[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Today, I learned... - Manbird - Jul 5, 2022 - 2:49pm
 
Guns - Manbird - Jul 5, 2022 - 2:41pm
 
Name My Band - GeneP59 - Jul 5, 2022 - 2:27pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Jul 5, 2022 - 2:19pm
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 5, 2022 - 1:49pm
 
Wordle - daily game - Manbird - Jul 5, 2022 - 1:46pm
 
RP Metadata and Album Art - kurtster - Jul 5, 2022 - 9:18am
 
Favorite Quotes - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 5, 2022 - 7:32am
 
seriously? - oldviolin - Jul 4, 2022 - 9:03pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jul 4, 2022 - 9:00pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - haresfur - Jul 4, 2022 - 7:13pm
 
Things You Thought Today - steeler - Jul 4, 2022 - 9:51am
 
Radio Paradise for Android Automotive - jens547 - Jul 4, 2022 - 7:42am
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Jul 4, 2022 - 7:38am
 
Porcupine Tree to tour in late 2022 - kurtster - Jul 3, 2022 - 9:37pm
 
What is the meaning of this? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 3, 2022 - 5:54pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - Antigone - Jul 3, 2022 - 5:46pm
 
The Grateful Dead - Steely_D - Jul 3, 2022 - 6:30am
 
Gentle Giant - Steely_D - Jul 3, 2022 - 6:26am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Alchemist - Jul 2, 2022 - 3:42pm
 
US Empire - R_P - Jul 2, 2022 - 2:56pm
 
Mind Control - Manbird - Jul 2, 2022 - 2:39pm
 
Tech & Science - GeneP59 - Jul 2, 2022 - 1:29pm
 
Trump - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 2, 2022 - 12:03pm
 
Living in America - Red_Dragon - Jul 2, 2022 - 8:14am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Jul 2, 2022 - 6:54am
 
Supreme Court Rulings - kurtster - Jul 1, 2022 - 10:42pm
 
Religion - Red_Dragon - Jul 1, 2022 - 8:15pm
 
Joe Biden - Bill_J - Jul 1, 2022 - 4:49pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Jul 1, 2022 - 3:06pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jul 1, 2022 - 1:51pm
 
Ratings - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 1, 2022 - 1:10pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 1, 2022 - 9:24am
 
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul - islander - Jul 1, 2022 - 8:57am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - ColdMiser - Jul 1, 2022 - 8:52am
 
d'oh! or what I would've said if I'd had a half hour to t... - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 30, 2022 - 8:44pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Jun 30, 2022 - 8:30pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jun 30, 2022 - 8:12pm
 
Procrastinators Anonymous - oldviolin - Jun 30, 2022 - 3:36pm
 
New Song Submissions system - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 30, 2022 - 3:21pm
 
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey - black321 - Jun 30, 2022 - 12:48pm
 
The Obituary Page - kurtster - Jun 30, 2022 - 12:18pm
 
The Abortion Wars - R_P - Jun 30, 2022 - 11:31am
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Jun 29, 2022 - 10:19pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Jun 29, 2022 - 3:54pm
 
Beer - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 29, 2022 - 3:08pm
 
Education - Isabeau - Jun 29, 2022 - 2:47pm
 
Android 11 lock screen widget - jkforde - Jun 29, 2022 - 1:58pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - oldviolin - Jun 29, 2022 - 12:38pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 29, 2022 - 12:32pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 29, 2022 - 11:35am
 
Breaking News - R_P - Jun 29, 2022 - 11:20am
 
Chemosabe, the further adventures of ... - kurtster - Jun 29, 2022 - 9:04am
 
Art Show - oldviolin - Jun 28, 2022 - 9:52pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jun 28, 2022 - 8:47pm
 
Highly stylized photos that you've taken - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 28, 2022 - 2:54pm
 
Russia - miamizsun - Jun 28, 2022 - 1:00pm
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Jun 28, 2022 - 11:58am
 
Fiverr Anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 28, 2022 - 11:27am
 
