# Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Corruption of Government. Who is to blame? 

Is it the people?

Is it the civil servants? 

Is it the elected leaders?

Is it the lobbyists?

Is it private individuals with great wealth (poor people can't buy access or influence). 

Is it big business?

Is it the free market?

Who do you think corrupts government?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

I say 6 out of the 7 listed, with some shouldering a majority of the blame.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Government is inherently corrupt.  The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 20, 2010)

I'll play....


Its simple. Its us.... the people. We vote these idiots in over and over again.

I think we have gotten what we deserve.

Now its time to get our act together and start voting in fiscally responsible folks who value their nation more than a buck.

I've been hearing people bitch about Washington since I was a kid... Now its time to stop bitching, and do something about it!


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Government is inherently corrupt.  The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.



LMAO  just LMAO.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Government is inherently corrupt.  The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.



So you say free market forces have no effect on government?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> I'll play....
> 
> 
> Its simple. Its us.... the people. We vote these idiots in over and over again.
> ...



So you think it's only the people or that the people shoulder most of the blame? 


note: just trying to get firm statements from people.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Government is inherently corrupt.  The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.
> ...



Governments intervene in markets, markets don't intervene in governments.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Corporations are people with rights too now.
And spending dollars is using your freedom of speech.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



so a stock market crash does not intervene on a government?

An oil spill in the gulf?

A fly ash spill in TN?

The price of oil?
(that one worked both ways)


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

We do need more children working in mines I suppose.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 20, 2010)

lobbyists are snakes....


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

They may rise to the level of snakes in a few thousand years.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



A stock market crash is the cause of the government's intervention in the market in the first place.

That the government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, any spills or the energy market, isn't evidence that the market somehow intervenes in the government.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

K see it your way then.  Enjoy.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> K see it your way then.  Enjoy.



Was my opinion supposed to change just because you made some assertions?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> lobbyists are snakes....



Why? The exercise of rights offends you? Or is the corrupting influences? Lobbying is guaranteed in the US Constitution.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > K see it your way then.  Enjoy.
> ...



Of course not.  How silly.
Expect someones opinion to change on a political message board?

btw the "free market" hires lobbyists don't they?
who pay off govt employees to benefit their corporations or industry.
Sounds kinda like the type of corruption we were discussing?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Corporations are people with rights too now.
> And spending dollars is using your freedom of speech.



That is an over simplification of what the courts have ruled, but yeah.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



It's about intervention now?

I asked: "Corruption of Government. Who is to blame? Is it the free market? "Who do you think corrupts government?"

Is corruption about influence? Do people and forces not influence government and thereby corrupt government? Are you saying outside influences do not corrupt government?


----------



## Steve Hanson (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> 
> Is it the people?
> 
> ...


it's the lawmakers who make the laws. They are allowed to govern themsleves which makes for a toxic environment.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> 
> Is it the people?
> 
> ...


Can't believe I'm gonna seriously comment on a Dante thread.  :checks hell for snow:

It's all seven.

The good news is that this is at least 50% curable with term limits.  Cap the time in a particular office with a lifetime cap on ALL time served as an elected official AND in the bureaucracy.

To end voter apathy, offer a tax credit for voting.  a 1-5% credit off their taxes will make a good incentive to vote.  The more people voting, the harder it is to corrupt the election.

To end special interest money, make it wide open and totally transparent.

To prevent in office corruption, make bribery or voter fraud for both parties a capital offense.

Next break the incestuous cycle of Media, Politicians, Lobbyists, and Political Action committees by blocking the flow of people back and forth.  It can be done  by decentralizing government.  No need for them to spend so much time in washington when secure electronic communication is possible for some of the business of congress.  Keep the politicians among their constituents.

Prevent lobbyists and other corruptive influences from centralizing control into a cesspit like DC and New York (for international corruption)

And lastly, make it illegal to have public sector unions.  Unless you make it so that the voters who pay the bill have direct say over what unions get paid like school bonding bills, you have a third party who is not directly affected by bad deals.

But lastly, until you end the entitlement culture, this will not stop.  No one is entitled to power, wealth or handouts at the expense of hard working citizens against their will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Government is inherently corrupt.  The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.
> ...



No, he correctly stated that a free market has nothing to do with the government.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I don't deny that people working within the free market would like an advantage from the government over their competitors, but once the government gets involved in the market it's no longer free.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



No.  I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government.  I'm not saying businesses can't lobby government for favors, or that people can't bribe government officials, or what have you.  I'm saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Steve Hanson said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Corruption of Government. Who is to blame? ...
> ...



Really? What is your beef against a representative republican form of democracy?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> ...



It's okay. We're not grading you on this one.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Steve Hanson said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I believe he made it pretty clear.

"Who watches the Watchmen," so to speak.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?

None of the above. It is not who it is what. Power is to blame. Power corrupts. 

A key reason I favor a less powerful Government. The more power we give them over us, the more they will have to use for corrupted aims.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



A free market exists when buyers and sellers make deals without any interference other than the economic laws of supply and demand. Since a free market is obviously not a corporation, or a person, or even an association, it cannot hire anyone.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > lobbyists are snakes....
> ...



It's not down here...in fact, if you were a political party and you are connected to lobbyists, you can almost guarantee you'll lose the next election. Lobbying isn't illegal per se, but it has very tight reins on it. And most political parties try and play down ANY connection to a lobby group because they know it will cost them votes...

it is the corrupting influence....


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



And by your definition has not existed in America in some time.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> ...



Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and against. The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke in record time. 

Public sector unions? What percentage of the populace is the public sector union vote? 

"Prevent lobbyists from exercising their rights under the Constitution or what? You asking for regulation or laws..bigger government? 

Decentralizing government?  Sorry, the Articles of Confederation were a disaster and decentralizing government is so broad a term as to be meaningless in any context.

Bribery and voter fraud are already illegal. They are not capital offenses and should not be. Why? Sanity.

Term limits have fucked up places like California.

but thanks for trying. next time get more specific.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



and I asked him "So you say free market forces have no effect on government?"


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> 
> None of the above. It is not who it is what. Power is to blame. Power corrupts.
> 
> A key reason I favor a less powerful Government. The more power we give them over us, the more they will have to use for corrupted aims.



Power corrupts who and what?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



A 'genuine' free market? I see. 

The economy is influenced by the type of market, so does not the economy and the market influence government?

Is this invisible hand so invisible it cannot be perceived of or grasped in the material world? Is it god?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> ...



who? People Party does not seem to matter, Not all of them that we send to DC, but enough to ruin the whole system. 

What? Everything they do, every law they pass, and dollar they spend.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Hanson said:
> ...



The separation of powers and the checks and balances? That is my understanding. If the separation of powers broke down or if the checks and balances of our governmental were abolished, you'd have a point here. But they have not, and you do not.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



So there never has been a truely free market in recorded history?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



The National GOP does not play down it's ties to the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce, they parade it. 

 would bet in a tobacco state or an education state or a military industrial complex state, ties to lobbyists are not all viewed the same.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



As this country was created that Separation of Powers included The fact that Any power not given to the Fed in the Constitution belonged to the states. The Power of said states has steady eroded. So while they have not Broken down completely, they are eroding in some way.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



The questions is who is to blame. Who corrupts the system of government we have? What influences? 

Corruption of government is a narrow idea. People may think of corruption in general, but that is a side issue not easily discussed. It should be v-e-r-y easy, it should be v-e-r-y to point out what and who corrupts our government, our system.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



So You want to blame those providing the means to corrupt it, and not the ones actually doing it?

Even if you removed all cooperate influence and union Influence and all the other special interests. Many people in power would still use that power to use the money we send them to reward the people they want to, and not others, To but votes. Or simply to steal away cash. Or what ever other self interest they have. 

Limit the power, limit the corruption the comes of it.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned our 2 party political system as a corrupting influence on govt?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Do we most go after drug dealers or users? Who do you think we should go after most in the so-called drug wars? I was not talking about personal responsibility for specific acts of corruption. That is lazy and a side issue. We were speaking about the government, meaning the system we have. It is hard to keep a discussion on topic with voices weighing in and it is also my fault for not being clearer.

Any individual person or any individual government (President/Congress) that is corrupt is incidental. I am speaking about the corruption of our system of government. Individuals and governments are easily replaced. They may have a corrupting influence upon the system itself, but they come and they go. The system stays.

"Limit power" is so broad a term as to be meaningless. Interpretations are left there to be debated. What does it mean to limit? How much? When?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Has anyone mentioned our 2 party political system as a corrupting influence on govt?



Well the is a key part of the problem for sure. the 2 partys ,even while they are at each others throats, conspire as well to make sure they are the only ones with a seat at the table of Power.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 20, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



It actually has, if you keep the transactions small enough, and ignore the arbitrary rules imposed by the various governments. On a larger scale I fully agree with you.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Has anyone mentioned our 2 party political system as a corrupting influence on govt?



Thank you. Out of the mouths of babes, or trolls, or whatever. 

People have suggested this since the earliest rise of the party system, yet none has come up with a viable and credible alternative or solution to the issue. Sure, many fixes and bandaids. But holistic solutions? Are there really any? Is our system just what it is and is it up to us to keep watch over it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



They cannot corrupt it, which is your question in the OP. Unless, that is, you accept the premise that vague forces control large groups of people.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



How about this.  You explain to me how you think a free market would influence the government, and we'll go from there.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



So different parts of the same organization are going to police each other?  We see how well that's worked for us regarding corruption.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone mentioned our 2 party political system as a corrupting influence on govt?
> ...



I think it is unfair an unhelpful to frame things as conspiring. the simple fact that a party has a certain amount of leverage through membership determines a seat at the table of power. I'll grant that parties in power do not willingly give up power to others seeking to share, but so what? The role of a party is to acquire power. Just ask Thomas Jefferson, the first partisan party broker.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone mentioned our 2 party political system as a corrupting influence on govt?
> ...



So the fact that the 2 parties have power over who gets in the debates, and have written the laws about who gets Federal Funding. Has nothing to do with new parties being unable to gain a foot hold?


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone mentioned our 2 party political system as a corrupting influence on govt?
> ...



thanks cap'n obvious.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



The government controls the type of market, which means you have the direction of influence backwards, as usual.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Calling Thomas Jefferson the first partisan party broker ignores Alexander Hamilton and the entire Federalist Party in the history of partisan politics in America.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Vague forces are not so vague. Of course the proponents of some forces would have you believe those forces are vague and benign. 

So the Communist system and the Capitalist system had no effect as systems, on the world's governmental systems, throughout the later half of the 20th century? that is your position?


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Organization? We are speaking about a system of government, not an organization. Words matter here.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


The debates are events between parties. They can be hosted by others, but they are party events. They owe as parties, nothing to anyone but their faithful, who are part of the electorate .. partisans. 

The parties in power get to write the laws yes. It is how a representative republic functioning as a democracy, works.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

note: keep this post on top of list



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I'll do that later. Maybe start a new thread.

note: keep this post on top of list


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> Vague forces are not so vague. Of course the proponents of some forces would have you believe those forces are vague and benign.
> 
> So the Communist system and the Capitalist system had no effect as systems, on the world's governmental systems, throughout the later half of the 20th century? that is your position?



If you want a civics lesson you are going to have to find someone else to sucker into supplying it. Suffice it to say that the communist system, and the capitalist system, were both controlled by the different governments to different extents, not the other way around.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

Dante said:


> note: keep this post on top of list
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well when you see fit to do that we can continue the discussion.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Our govt is more and more controlled by corporations.

People can live in a free market fantasy if they choose.
I dwell a bit more in reality than that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Our govt is more and more controlled by corporations.
> 
> People can live in a free market fantasy if they choose.
> I dwell a bit more in reality than that.



