and political freedoms for which it once stood.

As I said earlier, I feel this is a short-term thing, relatively at least, perhaps it will last 50 years or so, at most. Its a boom/bust thing, but the general trend over centuries will be a society that will edge towards more liberty, and more freedoms. We should do all we can to encourage this now, and actively dissent against those who would deny freedoms to their people, while dressed in the flag. I sincerely hope and believe that the American people will wake up to this, and view those who are doing this now in power, in the way that history will surely inevitably view them... as selfish, criminal stains on the sheet of human history.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think we see a general consenses from all but those mesmerised by the flag that the US is showing signs of backpedalling from the grand principles of civil and political freedoms for which it once stood.

so this general consenses is based on the opinions of pseudo-marxists and europeans?

[DinoDoc]

Roland: I don't think you understand the meaning of the word corruption at all.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
DD:
That's much better. How many non-US sources?

Hmmm, well, I don't usually look for a certain source country when searching news on the internet, though obviously my newpapers are in the US.

Of course you can conclude that the absence of prosecution means there's no crime. Just as the Breshnevs were never prosecuted for corruption in the old USSR.

So, because our politicians are under no suspicion of corruption, they must then be corrupt in a corrupt system.

Our courts are just as willing and eager to prosecute corruption. Consider recent pseudo-scandals, from Clinton to Gore to Bush, where even the slightest hint of irregular fundraising caused an uproar. I'm dissapointed that your best argument that we are corrupt is that we aren't being charged with it, so we must be.

Now that's hopelessly naive. First Enron, Anderson etc were heavy donors.

Which means nothing. All companies donate, that does not mean that all corporate fraud/crime has something to do with the government. The collapse of such companies has nothing to do with government action or campaign conributions.

Look, it is pointless to try to put ideas into my mouth that stem from the US political sides of the issue. On some issues I'm far right of your Reps, on others far to the left of your Dems. Why do you think this is an anti-corporation argument? They, just as every special interest group, are just taking advantage of a rotten system - stupid would the be, if they didn't.

Because I find it odd that you attack corporations exclusively, instead of the entire system of contributions. If contributions really are corruption, why are you singling out corporations only? I'm not trying to paint you wil any broad political brush. It just seems obvious to me that your argument is anti-business for no good reason.

So what is it then? Special interest whoring? Cronyism?

Free expression in a healthy, democratic society.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Roland: I don't think you understand the meaning of the word corruption at all.

Who is Roland?

[Chris 62]

Hersh is Roland.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Roland: I don't think you understand the meaning of the word corruption at all.

I already stated that "arguments" about definitions are fruitless. But if you insist on argument by dictionary, well,what does it mean (dictionary.com)?

corruption

1. The act of corrupting or making putrid, or state of being corrupt or putrid; decomposition or disorganization, in the process of putrefaction; putrefaction; deterioration.

The inducing and accelerating of putrefaction is a subject of very universal inquiry; for corruption is a reciprocal to ``generation''. --Bacon.

2. The product of corruption; putrid matter.

3. The act of corrupting or of impairing integrity, virtue, or moral principle; the state of being corrupted or debased; loss of purity or integrity; depravity; wickedness; impurity; bribery.

It was necessary, by exposing the gross corruptions of monasteries, . . . to exite popular indignation against them. --Hallam.

They abstained from some of the worst methods of corruption usual to their party in its earlier days. --Bancroft.

Note: Corruption, when applied to officers, trustees, etc., signifies the inducing a violation of duty by means of pecuniary considerations. --Abbott.

4. The act of changing, or of being changed, for the worse; departure from what is pure, simple, or correct; as, a corruption of style; corruption in language.

Corruption of blood (Law), taint or impurity of blood, in consequence of an act of attainder of treason or felony, by which a person is disabled from inheriting any estate or from transmitting it to others.

Corruption of blood can be removed only by act of Parliament. --Blackstone.

