Culture of corruption

I think that economic policies of the present administration are extremely damaging, that their philosophy of governing is rotten, and their record on civil liberties is horrible, and that overall the Obama reign will go down in history as a dark stretch.

But.

I honestly don't see them as any more corrupt than any other administration since Ike. Not at this point.

Cyrylek said:

I honestly don't see them as any more corrupt than any other administration since Ike. Not at this point.

Click to expand...

Most likely the first administration was corrupt and set precedence.

Anyway, you bring up a good point that this, like most other points on this forum, really isn't about the left-right divide but a symptom of something much more deep rooted. I think it goes really deep into the human psyche and has everything to do with dealing with scarcity. Because of scarcity we tend to want to hoard and control as much resources as possible to guarantee our individual survival, even if at the expense of everyone else. Whereas today most people think we swim in a sea of abundance, and decadence rules the land, there are still many for whom enough is never enough.

Convince everyone that we have arrived in a period of abundance and maybe corruption will subside.

kenc said:

Convince everyone that we have arrived in a period of abundance and maybe corruption will subside.

Click to expand...

Well, we are already convinced, to a great extent - and, in realty, our corruption is very limited, comparing to what's going on in Russia, India, Brazil, or Mexico (to name a few countries of comparable size and social complexity).

But I suspect that the instinct you are talking about, while quite real, plays a secondary role. Most of corruption stems from the structural flaws that can be fixed by limiting the scope and role of government. It should be a cop and a guard, not a business partner or distributor of goodies.

All such rosters should be taken with a grain of salt, but if we look, for example, at the dozen of "least corrupt" and the dozen of "most corrupt" polities of the world in the Corruption Perception Index of the Transparency International, you see strong negative correlation between liberalism (in the European sense - "libertarianism") and corruption. The free-market havens of New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Denmark, etc are viewed as the least corrupt (Chile being the least corrupt in Latin America and the developing world at large), while authoritarian socialists are bunched up at the bottom: North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Ukraine...). (2012 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results)

Of course, it may be just that liberalism works in places that are culturally resistant to corruption, and fails elsewhere, but it is hard to believe that Chile (#20) and Ecuador (#118) or Argentina (#102) are THAT different culturally. Or that Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore (## 37, 14, 5) are populated by some different kinds of Chinese (China: #80)

kenc said:

Another important driver was that Iraq started to sell oil in the Euro instead of the US Dollar. In the beginning it was seen as stupid because the dollar was stronger than the Euro, but as the dollar slid and the Euro grew the serious threat of the US Dollar losing its status as reserve currency was too dangerous.

People are corrupt. Unfortunately some are much better at it than others. Those become crooks, politicians and wall st. titans.

Click to expand...

During the Clinton years it was known oil was being sold... through Turkey if I recall.

There was the Oil for Food Corruption scandal the press was not too eager to cover either... with the French banks raking in tons of cash.

TheDemSocialist said:

Newsflash ladies and gents there are such things called suprise attacks.
But we can keep playing the card "obama sucks, liberals sucks, democrats suck".

Click to expand...

Culture of Corruption... you know where that phrase came from? The root? When it happened?

Mark Foley. Homosexual sexting underage assistants. Mid Term Election 2006.

We have 4 dead, a coverup that involves top brass in the Obama Admin. ... including Obama and Clinton.
We have either massive incompetence, a coverup or both.

And what do we get from the Socialists?

Drivel... Pure drivel.

zimmer said:

Culture of Corruption... you know where that phrase came from? The root? When it happened?

Mark Foley. Homosexual sexting underage assistants. Mid Term Election 2006.

We have 4 dead, a coverup that involves top brass in the Obama Admin. ... including Obama and Clinton.
We have either massive incompetence, a coverup or both.

And what do we get from the Socialists?

Drivel... Pure drivel.

Click to expand...

And we get a typical response from you.

TheDemSocialist said:

And we get a typical response from you.

Click to expand...

Yes you do.

1. Historical perspective about the phrase.
2. Reference of the phrase to how it applies today. A real CoC.
3. A summary of what the antagonist stated.

All done succinctly.

Thanks.

zimmer said:

Yes you do.

1. Historical perspective about the phrase.

Click to expand...

Why would i care about the phrase. Nothing i said addresses the phase.

2. Reference of the phrase to how it applies today. A real CoC.

Click to expand...

Yet again nothing i said from the get go has to deal with the phrase

3. A summary of what the antagonist stated.

Click to expand...

What?

All done succinctly.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

:roll:

TheDemSocialist said:

Newsflash ladies and gents there are such things called suprise attacks.
But we can keep playing the card "obama sucks, liberals sucks, democrats suck".

Click to expand...

It was a reply to this ultra-lame statement, and you followed this one up with another doozie.

You're a socialist, and socialists have difficulty with the truth.
Tell me... what one socialist state had a foundation of honesty? And don't feed me this crap that "Demokratic Socialism" is different. It's not. You're all a heap of liars.

