Corporate criminals don't face jail time.

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is the govt people wanted. They want big govt, they will get big corruption.

Nice spin.
Actually, this is small government in action. Big government would send these perps to the big house.

Now that is spin. Or are you denying govt has expanded at huge rates under Bush?

Small govt is circ late 20s when it consumed under 2% of GDP. The current budget for the federal govt puts it at about 23%.

Yes, back in the good old days when you payed your doctor with chickens.

What's wrong with paying for health care with chickens? You prefer the current system where big government backed HMOs (don't kid yourself, today's medical problems in the US are as much to blame on government as they are on capitalism) charge you and arm and a leg? I'd rather pay in chickens.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is the govt people wanted. They want big govt, they will get big corruption.

That's one of the most confused statements I've seen here.

Its confustion is reflected in the lack of even defining 'corruption': government or business?

Its confusion is further reflected in defining 'big government': big in the regulatory functions, or big in areas more subject to corruption, like military spending?

NOT having adequate government oversight of corporations causes an increase in business corruption.

Corporate corruption in America, to the point of crippling our very financial infrastructure, was rampant under the 'laissez-faire' conservative approach up until the Great Depression; it was the creation under FDR of the Seecurities and Exchange Commission - which business largely actually supported, including the government regulation to prevent the abuses, which reduced corporate corruption and increased the efficiency of the marketplace.

However, corruption can creep back, and you can see an increasing pressure from corporations to let them get away with more - and conservatives who say yes.

The old days of government corruption, when you had 'Boss Tweed' doling out big money form the government for pure government corruption, are long gone. Governent corruption now typically involves the private sector - awarding no-bid contracts, appointing industry representatives as regulators, and refusing to prosecute crimes.

One excellent example is the Bush crimes at Harkin, when as a Director on the board, he was appointed to lead a 3-person committee to investigate the company cooking the books. The board had been warned not to sell their shares of stock during a period of time when it wouold be insider trading. Bussh found they were cooking the books and sold all his shares just before the info came out, letting him sell for a much higher price. So why wasn't he prosecuted for insider trading?

The answer: the SEC investigator was Bush's own lawyer who had handled the Texas Rangers deal for him, and the head of the SEC was appointed by President Bush 41.

The staffers at the SEC were infuriated and issued their own statement about as strong as they could in protest when ordered to announce they would not prosecute, saying Bush had definitely NOT been exonerated as part of the investigation. It was clearly they'd simply been prevented from prosecuting him.

The government doing more to fight corruption is not what is meant by "big government" by any sensible person.

You'd be hilarious if you weren't so sad Craig.

Big regulations only apply to the little guy, the one who can't afford to bribe his way into congress to get legislation favorable to him. Big companies will always make the rules, so it's just wishful thinking that any meaningful regulation will apply.

Also, it's gets a bit old to hear you talking about corruption as though it belongs solely to Republicans. Your beloved Democrats are responsible for extending copyright to unreal limits. Every time Hollywood comes begging back at the trough of the public domain, your party of corporate whores gives it to them.

Government fighting corruption? Government is the corruption, why would it fight itself?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is the govt people wanted. They want big govt, they will get big corruption.

Nice spin.
Actually, this is small government in action. Big government would send these perps to the big house.

Now that is spin. Or are you denying govt has expanded at huge rates under Bush?

Small govt is circ late 20s when it consumed under 2% of GDP. The current budget for the federal govt puts it at about 23%.

Yes, back in the good old days when you payed your doctor with chickens.

What's wrong with paying for health care with chickens? You prefer the current system where big government backed HMOs (don't kid yourself, today's medical problems in the US are as much to blame on government as they are on capitalism) charge you and arm and a leg? I'd rather pay in chickens.

I'd rather pay in chickens too, but my doctor can't find a Jag dealership that will take them.

If you think we are ever going to see a time where it only takes 2% of the GDP to run this country you better hope to live a long life.... a very long life. I wouldn't be surprised if 2% doesn't even cover all the goverment pensions/benifits it owes to it's retired employees.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is the govt people wanted. They want big govt, they will get big corruption.

Nice spin.
Actually, this is small government in action. Big government would send these perps to the big house.

Now that is spin. Or are you denying govt has expanded at huge rates under Bush?

Small govt is circ late 20s when it consumed under 2% of GDP. The current budget for the federal govt puts it at about 23%.

Yes, back in the good old days when you payed your doctor with chickens.

What's wrong with paying for health care with chickens? You prefer the current system where big government backed HMOs (don't kid yourself, today's medical problems in the US are as much to blame on government as they are on capitalism) charge you and arm and a leg? I'd rather pay in chickens.

I'd rather pay in chickens too, but my doctor can't find a Jag dealership that will take them.

If you think we are ever going to see a time where it only takes 2% of the GDP to run this country you better hope to live a long life.... a very long life. I wouldn't be surprised if 2% doesn't even cover all the goverment pensions/benifits it owes to it's retired employees.

It certainly wont cover those costs. However expanding the size of govt by a factor of 10 in 80 years results in the above story.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Typical Republican approach to governing. Screw it up, then blame "big government."
This is not a case of big government, it's a case of not enough government interference and prosecution.

You think these people would be in jail under a Democratic president? In an alternate universe where a democrat is president, I don't think there would be much of a difference.

 

[NoStateofMind]

A deli owner has to pay the mob in order to keep himself "safe". If he fails to pay the window gets broken and he's out the cash anyways. I'm speaking of old time mob tactics which it seems our government has decided to implement. This is sad to hear. Know that we're changing in America and not for the better. When big money gets you off of charges its only right to think that same big money also has the power. Therefore the divide amongst rich and poor is now separated on another level and then widened. There is no way for this country to simply "turn around" now, its too big, too much money and too many power hungry individuals. The only way it will ever change is for the improbable to happen. Revolution.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jhhnn]

Corruption isn't a "size of govt" issue, at all. Teapot dome occurred during a period of much smaller govt, and the numerous scandals of the Grant Admin under an even smaller govt decades before. I'm sure that even the most minor research would yield many more examples.

I do think that the Bush admin has pushed the interconnectedness of prosecution and politics to new heights, with so much deferred prosecution being a symptom of an underlying quid pro quo. I see it more as a successful form of extortion by the admin than anything else- I suspect that defendants granted such grace have agreed to a variety of hidden terms... before or after committing the offences and copping a plea being largely immaterial.

Hell, the Admin signalled that's what they're all about when they dismissed their own appointed federal prosecutors who wouldn't play ball...

Looting is a team effort, after all...

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Typical Republican approach to governing. Screw it up, then blame "big government."
This is not a case of big government, it's a case of not enough government interference and prosecution.

You think these people would be in jail under a Democratic president? In an alternate universe where a democrat is president, I don't think there would be much of a difference.

I am sure you have data to show Democrat administrations using deferred prosecutions to the extent Bush's has? Or you are just throwing a total hypothetical as a diversion?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Corruption isn't a "size of govt" issue, at all.

No one has said, I hope, that a small gov't is not corruptible. Humans are corruptible.

But the more powers you give government, the more corruptible it can be. You give the government power to regulate an industry, even partly, then you open a path to businesses in the industry climbing into bed with the government.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Bamacre-

But the more powers you give government, the more corruptible it can be. You give the government power to regulate an industry, even partly, then you open a path to businesses in the industry climbing into bed with the government.

Sounds peachy, except that govt interference in business doesn't happen just because it can, but because of public perception that it needs to happen for the benefit of us all. Otherwise, it's a daterape scenario- the players who have no qualms about seducing the govt have even fewer qualms about doing worse to the general public...

 

[Pabster]

Well, looks like Bush just puts off their prosecution. Clinton simply pardoned them at the end. Same ends, different means. :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Bamacre-

But the more powers you give government, the more corruptible it can be. You give the government power to regulate an industry, even partly, then you open a path to businesses in the industry climbing into bed with the government.

Sounds peachy, except that govt interference in business doesn't happen just because it can, but because of public perception that it needs to happen for the benefit of us all. Otherwise, it's a daterape scenario- the players who have no qualms about seducing the govt have even fewer qualms about doing worse to the general public...

And we all know how good "public perception" is.

Of course, when the "public perception" of this comes to light, the politicians are like ambulance chasers, ready to take powers the public ignorantly gives them that the constitution doesn't. Or, the "public perception" comes to being through fear-mongering by the politicians and then the press. Either way, the government loves to get bigger and fatter. There is a reason why corporate money moves politics.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, you deny that govt has any place at all in the marketplace, Bamacre? Bureau of Standards? Federal meat inspection? FDA? SEC? Or the myriad of other acronyms we take for granted?

It's easy enough to make such claims- entirely another to live in a world where what you advocate is reality. I won't argue that the public is occasionally led completely astray by the media and govt- it happened when we had smaller govt, too. The "yellow journalism" of Hearst and the Spanish-American War era comes to mind, and the very cozy relationship between the Robber Barons and Repub politicians of the era...

Rave against "Big Govt" all you want, but the sad truth is that smaller weaker govt is really more susceptible to corruption by big money. The truth of that is obvious with even the most cursory glance towards the third world.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Typical Republican approach to governing. Screw it up, then blame "big government."
This is not a case of big government, it's a case of not enough government interference and prosecution.

You think these people would be in jail under a Democratic president? In an alternate universe where a democrat is president, I don't think there would be much of a difference.

I am sure you have data to show Democrat administrations using deferred prosecutions to the extent Bush's has? Or you are just throwing a total hypothetical as a diversion?

You're right, Democrats would go straight to presidential pardon.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, you deny that govt has any place at all in the marketplace, Bamacre? Bureau of Standards? Federal meat inspection? FDA? SEC? Or the myriad of other acronyms we take for granted?

I never said that.

It's easy enough to make such claims-

I didn't make such claims.

entirely another to live in a world where what you advocate is reality. I won't argue that the public is occasionally led completely astray by the media and govt- it happened when we had smaller govt, too. The "yellow journalism" of Hearst and the Spanish-American War era comes to mind, and the very cozy relationship between the Robber Barons and Repub politicians of the era...

Uh yup, and there is a reason why, for example, health care companies gave tons of cash to Hillary Clinton.

Rave against "Big Govt" all you want, but the sad truth is that smaller weaker govt is really more susceptible to corruption by big money. The truth of that is obvious with even the most cursory glance towards the third world.

I'm not talking about 3rd-world countries. Perhaps some day you will understand why our founders gave the federal government little power, and little more than the job of protecting the rights and liberties of the American people.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Well, looks like Bush just puts off their prosecution. Clinton simply pardoned them at the end. Same ends, different means. :laugh:

So Bush is no better than Clinton right?

 

[conehead433]

The biggest criminals are sitting in the White House.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Pabster-

Well, looks like Bush just puts off their prosecution. Clinton simply pardoned them at the end. Same ends, different means.

Not nearly. Most Clinton pardons were granted after the fact, as a way for the petitioners to clear their records. They'd usually been convicted and done whatever time they'd been sentenced to serve.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Deferred prosecution in exchange for cash fines and under the table dealings with political associates is another thing entirely.

Only totally blind partisans could fail to recognize the difference...

As the Bush presidency comes to a close, I'm confident that we'll see a lot of before the fact big name political crony pardons- basically immunizing the whole of the important players in the admin from future prosecution, even from meaningful inquiry into their past misdeeds.

It's good to be King, especially when you're at the head of the most astounding band of liars, cheats, conmen and charlatans in the history of the human race...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Not nearly. Most Clinton pardons were granted after the fact, as a way for the petitioners to clear their records. They'd usually been convicted and done whatever time they'd been sentenced to serve.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Rewriting history again, eh? :laugh:

I'm not looking to rehash the entire Pardongate saga here. Suffice it to say that a few names like Marc Rich and Carlos Vignali stand out as those who didn't "do their time" and walked away scot free thanks to Slick.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nah, I'm not rewriting history, at all. Rich's situation was actually pretty vague wrt the tax charges, and he was beyond the reach of American Law, anyway, not to mention that the prime minister of Israel was one of many who petitioned for the pardon. And, uhh, Vignali served more than 5 years of a 15 year sentence- not exactly scot-free as you claim. I didn't really agree with either pardon at the time, but then I don't know the whole story, either. Mercy is definitely a perogative of the chief executive, however, unconditionally granted in the constitution.

Like I said- watch how this pardon scenario shakes out. Clinton's long list was mostly a lot of relative nobodies- Bush's short list will read like a who's who of the neocon establishment, with convicted felon Scooter Libby right at the top... not to mention the business figures he won't have to pardon because of their deferred prosecution/ payoff deals...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's good to be King, especially when you're at the head of the most astounding band of liars, cheats, conmen and charlatans in the history of the human race...

Well, I can't go along with that last sentence. There have been far worse gangs in power, at least qualitatively.

They are liars, cheat, conmen and charlatans, the worst in the history of our nation, but the human race has offered far worse as leaders of nations before.

You are of course right though to correct Pabster's usual nonsense. There are flaws in Clinton's pardons, which pale in comparison to the Republicans' pardons.

 

[tweaker2]

the huge corporates own the politicians who make our laws. so in that sense, why would these corporates want to make punishment of crimes perped by them any harsher than what they think they can get away with?