Syn: Putrescence; putrefaction; defilement; contamination; deprivation; debasement; adulteration; depravity; taint. See Depravity.

corruption

n 1: lack of integrity or honesty; esp susceptibility to bribery; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain [syn: corruptness] [ant: incorruptness] 2: in a state of progressive putrefaction [syn: putrescence, putridness, rottenness] 3: decay of matter (as by rot or oxidation) 4: moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles: "the luxury and corruption among the upper classes"; "moral degeneracy followed intellectual degeneration"; "its brothels; its opium parlors; its depravity" [syn: degeneracy, depravity] 5: destroying someone's honesty or loyalty or moral integrity: "corruption of a minor"

cor·rupt
Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
Archaic. Tainted; putrid.

v. cor·rupt·ed, cor·rupt·ing, cor·rupts
v. tr.
To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
To ruin morally; pervert.
To taint; contaminate.
To cause to become rotten; spoil.
To change the original form of (a text, for example).
Computer Science. To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.

v. intr.
To become corrupt.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere, to destroy : com-, intensive pref.; see com- + rumpere, to break; see reup- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cor·rupter or cor·ruptor n.
cor·ruptive adj.
cor·ruptly adv.
cor·ruptness n.
Synonyms: corrupt, debase, debauch, deprave, pervert, vitiate
These verbs mean to ruin utterly in character or quality: was corrupted by limitless power; debased himself by pleading with the captors; a youth debauched by drugs and drink; indulgence that depraves the moral fiber; perverted her talent by putting it to evil purposes; a proof vitiated by a serious omission.

Pretty broad meaning, hmm? So what is your problem?

[Chris 62]

So, what does it mean?

[HershOstropoler]

cyclotron7:

"So, because our politicians are under no suspicion of corruption, they must then be corrupt in a corrupt system.... I'm dissapointed that your best argument that we are corrupt is that we aren't being charged with it, so we must be."

Pretty pathetic attempt at a strawman. I said lack of prosecution does not prove lack of corruption; you twist it to mean I said lack of prosecution is evidence or proof of corruption.

"Consider recent pseudo-scandals, from Clinton to Gore to Bush, where even the slightest hint of irregular fundraising caused an uproar."

It causes a little noise, at worst. Was there a prosecution against Clinton, apart from the fuss about getting a blowjob? Ah yes, whitewater - a speculation gone wrong. Where was the political connection there?

"The collapse of such companies has nothing to do with government action or campaign conributions."

You blissfully ignored the rest of the point.

"Because I find it odd that you attack corporations exclusively, instead of the entire system of contributions."

Where did I exclude others? I explicitly included all special interests. But if it makes you happy, american Unions are just as happy in participating in the corruption.

"If contributions really are corruption"

I qualified under which circumstances contributions are considered corruption by me. Please read completely.

"It just seems obvious to me that your argument is anti-business for no good reason."

First, I said "They, just as every special interest group, are just taking advantage of a rotten system - stupid would the be, if they didn't."

Second, since when do corporations equal business?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Pretty broad meaning, hmm? So what is your problem?

That you've provided nothing of import to support your facetious hyperbole. Your whole contention rests on people buying your hysterical supposition that bribery is systemic throughout the system.

[Chris 62]

"facetious hyperbole"

There's a line you don't hear everyday.

[HershOstropoler]

Oh, it's bribery in a rather broad sense, hence my using of the broad term corruption. Now you're trying to imprint your obviously limited understanding on my comments.

But why do I still wonder that debates with rightwingers always center around accusations of anti-american bias, claims of correct definitions and strawmen by the shitload.

Well actually, I don't.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Pretty pathetic attempt at a strawman. I said lack of prosecution does not prove lack of corruption; you twist it to mean I said lack of prosecution is evidence or proof of corruption.

You are the one accusing us of corruption. Without actual court accusations and convictions, the burden of proof lies solely on your shoulders. True, lack of prosecution does not prove lack of corruptionb, but it's a pretty good indicator and so far you have not offered any other proof that we are corrupt.

It causes a little noise, at worst. Was there a prosecution against Clinton, apart from the fuss about getting a blowjob? Ah yes, whitewater - a speculation gone wrong. Where was the political connection there?

It causes only a little noise because it's not corruption. It usually turns out, after an investigation, that there was no wrongdoing.

You blissfully ignored the rest of the point.

That's because it's irrelvant. Please make an effort to understand what corruption means.