Love is... - Steely_D - Jun 28, 2022 - 9:55am
 
You might be getting old if...... - kurtster - Jun 28, 2022 - 7:31am
 
Fascism American-style - R_P - Jun 27, 2022 - 11:09pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Jun 27, 2022 - 9:56pm
 
I am Thinking of: - maryte - Jun 27, 2022 - 2:14pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 27, 2022 - 1:27pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Jun 27, 2022 - 10:39am
 
Economix - R_P - Jun 27, 2022 - 10:14am
 
M.A.G.A. - R_P - Jun 27, 2022 - 9:43am
 
Using Words to Frame a Political Issue - oldviolin - Jun 27, 2022 - 8:52am
 
Britain - Red_Dragon - Jun 27, 2022 - 8:40am
 
Words, acronyms, whatever, that changed meaning - Proclivities - Jun 27, 2022 - 7:43am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 26, 2022 - 3:55pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 26, 2022 - 3:43pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - Antigone - Jun 25, 2022 - 4:48pm
 
Terrorist Watch! - Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2022 - 2:58pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Corruption Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Post to this Topic
ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 19, 2013 - 12:12pm

Our (USA's) corruption is institutionalized and largely legal as a point of law.  The most clever thieves of all pay their (minimal) taxes and operate out of any of their several homes with complete aplomb and the blessing of society.  And we give Afghanistan a hard time.  They are pikers.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 19, 2013 - 11:19am

Inaugural Sponsors Spent $160 Million Lobbying Government


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 11:59am

The Cost Of The Best Senate Banking Committee JP Morgan Can Buy: $877,798 In Bribes

Tyler Durden's picture




In about an hour's time, Jamie Dimon will sit down before the Senate Banking Committee and prove, once again, not only who is smarter and calls the shots in the great Wall Street-D.C. soap opera, but that when it comes to purchasing a room full of senators (not to mention the script for today's "hearing"), JP Morgan is always at the top. Because as the following table compiled using OpenSecrets data, it cost JP Morgan just under $1 million, or $877,798.00 to be precise in lifetime campaign contributions, to buy itself precisely one Senate Banking Committee. And where it gets really fun is that between the Chairman, Tim Johnson (D - SD), and the ranking member Richard Shelby (R - AL), JP Morgan has been the top and second biggest campaign contributor, respectively. Also, 9 (at least) of the total 22 members of the committee have received some form of bribe from JPM over the years.

One wonders: will the shrillness and idiocy of the questions by the Senators be proportional to how much money JPM has given them over the years? If so, expect Schumer to have the most crony muppet line of questioning we have ever seen him take.

Now sit back, grab a popcorn, and watch as the bribees pretend to interrogate their paymaster.


Umberdog

Umberdog Avatar

Location: In my body.
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 6:11pm

Corruption... what is it?

We make laws to subvert it and it subverts our laws. It seems an eternal struggle in men, that Nature makes stealing a legitimate form of attaining stuff. Of course there may be consequences. I doubt that sending offenders to country clubs is a useful consequence. But, maybe, if we laid them on a guillotine.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 5:43pm

 Beaker wrote:



Thank you.  Drive thru!
 

So I take it you don't really want to answer the question?

That's OK, I understand.


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 1:28pm

 Beaker wrote:



This is now your THIRD angle of attack against the vid, after having your first two shown to be utterly without legs.  You're hopeless!    You just can't admit to the fact that it's a simple and straightforward message!   Occam's razor - you should look into it dude! 
 
Since you are obviously so much more intelligent than me, perhaps you can enlighten me as to which taxes they are alluding to in this beloved video of yours, since you seem to be saying that it's not income taxes, nor is it corporate taxes?

That's the cool thing about ambiguities, isn't it?  Gives you some wiggle room when people try to pin you down!

{#Wink}

black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 12:05pm

 aflanigan wrote:


It seems the answer is found in the article:

"The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill that's projected to provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, according to Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber used the funds to "advance a market- based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs," it said in a statement."

 



well, i'm confused then b/c all i've heard was that the healthcare law was basically written by the insurance carriers....it increases the pool of people buying insurance.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 11:31am

 black321 wrote:
 aflanigan wrote:

How timely.  Just as we were talking about US COC funding of political advocacy adds.

INSURERS PAID CHAMBER 86.2 MILLION TO OPPOSE HEALTH CARE LAW



 

Was the lobbying to oppose the law, or rewrite the law?

 

It seems the answer is found in the article:

"The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill that's projected to provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, according to Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber used the funds to "advance a market- based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs," it said in a statement."
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 11:23am

 aflanigan wrote:

How timely.  Just as we were talking about US COC funding of political advocacy adds.

INSURERS PAID CHAMBER 86.2 MILLION TO OPPOSE HEALTH CARE LAW



 



Was the lobbying to oppose the law, or rewrite the law?
Romulus

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 11:17am

 aflanigan wrote:

Well, I guess if you don't like disclosure/transparency laws, there probably aren't a whole lot of laws you do like.

And I suppose you wouldn't agree with Brandeis' sentiment that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants".  What, then, are we to root out corruption and financial malfeasance with, if not transparency?  Will a monarchy do the trick?  Or should we just pray to God?

 
You mean like Obama's sunlight promise? Or the promise that he would post the 'bill' online and give us 3 days to read it? Another one broken.

Lets see, how about the SEC? How did that work out? Pretty good for Madoff and company, for the longest time.

Transparency is great IF that's what we get. And it makes for nice rhetoric, what we get instead is a bait and switch Protection Panel, that, when the time comes, might sacrafice one of their own players, like a Madoff.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 11:04am

How timely.  Just as we were talking about US COC funding of political advocacy adds.

INSURERS PAID CHAMBER 86.2 MILLION TO OPPOSE HEALTH CARE LAW


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 11:02am

 Beaker wrote:

Errr, correct me if I am in error here, but it's my understanding that the "Bush tax cuts" are related to personal income taxes and not those of a corporation.  Unless I'm in error, then your (now second) response to the message of this vid is a complete non-sequitur.

"Boss, profits are back, cashflow is good ... its time to expand, grow, to create jobs"
 
If that's the case, what uncertainty about taxes are they alluding to?  I'm not aware of any current proposals to increase corporate tax rates.  The only change in corporate tax I have seen Obama propose is a tax break:

OBAMA TO PUSH TAX BREAK

Businesses Would Be Allowed to Write Off New Investment in Plants, Equipment


Which means this segment of the video is blatantly misleading/false, if it is alluding to uncertainty over proposed corporate tax hikes.

BasmntMadman

BasmntMadman Avatar

Location: Off-White Gardens


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 10:25am

 Beaker wrote:



Here we go again.  The message in the vid was simple and straightforward: In spite of any pol's rhetoric,  businesses remain nervous both about the economy and an ongoing concern about what the government might do next.  As she states in the vid: "Confidence is low and uncertainty is high."  The evidence of that is out there in abundance. 
 
I thought businessmen weren't supposed to be such a bunch of Nervous Nellies.  Brave Generals a lá George Patton in the Great Competition of Business and all.  Was George ever nervous??  The man must be spinning in his grave because of all the wussies who can't fight and can't fuck in the corporate suites getting all afraid!! 



aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 10:14am

 Beaker wrote:

Checking for a refutation of the fact that confidence is low and uncertainty is high ...  checking, checking.    Drat.  None found.

I sincerely thank you again for your input. 
 

You should look at the video carefully, Beak.  No one is arguing that business confidence is low in the aftermath of the big economic downturn (see my previous response).  What the video tries to do is suggest that small businesses are being cautious over uncertainty over the status of the Bush tax cuts (minutes 1:10-1:15 of the video).  Which I don't buy, as explained below.

Always glad to give you the benefit of my humble opinion.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 10:05am

It's true, the vast majority of small businesses would be unaffected by a tax increase in the upper brackets...b/c the vast majority of small businesses dont pay taxes in the first place ...Ha!
How often do you pay your plumber or window installer in cash to shave off 10%? How come i never get a register receipt with my lunch at the local deli?
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 9:55am

 Beaker wrote:



Here we go again.  The message in the vid was simple and straightforward: In spite of any pol's rhetoric,  businesses remain nervous both about the economy and an ongoing concern about what the government might do next.  As she states in the vid: "Confidence is low and uncertainty is high."  The evidence of that is out there in abundance. 

That you choose to once again turn one of my posts into yet another questioning of motives of the source, really says a bunch about your interest in stuff, doesn't it?

Or perhaps your post was meant to refute the message that confidence is low and uncertainty is high ...  in which case, you neglected to offer any evidence.  Why is that?

And here's the link to the vid, seeing as you are unable to master quoting the vid or posting a link to it.


 
Sorry, there, buddy.  Didn't realize I was supposed to refrain from repsonding to or commenting on your posts.  I just wanted to thank you for bringing this issue to everyone's attention.

Businesses certainly do get nervous during, and in the aftermath of, a serious recession.  However, I suspect that most small businesses could care less about whether the Bush tax cuts are extended only for middle class earners and below (as Obama is proposing) or for everyone, including top earners, i.e. the wealthiest of the wealthy.  As William Gale pointed out back in August,

"If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. (emphasis mine)  Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets — individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go — it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses."


It's typical of these kinds of videos to project the concerns of corporate big wigs onto actors playing middle class Americans.  You see the same thing in videos purporting to portray the concerns of "regular" Americans over the costs of health care reform; "Harry and Louise", nominally portraying "regular folks", serve as mouthpieces for the Health Insurance lobby. 

I welcome groups like the US Chamber of Commerce adding their voice to the debate.  If the Republican party wants to promote their agenda, they're welcome to do so.  I just want them to be candid about it and admit it when they are funding a message like that in the video.  If their message has merit, why wouldn't they want to be honest about who is paying for it?


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 9:24am

 Romulus wrote:

That's always the language... but never the true intention..... Laws are created and selectively enforced depending on which interest is in power and which one needs to be eliminated.
 
Well, I guess if you don't like disclosure/transparency laws, there probably aren't a whole lot of laws you do like.

And I suppose you wouldn't agree with Brandeis' sentiment that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants".  What, then, are we to root out corruption and financial malfeasance with, if not transparency?  Will a monarchy do the trick?  Or should we just pray to God?
Romulus

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 9:12am

 aflanigan wrote:
We need to stop sheltering corporations (and other special interest groups) from disclosure laws meant to shine a light on the corrupting linkages between corporate and interest group giving and political candidates and parties.
 
That's always the language... but never the true intention..... Laws are created and selectively enforced depending on which interest is in power and which one needs to be eliminated.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 17, 2010 - 9:01am

Beaker (in Economix) wrote:
  
(Video from Bankrupting America website)

—————————————————————
Thanks, Beak, for pointing out yet another example of how the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision is already producing negative consequences in terms of making the political landscape even more skewed towards the powerful and against the powerless.

This vid is produced by a 501(c)(4) non profit group, Public Notice, helmed by Gretchen Hamel, a long-time Republican PR operative.  The group is undoubtedly funded anonymously by various corporate lobbying outfits like USCOC.  It is this sort of covert funding that is warping our political system and drowning out cogent discussion by actual voters. 
PUBLIC NOTICE (BANKRUPTING AMERICA)

We need to stop sheltering corporations (and other special interest groups) from disclosure laws meant to shine a light on the corrupting linkages between corporate and interest group giving and political candidates and parties.


cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 16, 2010 - 11:23am

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Yeah, but it really seems more like he had no accountant looking after things for him. Seems like a lot of that stuff would have been caught by a competent financial manager. Like the rental income from a resort unit, you know? I'm not saying the guy's not guilty, the evidence is overwhelming, but some of it seems less like corruption and more like, well, stupidity. Not an excuse, I know: this schmuck was chair of the Ways and Means Committee, not some rube from the sticks who had no idea what you're supposed to pay taxes on.

Another case of 'Entrenched Entitlement'...

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next