What you're describing is corporatism, and has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Our govt is more and more controlled by corporations.
> ...



OK I give up I can't figure out who "free markets" is supposedly made of.
Obviously not corporations.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



A free market is where the government does not get involved in the economy at all.  No regulations, no subsidies, no special favors, etc... etc...  Once the government gets involved it's obviously not a free market.  When businesses start getting kick backs and special favors from the government we have corporatism.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



As I have said, free markets can only exist in fantasy land.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Vague forces are not so vague. Of course the proponents of some forces would have you believe those forces are vague and benign.
> ...



I think you keep making the mistake of speaking about individual governments and not the governmental systems. You also appear to be struggling with the concept of economic systems separate from governmental systems.  If so, you need much more than a civics lesson.

Your position is that the Communist and Capitalist economic systems of the later half of the 20th century had no effect on the systems of governments that embraced those economic systems, as well as having no effect upon the systems of government all over the world?


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



That is an extreme view not supported by the fathers of the free market idea.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 21, 2010)

As I said, Fantasy.


----------



## marksinvirginia (Sep 21, 2010)

The government plunders the people by threat of imprisonment... then gives back just enough to dissuade open revolt.  Then 'the people' lick their boots and return them to office in order to avoid having their allowances cut off.  They [the government] then proceed to to grant themselves all the money and benefits they want through commissions extracted from government hand-outs... supposedly made for the benefit of those whom they just plundered.  The 'stupid class' is afraid to break the cycle;  or isn't even aware of the cycle.

Government corruption is totally the fault of the electorate,  who are happy with the crumbs from the federal table.  If the people complain, the government deflects the blame for their troubles upon the evil, greedy, rich.   Now, being deliberately trained,  by government schools,  to be stupid... they swallow government corruption just as planned.  


~Mark


----------



## MikeK (Sep 21, 2010)

Corruption in our government will inevitably reduce the U.S. to third world status but the means of preventing it would require exceptional prudence on the part of the voting public.  

There needs to be one Congressman willing to introduce two bills, one that would provide for all federal elections to be financed by public funds and one that would make it a felony for any federal official to accept any form of contribution, gratuity or anything of value from any individual or entity for any reason.  The names of all representatives who vote no on that proposition must then be publicized and voted out of office in the next election.  

The possibility of this democracy surviving exists in direct proportion to the possibility of such a bill being introduced and passed.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

MikeK said:


> Corruption in our government will inevitably reduce the U.S. to third world status but the means of preventing it would require exceptional prudence on the part of the voting public.
> 
> There needs to be one Congressman willing to introduce two bills, one that would provide for all federal elections to be financed by public funds and one that would make it a felony for any federal official to accept any form of contribution, gratuity or anything of value from any individual or entity for any reason.  The names of all representatives who vote no on that proposition must then be publicized and voted out of office in the next election.
> 
> The possibility of this democracy surviving exists in direct proportion to the possibility of such a bill being introduced and passed.



Mike, corruption of our governmental system, not corruption of our current government. and your speech is as delusional as the one by the poster before you.

do you people even know how to express ideas and debate or argue without making pathetic speeches full of populist or progressive nitwitticisms?


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> note: keep this post on top of list
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that for a few decades the developed and developing world's economies were moving towards a free market with free market reforms, we get nowhere. The deregulation and more, of the last 30 years or so are what is commonly understood by the terms 'free market' or 'free market reforms'


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Governmental systems? Just what do you think these things are? Every single communist nation uses a different version of communism, non of which resemble true communism in any way. The same is true of the capitalist nations, so what government system are you talking about? Is there some sort of secret plot to control the world that you are privy to that the rest of us, sane people, missed the memo on?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > note: keep this post on top of list
> ...




You arguing with yourself again?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



If you're referring to the great plagiarist Adam Smith, then perhaps not.  However, the _true_ fathers of free markets and capitalism, such as Richard Cantillon, yes that would be exactly the case.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > note: keep this post on top of list
> ...



You're a stickler on definitions of words, such as "organization" and "government" in this very thread, until it comes to the term "free market."


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 21, 2010)

> Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and  against.



 Don't shit yourself because I actually addressed something of yours seriously.  What precisely do you mean 'FLESHED OUT... for and against?"  I'm not for the status quo.  Why should I bother producing ideas to maintain it?



> The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder  ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke  in record time. .



That's why this is not a 'payment'.  It's a refund.  If you don't pay taxes, you have no skin in the game and really, I couldn't care less if you vote or not, so you get the least amount of discount off your income taxes.  On the other hand, if you pay a lot in taxes, you are obviously making something work in the economy (unless you're a government employee) and therefore deserve a greater break.

Remember this economic fact: Subsidize what you want more of, tax what you want less of.  I want more voting, so I subsidize it through a credit, not a payment.  They only get to keep more of what they earned.

Big difference.  Australia takes another tactic.  They fine you for not voting.  I feel it's the right of people to be apathetic.



> Public sector unions? What percentage of the populace is the public  sector union vote?



SEIU ring any bells?  They are a significant political force that needs it's neck broken.  And that's just one.  The NEA, is another large corrupt union throwing millions of dollars into elections and funding 'get out the vote drives', and abusing their positions of authority to brainwash their charges in the schools through their members.



> "Prevent lobbyists from exercising their rights under the Constitution  or what? You asking for regulation or laws..bigger government?



Give it a rest.  You're condoning bribery now?  Even you, Dante, are smarter than that... aren't you?



> Decentralizing government?  Sorry, the Articles of Confederation were a  disaster and decentralizing government is so broad a term as to be  meaningless in any context.



I did not SAY revert to a confederacy.  I am saying decentralize.  Move the politicians home and communicate with their committees and debates via electronic methods.  That forces lobbying firms and other political miscreants to scatter to all 50 states and breaks up the "Georgetown Cocktail Party Set" as a shitty little Versailles court of the unworthy.  The added benefit is that they spend more time directly in front of their constituents feeling the heat for their bad choices.  Save them going to Washington except for things too big to do electronically.



> Bribery and voter fraud are already illegal. They are not capital  offenses and should not be. Why? Sanity.



When's the last time you heard of a sitting congresscritter go to prison for it?  How about never?

So, if I'm a megacorp and bribe officials to look the other way while making another Love Canal in your neighborhood that gives your children and 750 others all leukemia causing them to die in 5 years, they shouldn't be held for directly accountable for mass murder?  I think they should be.  Then again, the death penalty should be quickly implemented the old fashioned way, firing squad or hanging when convicted of a capital crime (shut the fuck up Bfgrn if you show).

I want politicians scared to death that committing a crime of this type and will be very leery of taking 'gifts' for political influence.  Very afraid.  Keeps them honest if they can die for it when they have a gun to their head.



> Term limits have fucked up places like California.



Proof?  The only thing I've seen fucked up are the citizens in every metropolitan area.  I can't speak for small town California.  What's really fucked them up though now that I think about it has been bailouts from the fed and state bailouts to the municipalities.  They need to suffer the consequences of their fucking stupid choices and turn into sewers so people throw the idiots out and never make that mistake again.



> but thanks for trying. next time get more specific.



How often do you post stoned?  All the time or only 99%?


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Here is where people like you are always fall down. We are not speaking about Communism and Capitalism as systems of government. Communism and Capitalism are economic social-political systems or movements that have existed under systems of government like a Representative Republic, a Constitutional Monarchy, a Dictatorship, etc. Communism and Capitalism are NOT the systems of government.

_*sigh*_  I just went and did a Google search for you. Please, do some research before you start talking out of your ass. List of forms of government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your idiotic attempt to argue whether any political system was pure or not gets to say whether those systems can be judged, is moronic.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You're mistaken. I have no problem with the definition of the terms 'free' 'market' or the phrase 'free market' and you know this to be true. What you are avoiding here is the discussion in the real world the free market. Demanding that a free market does not exist and any shape or form unless it is pure is where you stand. It is a stand that is irrational and unreasonable for discussion of the realities on the ground. You are like the Socialist who say we never really had a Socialist state transform into a Communist state because the communism we witnessed was not pure.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...





thank you


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and  against.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't shit yourself because I actually addressed something of yours seriously.



Before I address this post I think you should be made aware of something. Unlike the USMB Pussy Patrol and the USMB Peanut Gallery and the Dante Fevah Fan Club, I rarely ever notice who is posting and who I am posting to. There are a few trolls on the _stalk-Dante with-idiotic-insults_ list, but even with them (you don't rank high enough on the list to catch my attention).

 I will usually post a reasonable and rational reply if it is warranted. One need only be privy to those I've pos rep-ed and why, to know this, but alas, I don't give a shit enough about what people like you think to keep a list to prove myself. 


I'll address the context of your post in a minute.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

next time you do not link to the post you are quoting I will just ignore you. http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/133964-corruption-of-government-who-is-to-blame-6.html



Big Fitz said:


> > Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and  against.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Dante said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ...



You state you are against '_the status quo_' and then go on to ask why you should 'bother producing ideas to maintain it' and you expect to be taken seriously? No one asked you to produce ideas to maintain any status, quo or no quo. 

I wrote:

"Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and against. The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke in record time."​
think: Arguments for your ideas and arguments against those you oppose. If you cannot make arguments to back up ideas you put forth, why bother looking for debate? 

Your argument in favor of social engineering is interesting:

"To end voter apathy, offer a tax credit for voting. a 1-5% credit off their taxes will make a good incentive to vote. The more people voting, the harder it is to corrupt the election."​
I replied: "The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke in record time."

You reply with: "That's why this is not a 'payment'. It's a refund. If you don't pay taxes, you have no skin in the game and really, I couldn't care less if you vote or not..."


I would suggest you take apart what you have written. Others may and if they do you would be surprised what they may come away with.

I wrote: "Public sector unions? What percentage of the populace is the public sector union vote?"

You replied with: "SEIU ring any bells? They are a significant political force that needs it's neck broken. And that's just one. The NEA, is another large corrupt union throwing millions of dollars into elections and funding 'get out the vote drives', and abusing their positions of authority to brainwash their charges in the schools through their members."

Again I ask you to answer "What percentage of the populace is the public sector union vote?"

I write: "Prevent lobbyists from exercising their rights under the Constitution or what? You asking for regulation or laws..bigger government?"
 I write this because you wrote: "Next break the incestuous cycle of Media, Politicians, Lobbyists, and Political Action committees by blocking the flow of people back and forth. It can be done by decentralizing government." and "Prevent lobbyists and other corruptive influences from centralizing control..."

Your proposals are so generalized as to be meaningless. We already have progressive organizations that have tried to do much of what you propose. Some rules and laws have been enacted and human nature dictates an end run around them. 

The rest of your post sounds like you are the one who is stoned. Electronic government?    imagine a shut down of communications during a national crisis. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/133964-corruption-of-government-who-is-to-blame-3.html Post #33

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/133964-corruption-of-government-who-is-to-blame-6.html Post #79


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Strip all of the rules and procedures away from the office of Congressperson.  Regardless of lobbyists, corporate money, and whatever, the person in the chair who swore to represent the public faithfully needs to do just that.  Personal responsibility, take it with you where ever you go.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Strip all of the rules and procedures away from the office of Congressperson.  Regardless of lobbyists, corporate money, and whatever, the person in the chair who swore to represent the public faithfully needs to do just that.  Personal responsibility, take it with you where ever you go.



The Congress represents people. It is not about opinion polls and the framers never saw fit to give us the power of plebiscite.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Strip all of the rules and procedures away from the office of Congressperson.  Regardless of lobbyists, corporate money, and whatever, the person in the chair who swore to represent the public faithfully needs to do just that.  Personal responsibility, take it with you where ever you go.
> ...