Cyrylek said:

...But I suspect that the instinct you are talking about, while quite real, plays a secondary role. Most of corruption stems from the structural flaws that can be fixed by limiting the scope and role of government. It should be a cop and a guard, not a business partner or distributor of goodies...

Click to expand...

Going deeper, I think a lot of the structural flaws are really due to societal flaws. People need a safety net, and instead of creating it ourselves by creating strong communities, we abandon our neighbors and tell the government to deal with them when they are down. Unfortunately, politicians are busy chasing all the money from interests, not the people they represent.

Pretending that corruption is a new thing that was brought upon by Obama is dishonest a bit.
After all, corruption is a staplemark of the entire US government, starting from Congress. What is lobbying if not a legitimate way to bribe people?

And you think that Obama brought the **** inside the house? Sure, he and his people are incompetent. That is true. Maybe a bit more incompetent than Bush because at least Bush had people telling him whom to put in place because they were good at their job. Hell, even Congress was somewhat more competent. You didn't have Reid not knowing whats in a major landmark healthcare bill. Even the congressmen who passed the Patriot act in Bush's time knew that it was a load of garbage and yet they all passed it.

If you need to add a trademark to Obama, its whimpering. Obama didn't bring corruption to the white house, it was there when he got there. He just shook hands with it. He brought whimpering to the White House.

the culture has existed since before 1789 and has likely gotten worse each administration. One administration gets elected by criticizing the previous administration and then proceeds to continue the trend or make it worse. The current administration stands proudly on top of that trash pile formed over history shouting out to the world that he is somehow the exception.

Bunk.

zimmer said:

You call 4 dead Americans and the following coverup a "molehill"?

Click to expand...

Where was your concern for our embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred?

Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?

Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?

How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?

There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.

Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.

In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.

In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

Notice the dates, all before the Obama administration.

Oopsie - I guess that you missed those, didn't you!?

SMTA said:

Where was your concern for our embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred?

Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?

Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?

How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?

There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.

Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.

In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.

In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

Notice the dates, all before the Obama administration.

Oopsie - I guess that you missed those, didn't you!?

Click to expand...

Were these outposts denied the security they wanted or needed, and did someone fail to tell the truth after these tragic losses?
Seems not, or the press would have been all over it. They hated Bush 43.

I am concerned about national security.

It is why I think the budgets should be increased for military, intel, border control, consulates... you name it. National Security is Job #1.

The problem is, Obama and his crew denied them the security they were asking for in Benghazi.
They told troops to stand down as they were being attacked.
They reduced security levels and one military leader during testimony said he wasn't surprised at what happened.
Then they lied about the cause.

The loss of life is tragic. But it's not the loss of life that is driving this... had he come clean from the start it wouldn't have been a problem.

Like Watergate... it was/is the ensuing coverup.
Families lied to.
Nation lied to.
Libyan government made to look like idiots.
Threatening government employees.

It's amazing folks like you cannot grasp such a simple concept.
You recall Watergate do you not? Now we have another but far more serious than a 3rd rate burglary... with Richard Milhouse Obama's ass on the line.

Let me put it in a ringtone you should be familiar with... People died, Obama lied.

Capiche?

The culture of corruption term came out in the 2006 midterms with D's pointing at Mark Foley... That pales when compared with what went on in Benghazi and its aftermath.

Rainman05 said:

What is lobbying if not a legitimate way to bribe people?

Click to expand...

Lobbying isn't bribing.

Lobbying is the ability to influence your government. Government... that beast that steals a little of your liberty every day they convene. It's your chance to defend your turf. Even small folks can band together and lobby.

It takes majorities to write and pass law... only Obama acts like a King subverting the process.

For those who are bribed... there are journalists, the court of public opinion/elections and there is a justice system.

It's not perfect, but I would hate to see a system without lobbying. USSR anyone?

zimmer said:

Were these outposts denied the security they wanted or needed, and did someone fail to tell the truth after these tragic losses?
Seems not, or the press would have been all over it. They hated Bush 43.

I am concerned about national security.

It is why I think the budgets should be increased for military, intel, border control, consulates... you name it. National Security is Job #1.

The problem is, Obama and his crew denied them the security they were asking for in Benghazi.
They told troops to stand down as they were being attacked.
They reduced security levels and one military leader during testimony said he wasn't surprised at what happened.
Then they lied about the cause.

The loss of life is tragic. But it's not the loss of life that is driving this... had he come clean from the start it wouldn't have been a problem.

Like Watergate... it was/is the ensuing coverup.
Families lied to.
Nation lied to.
Libyan government made to look like idiots.
Threatening government employees.

It's amazing folks like you cannot grasp such a simple concept.
You recall Watergate do you not? Now we have another but far more serious than a 3rd rate burglary... with Richard Milhouse Obama's ass on the line.

Let me put it in a ringtone you should be familiar with... People died, Obama lied.

Capiche?

Click to expand...

Your ringtone cannot be heard, as you have this problem: