What percentage of our politicians are corrupt here in the USA?
- Thread starter Bullet
- Start date
- Status
RNB65
Member
That's closer to being a definition of treason than a definition of corruption.
stephpd
Member
bribe
Is taking money a bribe? Last time I looked it was. Especially if the person getting the money EXPECTS something in return. Just how can it cost more to get the job than the job pays.
I saw in the news the other day the out of 12 billion dollars in cash that went to Iraq that they can't account for 8 billion. This may not seem like much money to politians that spend trillions of our dollars. Its just the cost of doing bussiness, but Most of us ever saw that amount of money in one place I think we would think that it's a Sh**load. Ithink the news said that it was a couple hunderd tons of 100 dollar bills
Is taking money a bribe? Last time I looked it was. Especially if the person getting the money EXPECTS something in return. Just how can it cost more to get the job than the job pays.
I saw in the news the other day the out of 12 billion dollars in cash that went to Iraq that they can't account for 8 billion. This may not seem like much money to politians that spend trillions of our dollars. Its just the cost of doing bussiness, but Most of us ever saw that amount of money in one place I think we would think that it's a Sh**load. Ithink the news said that it was a couple hunderd tons of 100 dollar bills
Autolycus
Member
You cant really prove how many. If you could then there would be a lot of hell to pay.
rock jock
Member
I hate to interject a little logic in here, but please try to tolerate it for a moment.
How do you think a politician gets elected? With good wishes and determination? Nope, its money, pure and simple. And where does that money come from? From you? Certainly not, because you indignantly proclaim them to be corrupt from the get-go. So where do they get it? From the welfare cases? The middle class? Nope. The truth is that probably 90% of Americans don't contribute to political campaigns, either with their money or their time. They expect other people to write the checks. Heck, most don't even vote anymore.
So, when Mr. Politician gets elected, he has a couple of choices: (1) try to represent EVERY view of EVERY constituent, which means he will please no one, (2) try to please his core constituency (which, BTW, worked for him and contributed money to his campaign). Along with the latter, he must also pay special attention to the concerns of his big money donors if he has ANY aspirations AT ALL about ever being elected again. If he doesn't (now listen up class, this is important), they won't contribute to his campaign again.
When this guy loses his big-money donors, who will make up for the slack when it comes to funding the election machine? You? Nope, because as a good ol' dyed-in-the-wool cynic, you think he's already corrupt by definition. And, if by some miracle, you actually think he did a good job and stuck by his guns, you're not going to contribute monetarily anyway.
Result? Mr. Politician is beholden to no one and therefore receives high praase from a VERY small minority who actually pay attention to these things, but only token funding support. His record is not publicized, and the sitcom-watching public thinks he hasn't done a doggone thing. He gets defeated, and the whole cycle starts again. Meanwhile, you sit back in your chair and continue to whine about the "system," ignoring the fact that you are every bit as responsible for it as anyone else.
How do you think a politician gets elected? With good wishes and determination? Nope, its money, pure and simple. And where does that money come from? From you? Certainly not, because you indignantly proclaim them to be corrupt from the get-go. So where do they get it? From the welfare cases? The middle class? Nope. The truth is that probably 90% of Americans don't contribute to political campaigns, either with their money or their time. They expect other people to write the checks. Heck, most don't even vote anymore.
So, when Mr. Politician gets elected, he has a couple of choices: (1) try to represent EVERY view of EVERY constituent, which means he will please no one, (2) try to please his core constituency (which, BTW, worked for him and contributed money to his campaign). Along with the latter, he must also pay special attention to the concerns of his big money donors if he has ANY aspirations AT ALL about ever being elected again. If he doesn't (now listen up class, this is important), they won't contribute to his campaign again.
When this guy loses his big-money donors, who will make up for the slack when it comes to funding the election machine? You? Nope, because as a good ol' dyed-in-the-wool cynic, you think he's already corrupt by definition. And, if by some miracle, you actually think he did a good job and stuck by his guns, you're not going to contribute monetarily anyway.
Result? Mr. Politician is beholden to no one and therefore receives high praase from a VERY small minority who actually pay attention to these things, but only token funding support. His record is not publicized, and the sitcom-watching public thinks he hasn't done a doggone thing. He gets defeated, and the whole cycle starts again. Meanwhile, you sit back in your chair and continue to whine about the "system," ignoring the fact that you are every bit as responsible for it as anyone else.
ReadyontheRight
Member
Corruption = the need for the electoral system to vote for President.
A corrupt State regime in a large city might send a few critters to Congress, but they cannot decide the Presidential vote.
A corrupt State regime in a large city might send a few critters to Congress, but they cannot decide the Presidential vote.
DWARREN123
Member
I believe all of them in one way or another. Morally bankrupt also.
Waitone
Member
The system is awash in untraceable cash. Actual genuine official bribery is a small part of the problem. I think only the mentally challenged politicians do a bribe. Where they get paid off is so-called "guided investments". Phone calls and lunch conversations about stock tips, land deals, partnerships, etc are all perfectly legal and absolutely stinky. Reality is politicians get preferrential access to investments which Joe and Martha Sixpack are denied.
Colin Powell makes a tidy salary as a soldier. Retires and within 5 years has amassed a fortune estimated at $25 million. One would think he would have bagged the soldier gig earlier if he was able to earn that kind of money all along.
Al Gore gets a sack full of stock options from a startup internet company years ago. He gets beat in an election and consoles himself with a couple hundred million in fully priced shares of Google.
Tony Snow is a media animal. White House wants him to mouth their spin. Snow has several concerns before saying yes. What will be the effect on his family. What will the effect on his health (not a small issue since he fought colon cancer). What will be the effect on his pocketbook. As a media animal it is estimated he was conservatively earning $400,000 + a year. The job he was taking would pay $100,000 per year (high estimate). In the announcement of his taking the job he said all his concerns would be taken care of. How is that possible? How can a family man who has ordered his life around a particular income stream cut that stream by 3/4's and continue to live in the lifestyle without supplemental sources of income. Am I calling Snow a crook? Nope! I only point out that those who would rule quite often have sources of wealth that appears to not be available to the average taxpayer.
George McGovern hocks his wife's jewelry for campaign operating cash. Upon leaving the senate he is a multi-millionaire.
Reality is the ruling elite take care of their own whether or not they are in government is beside the point. Can't call it bribery but it really smells bad. The only way to fix the problem is for the voters to term limit every mother's son to one term.
Colin Powell makes a tidy salary as a soldier. Retires and within 5 years has amassed a fortune estimated at $25 million. One would think he would have bagged the soldier gig earlier if he was able to earn that kind of money all along.
Al Gore gets a sack full of stock options from a startup internet company years ago. He gets beat in an election and consoles himself with a couple hundred million in fully priced shares of Google.
Tony Snow is a media animal. White House wants him to mouth their spin. Snow has several concerns before saying yes. What will be the effect on his family. What will the effect on his health (not a small issue since he fought colon cancer). What will be the effect on his pocketbook. As a media animal it is estimated he was conservatively earning $400,000 + a year. The job he was taking would pay $100,000 per year (high estimate). In the announcement of his taking the job he said all his concerns would be taken care of. How is that possible? How can a family man who has ordered his life around a particular income stream cut that stream by 3/4's and continue to live in the lifestyle without supplemental sources of income. Am I calling Snow a crook? Nope! I only point out that those who would rule quite often have sources of wealth that appears to not be available to the average taxpayer.
George McGovern hocks his wife's jewelry for campaign operating cash. Upon leaving the senate he is a multi-millionaire.
Reality is the ruling elite take care of their own whether or not they are in government is beside the point. Can't call it bribery but it really smells bad. The only way to fix the problem is for the voters to term limit every mother's son to one term.
308win
Member
I lived in Illinois until 1982 and the firm I worked for bid on a lot of state contract work - corruption in the form of pay to play campaign contributions was routine. Transferred to Ohio; same line of work; same/same. I have never actually been solicited for an outright bribe but it happens more frequently than many believe; what you read in the paper is just the tip of the iceberg. Money is not only the grease on the wheel it is also how score is kept.
Eightball
Member
If you define "corrupt" as forgetting that they're there to server their constituents who elected them, rather than to serve their own self-interests and get re-elected, then somewhere around 90%. The other 10% seem to get re-elected because they're doing a good job, or don't get re-elected becuase the demography of their constituents changed in the time they were in office, due to outside influence.
If you define "corrupt" as glossing over the terms, and ignoring the real problems to sound good and get re-elected, then maybe about 75%, while the other 25% are just "in the minority".
It really depends what you define as "corrupt".
If you define "corrupt" as glossing over the terms, and ignoring the real problems to sound good and get re-elected, then maybe about 75%, while the other 25% are just "in the minority".
It really depends what you define as "corrupt".
statistics
To the the rescue - Transparency International:
http://www.transparency.org/
To provide a definition of corruption, how to measure it and - of course - statistics.
Each annual report focuses on a particular area. The 2004 Global Corruption report focused on political corruption. It is available on the website in .pdf form
http://www.transparency.org/publications/gcr/download_gcr/download_gcr_2004
To the the rescue - Transparency International:
http://www.transparency.org/
To provide a definition of corruption, how to measure it and - of course - statistics.
Each annual report focuses on a particular area. The 2004 Global Corruption report focused on political corruption. It is available on the website in .pdf form
http://www.transparency.org/publications/gcr/download_gcr/download_gcr_2004
Nanook
Member
Tell that to Richard Nixon, in 1960 it was common knowledge that Mayor Daley of Chicago and his machine stole enough votes to put JFK into the White House. And nobody did a thing about it.
That's the first mayor, not his waste of a son.
I don't know which state is the most corrupt at the moment, but it's usually a tie between Illinois and New Jersey. Kind of like the competition between O"hare airport and Hartsfield in Atlanta for busiest airport.