I guess if that was what I was talking about you would have a point.  Instead you just made a random statement.  Focus bitch.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



It's the topic of the OP and the thread that we post to and about. Making comments about you inane speeches is all I did. At least you realize there is a point you have to agree with if you take yourself at your own word.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



It is not my problem you can't wrap a mind around the concept of not caving into pressures and payoffs.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...





This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of corruption of our form of government that has been discussed. Sure some trolls like you have created side threads about the political process, but that is where you all show you are incapable of wrapping your pathetically puny minds around the most basic of concepts -- following a conversation and staying on topic.

Payoffs and pressures you are talking about have everything to do with the political process, and not much about the structure of the system of government. They are mere details that if corrected would do little to fix what supposedly ails the system. It's like stopping the sniffles of a cold and wrongly assuming you've cured the cold. The political process can influence how the system is functioning, but it does not affect the basic structure of the system itself. 

Now, if the system is corrupted, who is to blame?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Are you suggesting we legislate morality into the sytstem?  If Congress refused the graft, it would go away all on its own.  Only because it works does it continue.  People are corrupt, systems have faults.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

I suppose you could legislate the following:

1.  All amendments must be germane to the bill.
2.  All budget authorizations must be available for reading 24 hours per 300 pages of text before a vote.
3.  Any expenditure must benefit at least two or more states directly.
4.  Only Congress may start a foreign territory military action.
5.  You can only donate money to a campaign that you can personally vote in.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I wouldn't call a mixed economy a free market the same way I wouldn't call a regular tiger a sabertooth tiger just because the tiger might be sort of like a sabertooth tiger.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



The fault in any system is usually the human factor. It's called reality. 

 If Congress refused the graft? First of all individuals accept graft, not institutions.  Clean up any individual Congress (say 110th) and if the system of government was corrupt all you have done is supplied make up to a pig. 

Funny you should mention morality and the system. Most of the founding fathers and the framers spoke at length about the honor, virtue, and morality of men as necessary elements for a republic to succeed. 

But before you do what most do here let me set you straight. I have not advocated legislating morality into the system.

see? this is how IT's done.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I suppose you could legislate the following:
> 
> 1.  All amendments must be germane to the bill.
> 2.  All budget authorizations must be available for reading 24 hours per 300 pages of text before a vote.
> ...



I bet you fell for term limits and mandatory sentencing as panaceas too.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Economic systems that are being changed and altered are not analogous to animals. I have no idea why you have stumbled so badly here. 

Mixed economies? I guess a highly regulated economy that was being transformed with free market principles would not technically be a free market economy, but I never argued one would be.

Go back and see *what I wrote*. http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...government-who-is-to-blame-5.html#post2758299


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I'm still waiting on you to explain how you think a free market intervenes in government.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



That's not explaining.  That's an excuse for not explaining.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I'm still waiting on you to explain how you think a free market intervenes in government.



I see. 

I posted 2 collections of our conversation. Post #99 and Post #100

you: "I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government."

me: "A 'genuine' free market? I see. The economy is influenced by the type of market, so does not the economy and the market influence government? Is this invisible hand so invisible it cannot be perceived of or grasped in the material world? Is it god?"

you: "How about this. You explain to me how you think a free market would influence the government, and we'll go from there."

----------

So let me get this straight, you've made the statements "Government is inherently corrupt. The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government." without backing them up, and then you demand I answer questions when you cannot answer the questions raised by your statements?

Okay, but I set conditions: "Unless you are willing to acknowledge that for a few decades the developed and developing world's economies were moving towards a free market with free market reforms, we get nowhere." because as I say, with you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

What about it? Was I right? Are you dooming conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings? *note: added material *


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



sorry it took so long. see above post


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting on you to explain how you think a free market intervenes in government.
> ...



Actually, I have backed them up.  I explained why a free market cannot intervene in the government by explaining what a free market is.  That you don't accept this explanation is not a reflection on me.  Now if you want to continue to erroneously define a heavily regulated mixed economy as a free market because of some "deregulation" then that's your mistake.  It's not "dooming conversations to go nowhere" because you can't accept an answer.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Actually, you have not backed up your statements listed in the above post and the posts preceding it. You have offered explanations that do not address the questions raised.

*Questions:* So you say free market forces have no effect on government? Is corruption about influence? Do people and forces not influence government and thereby corrupt government? Are you saying outside influences do not corrupt government? 

*Answers:* Governments intervene in markets, markets don't intervene in governments. I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government. I'm saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.


---

*As I replied: *With you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that for a few decades the developed and developing world's economies were moving towards a free market with free market reforms, we get nowhere. The deregulation and more, of the last 30 years or so are what is commonly understood by the terms 'free market' or 'free market reforms'

---

You doom conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Your idea of "common understandings" are simply calling a free market what it isn't, a regulated mixed economy.


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Sep 21, 2010)

Most of the government employees (except the military) and politicians are straight out Democrat, and their corruption arrests over the years have completely dwarfed GOP clownery. From your local schools, town hall, universities, court systems, local, city, and state government employees, straight to Washington, DC:
One giant army of Democrat voters who will not vote for a Party that speaks of government reform. If you don't outvote the government workers and their families, you have a tough future ahead of you.

and here we are, a system so dysfunctional and corrupt you might not be able to reform it as it stands because you will surely end up in a court room run by Democrats for years over many reform goals.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Maybe you have to go outside your little safe zone and see what a common understanding is? My idea?  The world is full of people speaking about free market forces and reforms. It is what I have been talking about, but keep insisting in ignoring this.

You keep falling back to talking about a pure free market. That would be okay if it wasn't a sad example of avoiding the elephant in the room: I never meant for you to defend what constitutes a free market.

From a very early post:  "So you say _*free market forces*_ have no effect on government?" So I guess you try to say free market reforms and forces cannot exist outside a pure free market. 

So I guess emerging nations that are experimenting with democratic and capitalistic reforms are not really experiencing democratic and capitalist forces, and their effects on their politics and economies, because they haven't yet achieved the status of being pure capitalistic democracies?


----------



## KissMy (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Government is inherently corrupt.  The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.



Eight Bell California City Council Members Arrested for Corruption on Steroids

*Government is inherently corrupt.*


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Eight Bell California City Council Members Arrested for &#8216;Corruption on Steroids&#8217;
> 
> *Government is inherently corrupt.*



The City of Bell had a vote a few years ago and only a few hundred people voted. Funny thing happened on the way to the polls, there was a vote for a change in the type of government they would have...the city charter.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.





It isn't what I say it is. Define what 'common understanding' is and then look at what people are talking about when they discuss free market reforms and forces.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.
> ...



That some people labor under the incorrect definition of what a free market is isn't news to me.  You're a shining example.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You brought up both capitalism and communism in the assumption that these economic systems actually exist in the real world. Then you start talking about government systems, and instead of clarifying your point you attempt to then it around and act like I do not know what I am saying. 

Remember that post you whined about, the one where I said i had never seen you participate in a debate? This is exactly what I am talking about. You attempt to redefine terms, change positions, and tie other people in knots. I suppose you think this makes you think you look clever, and it probably does confuse people who are your equal in intelligence, but most people see right through it. You end up looking more idiotic every time you post, and you are so confused you do not even know it.

I still remember the first thread of yours I responded to on this board. You used a term that meant something other than what you thought it did. I promised you then I would never assume you knew what a word, or term, meant simply because you used them. I haven't forgotten that lesson, even though I still try to treat you like you are a serious poster. 

I think that I will simply mock you from now on, and never assume that anything you say is meant to be serious. You do have the opportunity to prove me wrong if you like, even if I doubt you will. Unlike some posters on this board I am willing to admit I am wrong. Feel free to make me eat my words.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Are you suggesting we legislate morality into the sytstem?  If Congress refused the graft, it would go away all on its own.  Only because it works does it continue.  People are corrupt, systems have faults.



Always have, and probably always will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



It is a common misunderstanding among  Keynesians. I wonder why they don't think the weather helps corrupt government also.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 21, 2010)

> I rarely ever notice who is posting and who I am posting to.



Wow... that took a while to stop laughing at you.



> There are a few trolls on the _stalk-Dante with-idiotic-insults_  list



Sally, I generally avoid your threads nowadays.  That's why I was shocked when you actually put up a GOOD one.  Too bad you have now thrown it right into the cesspit too.  So yeah, whatever.



> next time you do not link to  the post you are quoting I will just ignore you.



Try being butch with someone who doesn't know you.  You go right ahead and ignore me all you want.  I responded for my own edification and that of others.  More than a few have appreciated my input.  I'm not going to quote an extra ton of text just for your own edification and waste of space.  



> think: Arguments for your ideas and arguments against those you oppose.  If you cannot make arguments to back up ideas you put forth, why bother  looking for debate?



Strange, you're the only one who didn't get what I opined.  You know what... no.  You're just not worth it.  I put up my points.  You didn't get it and want me to spoon feed you so you can play Rules for Radicals with it.  I'm not offering a comprehensive plan for you to play with.  Pay me lots of money and maybe I will come up with a comprehensive plan.  

I don't have the interest to play games with you.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Countering your own conclusion?  Are you daft?

First you acknowledge people as the problem, then you go on to say the answer is changing the system.  If you can't make the people more moral, then you must make the system more that way, yet you refuse that answer.  Congratulations, you have just created circular reasoning.  A failure on your part to be sure.

That is how its done bitch.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



People are speaking about free market forces and reforms. 

You are living in a dream world


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

wow. The wingnuts rally round the flag pole.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Guess circular reasoning means you have to think up a whole new approach.  Does that usually take you two or three days?  I have tons of replies for you, but you have to make the right dumb comment first.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> wow. The wingnuts rally round the flag pole.



and then there is the idiot trying to save liberty from imaginary dark forces.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Keeping your sorry ass in line.  It is a new day, ready bitch?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Sep 22, 2010)

Human nature. The same reason why every single government in the history of humankind has been corrupt.


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Human nature. The same reason why every single government in the history of humankind has been corrupt.



Exactly. All systems need defenses against human nature. What the ancient republican systems lacked, the framers of the USC tried to make up for with new ideas and a new vision.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Human nature. The same reason why every single government in the history of humankind has been corrupt.
> ...



How is that any different from what I said. Power corrupts. Human nature sees to that. same thing


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...




In the context of generalized statements it's a winner. It did not challenge or support what others have stated.


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Human nature. The same reason why every single government in the history of humankind has been corrupt.
> ...



Systems do not corrupt people.  That is the premise fo your whole thread, who is to blame.  THose that corrupt.  People corrupt not systems.  Typical lefty answer.  Create more regulation and government control and all will be solved.  Wrong.

Aggressively culling the violators is the answer.  That is done by:

Careful vetting of the candidates by the press and voters.
Holding Representatives and Senaotrs accountable in office.
Reporting abuses to leadership, followed by swift and appropriate enforcement.


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Wrong again. That was not the premise of the thread. There is an argument made that systems do not corrupt. It was made by KK. 


Lefty regulations?   arguing with yourself yet again. poor child. were you not breast fed?

Read the framers and founding fathers and get back to --- _uhm_ -- somebody who cares.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Who is a reference to a person or persons.  If your intent was to discuss a system, that would be a what.  What is to blame for the corruption of government?

Systems do not corrupt, people do.  Absent a system corruption can still take place.  With a system corruption may take place.  Improve a system and corruption could take place.  You have failed to meet the test of systems and their relationship to corruption.  You lose bitch.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 22, 2010)

Government Seizes Power from the People.

Power Corrupts.

Ultimate Power Corrupts Ultimately!

A Powerful Government is Ultimately a Corrupt Government!


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



gawd, I can't believe I'm going to do this, but here goes... D'oh! 101

An old society that time forgot exists where everyone has their needs met and there is no consumerism, no capitalism. There is something akin to a barter system in place. People exchange goods they have for other goods they lack and they need. Christian missionaries come to the civilization. Along with them comes consumerism and Capitalism. The system the people have been living with gets corrupted. 

true story

---

The native people do not adopt the consumer Capitalism at first. A few outsiders did not corrupt a whole system. The introduction of other values from a new system corrupted the barter system. Then the barter system may live on as a hybrid or it may be replaced, but before it gets replaced it gets corrupted. A system gets corrupted by another system. Systems have driving forces that get measured and quantified.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



First of all, people exchanged goods and services, that is consumerism.  First fail.

Next, bartering is exchanging good or services for a perceived profit is capitalism, it is just absent a convenient exchange like money.  Second fail.

No one ever took something without exchanging something back?  (stealing).  If they did you have corruption.  Third fail.

A few outsiders apparently did corrupt a system.  Would the system have occured without their presence?  You are being dishonest here.  Fourth fail.

You state they had all the goods and services they needed prior to the outsiders.  Yet, they apparently now need more or different goods and services.  How do they obtain them, if their system cannot provide them?  Fifth fail.


----------



## AquaAthena (Sep 22, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> I'll play....
> 
> 
> Its simple. Its us.... the people. We vote these idiots in over and over again.
> ...


*
---"and start voting in fiscally responsible folks who value their nation more than a buck."* 

I agree but would rewrite that...._and start voting in fiscally responsible folks who value their nation more than their power.[/I] Power corrupts._


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)




----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Glad I'm getting into your head. Too bad you don't keep anything in here.


----------



## Dante (Sep 22, 2010)

stupid people are just plain ._.  uhm  ...  err  ... ahh _ stupid


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> stupid people are just plain ._.  uhm  ...  err  ... ahh _ stupid



Should we act surprised about how long the second stupid took you?


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 22, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Government Seizes Power from the People.
> 
> Power Corrupts.
> 
> ...



Yep govt seizes power and then gives it to corporations.
It is called Privatization folks.

Perhaps I should say sold to coprorations by key people in our government.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 22, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Government Seizes Power from the People.
> ...



This is the governments way of cashing in on their power.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

The system of securities trading says when you have a position in an instrument you need to disclose it to the customer.  A wall street firm doesn't do that.  Is that a systems failure or just dishonest traders?  These are the types of failures most often observed.  It is the people plain and simple.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 22, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Government Seizes Power from the People.
> ...



That's not what privatization is.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Yes, but they are having so much fun playing.  Let's just explain it to them later.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 22, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Your lack of basic comprehension is showing again.

Your premise is that systems corrupt, and both KK and I have tried to point out that that is stupid. You do not now get to claim that you actually believe that when you argued yourself into a corner that you don't, unless you first admit you were wrong.


----------



## Dante (Sep 23, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Thread OP:

Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?

Is it the people?

Is it the civil servants?

Is it the elected leaders?

Is it the lobbyists?

Is it private individuals with great wealth (poor people can't buy access or influence).

Is it big business?

Is it the free market?

Who do you think corrupts government?

------------------------------------------------------

next post: I say 6 out of the 7 listed, with some shouldering a majority of the blame.

then...



Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Government is inherently corrupt.  The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.
> ...



and I repeat, Wrong again. That was not the premise of the thread. There is an argument made that systems do not corrupt. It was made by KK.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 23, 2010)

Dante said:


> ... I was not talking about personal responsibility for specific acts of corruption. That is lazy and a side issue. We were speaking about the government, meaning the system we have. It is hard to keep a discussion on topic with voices weighing in and it is also my fault for not being clearer.
> 
> Any individual person or any individual government (President/Congress) that is corrupt is incidental. *I am speaking about the corruption of our system of government*. Individuals and governments are easily replaced. They may have a corrupting influence upon the system itself, but they come and they go. The system stays.
> 
> "Limit power" is so broad a term as to be meaningless. Interpretations are left there to be debated. What does it mean to limit? How much? When?



In your own thread.  You must have known I'd check, but you still choose to be dishonest.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Sep 23, 2010)

Dante said:


> Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?
> 
> Is it the people?
> 
> ...




The People...and the people include civil servants, elected leaders, lobbyists, and private individuals along with anyone else who has the ability to cast a vote in our elections.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 23, 2010)

LOL

It is fun to watch you whine. Did you know that every time you neg someone they get pos repped 6 times?



Dante said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Great, a chance to mock. I will enjoy.


> Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?



Idiots like you.



> Is it the people?



The people? Who, or what, are the people? Is the people in sub Sahara Africa who have never voted for anyone? The people in France who cannot wear Burqas? The ones in the ISS? You cannot really expect anyone to answer this when you do not define it, do you?


> Is it the civil servants?



Probably the uncivil servants. My experience is that the nice servants around the palace never cause problems.


> Is it the elected leaders?



Elected leaders? Do you mean Obama? Has he been caught taking bribes? Are you some type of racist who assumes he is corrupt because he is black?



> Is it the lobbyists?



How can the lobbyists possibly be responsible? Did they set up the system in such a way that they could make it corrupt? If they did, why not just set it up so that they could save some money by simply doing it themselves?


> Is it private individuals with great wealth (poor people can't buy access or influence).



Like Buffet and his ilk? The guys who are promising to donate half of their wealth to help the poor? Will the poor be able to buy access or influence after they get half of the world's money?



> Is it big business?



How can big business be responsible? If they were responsible for the system they would save money and fire everyone.



> Is it the free market?



Maybe it is Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.



> Who do you think corrupts government?



You wouldn't understand if I told you. It is a bit like you think the OP defines the premise of the thread, or that no one has a right to post anything that does not deal directly with the OP. You have no idea how the real world works, all you have is your fantasy world where you control the internet.



> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> next post: I say 6 out of the 7 listed, with some shouldering a majority of the blame.



Talking to yourself is a sign of stupidity, not that you understand that.



> then...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And now we get to the premise of the thread, your assertion that the free market influences anything. Since the free market does not even exist, it cannot possibly influence anything or anyone. If it did exist, it would not be responsible for anything because it would not make decisions, offer bribes, or even accept them.

I would call this an epic fail, but it is actually just typical of what you do, so for you is is normal.


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Sep 23, 2010)

Democrats. Next Question.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 23, 2010)

Your precious founding fathers...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Sep 23, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Your precious founding fathers...



Let me ask you...were they people?

Oh so PEOPLE are responsible, just checking


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 24, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Your precious founding fathers...
> ...



Give the man a Kewpie doll!


----------



## Dante (Sep 24, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Your precious founding fathers...



nothing precious about them. but they did start something new. and the framers did leave us a great legacy to play around with.


----------



## Dante (Sep 24, 2010)

saveliberty is the house troll


----------



## MikeK (Sep 24, 2010)

Dante said:


> Now, if the system is corrupted, who is to blame?


Actually it's not _who_ but _what_ is to blame for the corruption in our government.  And the answer is the facility through which our representatives have gradually finagled to freely enable themselves to accept money (bribes) in the form of PACs, along with other gratuities from the rich and their corporate masters.  It's as simple as that.  And that is the situation which must be addressed.  But rather than address it you prefer to create convoluted irrelevancies which are analogous to the pamphlets packed in patent medicine boxes and go off on wandering diatribes of largely meaningless, pseudo-academic drivel.  

But I recently discovered a very simple means of circumventing your boring, condescending, time-wasting bullshit.  It's my Ignore list, which you are about to be added to.  And I'll advise anyone else who finds you similarly annoying to do the same.


----------



## Dante (Sep 24, 2010)

MikeK said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if the system is corrupted, who is to blame?
> ...


----------



## Douger (Sep 24, 2010)

Dante said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > I'll play....
> ...


Absolutely.
" My granpappy and mah daddy were __________ and so is I."
You assholes need to wake up.
You watch. In Nov it'll be the same old scumbags in DC....or their sons.......or nephews.
It's never changed and it never will.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 24, 2010)

A system has no ability to corrupt, unless a person or persons chooses to do so.  It is simply an excuse for liberals to add regulation and control instead of personal responsibility.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 24, 2010)

no that it matters since the truth about government corruption scares you and you always close your eyes and cover your ears when presented with evidence and facts but the american people are to blame because they let it happen and wont take a stand against it to get a third party started even though both parties are corrupt.Thats for the people like Dogure who are not afraid of the truth like Dante to read.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 24, 2010)

Dante said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > I'll play....
> ...




Yes... YES I sure do.

Read what I said.... Its our fault.

If I am on a sunday cruise, and I decide to... oh say, let my 9yr old take the wheel and she drives right into a telephone pole.

Who's fault would it be? 
(and no I am not parroting Obama's car analogy.... its just a good illustration)

It certainly is'nt hers..... she did what I asked her to. 
I knew she was a terrible driver, but I let her keep on her course and BAMMMM...!

We need compitant people who will adhere strictly to The Constitution, and not pass another spending bill unless they can show *US* where in The Constitution that it is applicable.
There is too much waste and entitlements going on and it has got to stop.

That is why in November, if you are not a conservative..... you dont get my vote.


(of course, I have NEVER voted for a liberal or a democrat)


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Sep 24, 2010)

While we and our parents were working, Democrats made a system of their buddies from your town hall to DC, patting themselves on the back and rewarding themselves heavily, and creating laws so you couldn't change what they did. Think I'm lying, go and TRY to reform government. You'll end up in a court room stuffed with Democrats, and good luck with that.


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Sep 24, 2010)

You will NEVER/EVER have government reform if you vote Democrat. They will never vote against the system they created, and run from top to bottom, bar a few GOP in their midst.


----------



## Dante (Sep 24, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> A system has no ability to corrupt, unless a person or persons chooses to do so.  It is simply an excuse for liberals to add regulation and control instead of personal responsibility.



The last time conservatives in America took responsibility for anything, Abe Lincoln was President.


----------



## Dante (Sep 25, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...




I just did. You're as clueless as you are ignorant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > A system has no ability to corrupt, unless a person or persons chooses to do so.  It is simply an excuse for liberals to add regulation and control instead of personal responsibility.
> ...



Maybe you should check with your fellow troll, rdean claims that Republicans are responsible for women graduates getting paid better than their male counterparts for the first time in history.


----------



## Dante (Sep 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



are you purposefully trying to get everyone to turn on signatures?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > A system has no ability to corrupt, unless a person or persons chooses to do so.  It is simply an excuse for liberals to add regulation and control instead of personal responsibility.
> ...



The blame game doesn't solve problems.  If your party can't or won't step up, then step aside.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 25, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Ahh but it can win elections, and that is all they care about.


----------



## Dante (Sep 25, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Reagan blamed Carter and always blamed liberals. GHWB and W, both blamed rather than run on a positive program. Clinton blamed. Obama blamed. 

hmmm, why would blaming the opposition for what one thinks they got wrong be an issue?

maybe asking to NOT play the blame game is the biggest douchebagh game going?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



There is nothing wrong with blaming others for their failings.

However it would be nice to see them run on what they have done since having power. The only problem is what they have done since having power. Will lose them the election.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



...or maybe it is the path to fixing this country for real.  I agree that many have done just what you say.  It has to end.  By the way, excuse making is second on the list of problems.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Oct 16, 2010)

"We The People."


----------



## Big Fitz (Oct 16, 2010)

I like Jason Lewis's quote on the subject:  "You get the government you deserve."

This is STILL why you need term limits and total time in government limits for all positions.


----------