Where did I exclude others? I explicitly included all special interests. But if it makes you happy, american Unions are just as happy in participating in the corruption.

What about individual people? Does my personal contribution constitute corruption?

I'd love to debate this meaningfully, but you have yet to bring any proof that we are in any way a corrupt system. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Oh, it's bribery in a rather broad sense,

Aren't we stretching the term to the point of irrelevence?

Well actually, I don't.

They get tired of being ignored when they make the attempt to provide real sources.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
But why do I still wonder that debates with rightwingers always center around accusations of anti-american bias, claims of correct definitions and strawmen by the shitload.

I can answer that, having had many with you.

You never provide fact, always cloud your postions, and base your entire postion on innuedo and suppositions.

[HershOstropoler]

"Please make an effort to understand what corruption means."

Please make an effort to see that it is pointless to argue about the meaning of a term. Definitions are never right or wrong, they are just useful or useless. For communication purposes it helps when they are common - I can't get more common than the dictionary.

What is your problem? Limiting corruption to how it is defined in criminal law?

[Ned]

HO, on Clinton, you know the impeachment was not about Monica Lewinsky. So why to you suggest it was?

On corruption, the problem of money influencing government actions truly is a problem. The problem seems to be a lot worse where those in power cannot lose power through democratic means.

The true solution to corruption, therefor, is a vigorous democracy. Where those in power begin selling favors, those out of power can denounce it and be voted in to "throw the scoundrels out." (That is an old saying in the US.)

Right now, we have very equal balance between the Repubicans and Democrats in the US, with the Republicans holding a slight edge for the first time is almost 60 years. This is not the kind of enviroment that fosters corruption. Rather, it is the kind of environment that prevents it.

[HershOstropoler]

Ned:

"HO, on Clinton, you know the impeachment was not about Monica Lewinsky. So why to you suggest it was?"

Well you are correct, formally it wasn't. However his conduct was related to that bizarre affair, and the given reasons were a pretext for most. But who cares, Clinton should have resigned on day 1 of that farce if he had had any decency.

"On corruption, the problem of money influencing government actions truly is a problem... The true solution to corruption, therefor, is a vigorous democracy. Where those in power begin selling favors, those out of power can denounce it and be voted in to "throw the scoundrels out.""

You may find this is odd, but I agree 100 % on that.

"Right now, we have very equal balance between the Repubicans and Democrats in the US, with the Republicans holding a slight edge for the first time is almost 60 years. This is not the kind of enviroment that fosters corruption. Rather, it is the kind of environment that prevents it."

Here I don't agree. Both parties are corrupt, and both parties are permanently more or less in power - so there is no clear destinction between an opposition and the government. Second, US voters show extremely little inclination to push out incumbents, especially if they can outspend the challenger. Usually you have to kill someone (or at least get a reasonable suspicion on you) to be forced out.

The environment does foster corruption unless there emerges an actual opposition, and at the moment that could only be a third party. But then, there are severe structural impediments to the success of third parties in the US.

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps this thread would have been better as a poll: "Is the US on a road ...etc"

[Ned]

HO, I'll think on your post. But, if two equally powerful parties cannot prevent corruption, I am not sure adding a third to mix will automatically fix things.

As to incumbants, the you have to recognize that power in legislatures goes to the majority. Thus it is important to periodically change majorities to reduce corruption.

In the Executive, we truly have a balance in the US. We seem to be alternating between Republicans and Democrats at both the Federal and State level.

But, as you said, if the guy in charge, regardless of party, requires his kickback before he acts, having two corrupt parties is not a solution.

[HershOstropoler]

Ned, the problem is that you have a permanent coalition government of Republicans and Democrats. Even if one party has the President, the House and the Senate with 51-59 Senators, the other party is still "in government", especially with the lack of party discipline. It also means that no one is really responsible for anything - that's the downside of gridlock.

Similar permacoalitions exist in Germany and the EU; and they are detrimental to good governance there too.

"I am not sure adding a third to mix will automatically fix things."

Not a fix, but it helps immensely in controlling the problem. When we had a coalition of the two big parties from 1987-1999, we gradually cut them from 95 to 60 % of the vote, until they cried uncle. Without that, they would have pulled so much more ****, I don't even want to imagine.