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

[HershOstropoler]

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

Not at all. Bring out the evidence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

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

[DinoDoc]

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

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

[HershOstropoler]

cyclotron7:

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

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

Tell me more about that european corruption.

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

They are just a symptom of a broader problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HershOstropoler]

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

"econometric analysis" ???

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

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

[DinoDoc]

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

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

[Cyclotron]

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

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

Tell me more about that european corruption.

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

They are just a symptom of a broader problem.

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

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

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

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

[Al B. Sure!]

is anyone shocked by this coming from a communist?

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

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

[HershOstropoler]

DD:

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

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

cyclotron7:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What you describe is not corruption"

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

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

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

[Whaleboy]

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

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

[Al B. Sure!]

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

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

[DinoDoc]

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

[Cyclotron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free expression in a healthy, democratic society.

[Kidlicious]

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

Who is Roland?

[Chris 62]

Hersh is Roland.