Bribery in the US governmnt

[ZenMaster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L8Gtovi740

How does it make you feel that votes in congress are decided this way?

[russwest0]

lol @ that youtube channel trying to make it about one party being corrupt

I hate people like that

[ZenMaster]

lol @ that youtube channel trying to make it about one party being corrupt

I hate people like that

So the propaganda battle between democrats and republicans is more important than the fact that the modern political system set in place for decision making is built on legalized bribery?

[Dresta]

That's just what happens if you grant the state the power to grant favours to particular groups and individuals under the democratic form of governance. You cannot have democracy without political bribery and governance controlled by vested interests if you don't adhere to the principle of equality before the law. It is inevitable.

[Derka]

This is shocking and amazing.

[MavsSuperFan]

Thats just how american politics works. Its true for both parties.
It sucks and its why despite demographic shifts america is still a very economically conservative country and will probably be so for the foreseeable future. Also its why the gay rights movement has gained so much ground. (rich gays)

Votes arent as important as money. many studies have shown that the best predictor of policy outcomes in america is which side has more money behind it.

Its not even about the campaign donations though. A much bigger problem is the future employment prospects as a lobbyist and speech maker. Eg. a politician votes to deregulate the financial industry or to limit the import of canadian drugs or to extend patent protection on drugs.

That politician later gets paid 250k per speech at AIG and at big pharmaceutical conferences, etc. Maybe they become a lobbyist/board member making millions.

Maybe their spouse or kid gets hired, etc.

Eg, senator evan bahy's wife getting on the board of directors of a pharmaceutical company. Basically a totally unqualified woman got paid millions because of her husbands support of the pharmaceutical industry.

[ZenMaster]

That's just what happens if you grant the state the power to grant favours to particular groups and individuals under the democratic form of governance. You cannot have democracy without political bribery and governance controlled by vested interests if you don't adhere to the principle of equality before the law. It is inevitable.

That's true, but you can at least make it illegal while making an effort to find out about it.

Letting companies bribe politicians while at the same time letting them move money around in tax saving schemes is going to have massive negative effects for the majority of people in whatever future that's relevant to you and me.

[MavsSuperFan]

That's true, but you can at least make it illegal while making an effort to find out about it.

Letting companies bribe politicians while at the same time letting them move money around in tax saving schemes is going to have massive negative effects for the majority of people in whatever future that's relevant to you and me.

how do you stop people from working after their congressional career?

Eg. I vote pro fracking, I vote against regulations.


I lose/retire from congress

I take a position on the board of directors for 2 million a year at a big corporation. How do you stop this?

[highwhey]

how do you stop people from working after their congressional career?

Eg. I vote pro fracking, I vote against regulations.


I lose/retire from congress

I take a position on the board of directors for 2 million a year at a big corporation. How do you stop this?

It really is a shame. The ex communications lobbyist now appointed chairman of FCC is a prime example.

[Akrazotile]

That's true, but you can at least make it illegal while making an effort to find out about it.

Letting companies bribe politicians while at the same time letting them move money around in tax saving schemes is going to have massive negative effects for the majority of people in whatever future that's relevant to you and me.

The lobby system is tough bc if you dont allow anyone to contribute to campaigns, only the people who can afford to run the best campaigns (ie wealthiest people) will ever get into office.

If you do let politicians accept contributions, then youre opening the door for corrupting influences.


Its a fact of life but the best way to counter it is to have an active populace who is vocal about what issues they support and lets the representative know that if you vote against our wishes and in favor of money, you wont have a job next term. Politicis has revolved around money for all of human existence, voting is the best attempt at an equalizer but the reality is, MOST americans dont pay attention or care. On this website theres hundreds of active members, and only about the same dozen or so that ever have any interest in discussing this stuff.

The ivgorance and apathy of the majority is like a red carpet for corruption. And instead of getting in the face of the lazy public who allows it to happen, most people only blame the politicians, the corporations, the republicans, the media, the wealthy, the blah, blah, blah. Nobody EVER points out that we have a country FULL of ordinary people who arent accountable. Bc awww, how can you pick on little joe shmoeee, thats so meannnn. Blame the stupid rich people! And george bush! And the corporations! YEAHHH!!! Get the torches and lets go!!!!