SoCalShooter
Member
I don't trust anyone who tells me with a smile they know whats best for me if I vote for them.
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
Corruption comes in many forms. I don't think many of them take "bribes", as such, because they don't need to. But most do take the shady side benefits. And they feel its okay because "Everybody does it." Eventually, they ALL lose any real sense of morality and just roll with the (corrupt) flow.
That's why I wish there were term limits but getting that would require those with the power vote it away. Not gonna happen, no matter how much we may scream for it.
The old media (news ?) people really hate the idea of term limits. As political lap dogs for the Dems, it would deprive the "media" of their established and self-important inside contacts with the powerful! So, while they would gladly approve term limits for Repubs, they oppose any limits on Dems! Without media support to inform the mindless, we, the other people, are almost helpless in this matter.
Perhaps the worst bribery is the legal kind we participate in; THEY ALL BUY OUR VOTES with "public" money in the form of pork projects! Or try to, and most succeed because too many of us happily give our votes to those who are most successfull in larding on the pork in our states or districts. This is the system that entrenches the old boys and we pay them handsomely to put the ring in our noses.
To quote Pogo; "We have met the enemy and he is us."
That's why I wish there were term limits but getting that would require those with the power vote it away. Not gonna happen, no matter how much we may scream for it.
The old media (news ?) people really hate the idea of term limits. As political lap dogs for the Dems, it would deprive the "media" of their established and self-important inside contacts with the powerful! So, while they would gladly approve term limits for Repubs, they oppose any limits on Dems! Without media support to inform the mindless, we, the other people, are almost helpless in this matter.
Perhaps the worst bribery is the legal kind we participate in; THEY ALL BUY OUR VOTES with "public" money in the form of pork projects! Or try to, and most succeed because too many of us happily give our votes to those who are most successfull in larding on the pork in our states or districts. This is the system that entrenches the old boys and we pay them handsomely to put the ring in our noses.
To quote Pogo; "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Last edited:
308win
Member
Term limits do not work. If anything, they give more power to two of the most destructive influences in government today - bureaucrats and special interests. And bureacrats will take bribes early and often. We have had term limits in Ohio since the late eighties and our politics and government have gotten dirtier, more pay-to-play, and more corrupt in the ensuing years.
telomerase
Member
Corruption isn't the worst thing. It would have been better if the henchmen under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et. al. had been more corruptible.
Cartoonish ultra-stupidity is pretty hard to live with too; here's an example from the current gang of thieves.
Cartoonish ultra-stupidity is pretty hard to live with too; here's an example from the current gang of thieves.
This is why direct taxes not based on the census are so wrong.
If the majority wants to rule the minority (Democracy) then the majority gets to pay the taxes for the money that their congressmen spend.
If you go to Washington and spend too much money, the people are apportioned a tax based on polulation and the SOB's that voted to spend the money get voted out.
The Founders weren't stupid.
There aren't enough rich people to pay for the social programs and spending(and why would congressmen bite the hands that feed them?), and the poor don't have the money. Solution? Amend the Constitution to allow direct taxes that aren't apportioned based on polulation.
If the majority wants to rule the minority (Democracy) then the majority gets to pay the taxes for the money that their congressmen spend.
If you go to Washington and spend too much money, the people are apportioned a tax based on polulation and the SOB's that voted to spend the money get voted out.
The Founders weren't stupid.
There aren't enough rich people to pay for the social programs and spending(and why would congressmen bite the hands that feed them?), and the poor don't have the money. Solution? Amend the Constitution to allow direct taxes that aren't apportioned based on polulation.
While there may be a few untainted politicians in the entire country, I have yet to be certain of one.
Every time one supposedly stands up for what is "right", it seems like he really is just trying to position his influence group more advantageously.
At any rate, the non corrupt officials are in such a small minority that nothing gets done that slows massive corruption at every level of government.
Every time one supposedly stands up for what is "right", it seems like he really is just trying to position his influence group more advantageously.
At any rate, the non corrupt officials are in such a small minority that nothing gets done that slows massive corruption at every level of government.
treelogger
Member
In giving my answer, I defined "corrupt" as: Willing to take campaign contributions with the clear expectation that contributions will influence policy, or willing to create policy based on tit-for-tat with other people in the system, or supporting measures that fundamentally make the system less democratic (such as redistricting to create safe seats), or deciding policy based solely on the short-term public relations effect of the policy. In general, "corrupt" means: Not looking out for the long-term interest of the voters, or of the people that the politician nomally serves, but looking out for their own interests in being reelected or becoming more powerful.
With this definition, I would say that way over 90% of all politicians are corrupt; the rate is extremely close to 100%.
Note that there is an alternate definition of corrupt: taking outright illegal bribes; that is considerably more rate, probably in the 20-50% range.
With this definition, I would say that way over 90% of all politicians are corrupt; the rate is extremely close to 100%.
Note that there is an alternate definition of corrupt: taking outright illegal bribes; that is considerably more rate, probably in the 20-50% range.
- Status
