Jump to content

OT: crooked politicians


bholder

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Strange how all of you right wingers that were going apoplectic about that "dirty Democrat" Jefferson and his cash in the freezer trick have neglected to mention a few things like the following:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/30/lawmaker.raid.ap/index.html

 

I think all of the crooked politicos ought to be flushed, personally, regardless of party, but there's been a lot more Republicans caught on ethics violations than Democrats in the last 6 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you misunderstand -

 

Most right wingers want limited govt., and less govt. influence in everything. More govt. leads to more power, and power corrupts.:idea:

 

Besides, Nancy and Harry promised the most ethical congress EVAR. Look how that's working out -

 

From Captain's Quarters blog - Senate Ethics Bill Falls Short

 

The Senate has agreed on the language of its ethics bill, and the 107-page behemoth will move to the floor shortly. According to sources on Capitol Hill, the bill signals a retreat on earmark reform in several ways. Section 521 has had the following changes made since its initial adoption in January:

 

1. The new bill allows the Majority Leader, not the Senate parliamentarian, to unilaterally decide whether or not a bill or conference report complies with the earmark disclosure requirements. In other words, Harry Reid makes the decision whether legislation he brings to the floor complies with the new standard. How ... convenient.

 

2. The new bill eliminates the requirement that earmark lists be searchable. It's easier to hide in a crowd, isn't it?

 

3. The original version prohibited the inclusion of earmarks that benefitted its sponsor Now that prohibition has been restricted to earmarks that only benefit its sponsor -- which means that an earmark that raises the value of a member's property is OK if it raises someone else's property value, too. It makes the prohibition almost meaningless.

 

So much for the reform Democrats promised in 2006. They can't even deliver what they promised in January.

 

UPDATE & BUMP: Lots of reaction now to this news. NZ Bear has posted the text to the bill. Mark Tapscott has a chart up of the changes, and comments:

 

Some of my Senate sources have gotten a copy of the 107 page "ethics and earmark reform" bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

 

What they are finding in it confirms what I've suspected for months - Reid and Pelosi are for the most gutting concrete earmark and ethics reform while preserving just enough of the appearance of reform to be able to claim to have fulfilled their 2006 campaign promises.

 

Only to those who pay no attention to the issue ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...


Most right wingers want limited govt., and less govt. influence in everything. More govt. leads to more power, and power corrupts.
:idea:
....

 

Funny that you say this, because no recent Republican Congress or Administration has demonstrated any interest in limited government. I agree that power corrupts, though, and I think this is a perfect example of that. Republicans in the last 3 decades have attempted, and often succeeded, in gathering more and more power to themselves, and increasing government power and intrusion into the everyday lives of normal citizens. Their behavior is the absolute antithesis of what right wingers claim they want in government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I Smell a troll

 

 

I can see how you might think that, seeing this thread without having read all of the earlier ones I'm referring to. I believe the folks who have been here a while understand where I'm coming from - the Jefferson fall from grace was gloated over in dozens of posts in many different threads by the right wingers of the forum, yet they make nary a peep when one of their own gets caught (which happens quite a bit more often, actually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I can see how you might think that, seeing this thread without having read all of the earlier ones I'm referring to. I believe the folks who have been here a while understand where I'm coming from - the Jefferson fall from grace was gloated over in dozens of posts in many different threads by the right wingers of the forum, yet they make nary a peep when one of their own gets caught (which happens quite a bit more often, actually).

 

 

My Bad

Maybe I was judging you from your avatar also:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't think either major party has a monopoly on stupid. It's one of the few things they have in common.

 

 

Agreed, but when you look at ethics violations over the last several years, it's quite lopsided.

 

I think there should be far stiffer penalties for crooked politicians, and I think they should be applied fairly and evenly regardless of affiliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But you're railing against Republicans and ignoring the wildly unethical content of Lurker's post. Wonder why that is?
:confused:
C7

 

If the content is wildly unethical, we should dismiss it and give thelurker a stern talking to about posting ethical content.

 

:thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Funny that you say this, because no recent Republican Congress or Administration has demonstrated any interest in limited government.... Their behavior is the absolute antithesis of what right wingers claim they want in government.

 

Agreed. Most Reps want less gov't INTERFERENCE, and you have to read "taxes" and "red tape," whatever, into that statement. They don't want the govt to bother them. However, when the Reps are in power (just a couple of years ago), we see little or no effort to reduce the govt size, payroll, etc. In fact, we tend to see an increase. You KNOW that Dems will raise taxes to give more of your money away to other people, but you would like to think that the Reps have a different plan...but, no, they don't. Congressmen are congressmen, no matter the label.

 

Whatever happened to Clinton's plan to allow people to remain on welfare for 36 months only? (Or whatever the number) How much money have we saved so far? How many people have been removed from the welfare rolls so far? :freak: On the other hand, how many pay raises has Congress given itself?

 

The older I get, the less I like "party politics" of any sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whatever happened to Clinton's plan to allow people to remain on welfare for 36 months only? (Or whatever the number) How much money have we saved so far? How many people have been removed from the welfare rolls so far?
:freak:
On the other hand, how many pay raises has Congress given itself?


The older I get, the less I like "party politics" of any sort.

 

You make a valid point. Nothing has really changed, in fact the welfare system has probably gotten worse since Clinton's plan. If you look at the people who went off welfare, they were better on welfare, then off. As for the recent republican congress, I dont know a whole lot about it, but from what ive seen it wasnt too good. If you look at the current congress, its not much better. They are already making lousy decisions, and telling lies. Either way you look at it, your not gonna have a balanced government. Regardless, they all make terrible decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You make a valid point. Nothing has really changed, in fact the welfare system has probably gotten worse since Clinton's plan. If you look at the people who went off welfare, they were better on welfare, then off. As for the recent republican congress, I dont know a whole lot about it, but from what ive seen it wasnt too good. If you look at the current congress, its not much better. They are already making lousy decisions, and telling lies. Either way you look at it, your not gonna have a balanced government. Regardless, they all make terrible decisions.

 

 

 

Actually, by the numbers, most Americans believe the current Congress is quite a bit worse than the last. 14% is not a good approval number, no matter what you do.

 

The fact is, once in Washington, it's very hard to make even common sense changes to the govt., the budget, existing programs, etc. Bholder (and not just him, mind you) would have been screaming bloody murder if real changes had been made. It is difficult to fight the entrenched entitlement bureaucracy, and every other bureaucracy. Add to that bloated govt. payrolls (when was the last time you went to a govt. office and left happy because of the prompt, courteous service?), and the idea that most Congress members have their staffers reading the legislation for them, it's a joke. Here's a couple "new ideas" that would go a long way towards improving the chances of fixing govt.

 

- Congress doesn't get paid until the rest of the bills get paid. Run a deficit? So sorry, your legislatin' for free this year!

 

- Congress shall enact no law which does not apply to itself. No member of congress, nor their staff, IIRC, pay income tax. When that law was written, the argument was "Congress needs to be immune from the tax, so that their own personal circumstances do not affect their votes". Hah. If you don't have a stake, you shouldn't be voting.

 

 

As for "Clinton's plan", it wasn't his, it was the republican congress that pushed it through three different times before he signed it. He tried to avoid it. And what on earth makes you say people were better on welfare than off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

(when was the last time you went to a govt. office and left happy because of the prompt, courteous service?)

 

 

 

Well, spend a lunch hour with B-Bottom and he might change your mind! ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*backs quietly out of thread*

 

 

:wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...