It is what it is. People at the top stay greedy, people at the bottom stay complacent, people in the middle stay way too soft. And around and around it goes.

[highwhey]

Or even worse, a former FCC official who is now the head of a very large wireless lobbying group. Months after she voted in favor of the Comcast and Time Warner merger she moves up the ranks rather fast and gets a sweet job as head of a lobbyist group. THERE IS NO WAY CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

[ZenMaster]

The lobby system is tough bc if you dont allow anyone to contribute to campaigns, only the people who can afford to run the best campaigns (ie wealthiest people) will ever get into office.

If you do let politicians accept contributions, then youre opening the door for corrupting influences.


Its a fact of life but the best way to counter it is to have an active populace who is vocal about what issues they support and lets the representative know that if you vote against our wishes and in favor of money, you wont have a job next term. Politicis has revolved around money for all of human existence, voting is the best attempt at an equalizer but the reality is, MOST americans dont pay attention or care. On this website theres hundreds of active members, and only about the same dozen or so that ever have any interest in discussing this stuff.

The ivgorance and apathy of the majority is like a red carpet for corruption. And instead of getting in the face of the lazy public who allows it to happen, most people only blame the politicians, the corporations, the republicans, the media, the wealthy, the blah, blah, blah. Nobody EVER points out that we have a country FULL of ordinary people who arent accountable. Bc awww, how can you pick on little joe shmoeee, thats so meannnn. Blame the stupid rich people! And george bush! And the corporations! YEAHHH!!! Get the torches and lets go!!!!


It is what it is. People at the top stay greedy, people at the bottom stay complacent, people in the middle stay way too soft. And around and around it goes.

If you taxed companies properly you could take some of that money and give it to somebody who was serious about campaigning but couldn't afford it.

[Akrazotile]

If you taxed companies properly you could take some of that money and give it to somebody who was serious about campaigning but couldn't afford it.

We're going to have the government distribute campaign funds?

[Dresta]

Thats just how american politics works. Its true for both parties.
It sucks and its why despite demographic shifts america is still a very economically conservative country and will probably be so for the foreseeable future. Also its why the gay rights movement has gained so much ground. (rich gays)

Votes arent as important as money. many studies have shown that the best predictor of policy outcomes in america is which side has more money behind it.

Its not even about the campaign donations though. A much bigger problem is the future employment prospects as a lobbyist and speech maker. Eg. a politician votes to deregulate the financial industry or to limit the import of canadian drugs or to extend patent protection on drugs.

That politician later gets paid 250k per speech at AIG and at big pharmaceutical conferences, etc. Maybe they become a lobbyist/board member making millions.

Maybe their spouse or kid gets hired, etc.

Eg, senator evan bahy's wife getting on the board of directors of a pharmaceutical company. Basically a totally unqualified woman got paid millions because of her husbands support of the pharmaceutical industry.

The government spending 40% of GDP and printing money like Mugabe = economically conservative? You are a truly ignorant fellow.

If you're earning a good salary these days you'll be lucky to take back half of it = economically conservative.

A conservative economic policy would use government power to protect established wealth, but the government took the side of the labour unions long ago already now, and allowed them to use intimidatory and coercive tactics to achieve their ends. A liberal (true liberal that is) would pursue an economic policy where the state remains neutral in disputes and seeks only to enforce EQUAL rules of conduct and equality before the law. A socialist economic policy seeks to actively redistribute wealth through administrative centralisation and confiscation of wealth by force and threat of punishment. Both conservative and socialist economic doctrines require a strong central power (they have a lot in common really), whereas a liberal economic doctrine doesn't require such a concentration of power, in fact it seeks to limit it as much as possible knowing that nearly all the serious damage caused in the history of civilisation has been inflicted by nation states and the actions of their governments.

Just because it isn't working and people are still in poverty doesn't mean the economic policies pursued are not socialist. People were in poverty in the Soviet Union as well you know. It's amazing how the power of the central government can expand so dramatically over the last hundred years, and yet there still be people proclaiming it 'conservative' - do you even know what the word means?

[ZenMaster]

We're going to have the government distribute campaign funds?

It only works if it's the people who's deciding who's eligible for it.