9 out of 10 Americans completely wrong

[rightwinger]

I didn't say that. Maybe you could ask a question about something I actually said?

Ok ....how bout this?

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.


You do realize this would land a federal employee in jail don't you?

Well so far it hasn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow the money--to know who is advocate for who, to see who is contributing campaign donations and where they are directing them. Bundling is a popular tactic of large groups and entities to get around contribution limits. So long as they keep it under $2,000 per contribution, your employer or union or whatever can make contributions to a candidate in your name, and through bundling it is unlikely that you or anybody else would notice your name on the list of contributors. Or they simply form a PAC on the side and do a lot of arm twisting to 'encourage' donations to the PAC that in turn funnels funds to a political party that will indirectly use them to benefit a particular candidate.

Did you naively think all that stimulus money going to this or that 'not quite shovel ready job' was inadvertent and well intended? Do you honestly think at least some of it was not distributed as payola to those who directly or indirectly helped Obama or others get elected?

Are you crazy or just too wrapped up in partisan mythology?

Every federal employee involved in the procurement process from GS-12 through SES has to file an annual financial disclosure form. You have to list every stock you own, all contacts with other companies, all your debts. That is for you and your spouse. The Hatch act prohibits them from being involved in any political process outside of voting.
If you have a conflict of interest you are reassigned or fired if you refuse to divest yourself. If you lie on your disclosure you are criminally liable

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok ....how bout this?

Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.


You do realize this would land a federal employee in jail don't you?

Well so far it hasn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow the money--to know who is advocate for who, to see who is contributing campaign donations and where they are directing them. Bundling is a popular tactic of large groups and entities to get around contribution limits. So long as they keep it under $2,000 per contribution, your employer or union or whatever can make contributions to a candidate in your name, and through bundling it is unlikely that you or anybody else would notice your name on the list of contributors. Or they simply form a PAC on the side and do a lot of arm twisting to 'encourage' donations to the PAC that in turn funnels funds to a political party that will indirectly use them to benefit a particular candidate.

Did you naively think all that stimulus money going to this or that 'not quite shovel ready job' was inadvertent and well intended? Do you honestly think at least some of it was not distributed as payola to those who directly or indirectly helped Obama or others get elected?

Are you crazy or just too wrapped up in partisan mythology?

Every federal employee involved in the procurement process from GS-12 through SES has to file an annual financial disclosure form. You have to list every stock you own, all contacts with other companies, all your debts. That is for you and your spouse. The Hatch act prohibits them from being involved in any political process outside of voting.
If you have a conflict of interest you are reassigned or fired if you refuse to divest yourself. If you lie on your disclosure you are criminally liable

Um, I don't believe I mentioned federal employees. We were discussing corporate donations were we not? I'm onto you RW. You won't be as successful in your usual tactic of diverting the discussion to a different subject when it isn't going well for you. You need to figure out a new schtick.

 

[RKMBrown]

Someone recently posted that China is building a middle class or some such nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Really weird are their huge ghost cities. They drive people out of their homes and then build enormous cities on the village/farm land. No one can afford to buy there so the building are empty. And, the people homeless.

You mean like Detroit?

 

[rightwinger]

Well so far it hasn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow the money--to know who is advocate for who, to see who is contributing campaign donations and where they are directing them. Bundling is a popular tactic of large groups and entities to get around contribution limits. So long as they keep it under $2,000 per contribution, your employer or union or whatever can make contributions to a candidate in your name, and through bundling it is unlikely that you or anybody else would notice your name on the list of contributors. Or they simply form a PAC on the side and do a lot of arm twisting to 'encourage' donations to the PAC that in turn funnels funds to a political party that will indirectly use them to benefit a particular candidate.

Did you naively think all that stimulus money going to this or that 'not quite shovel ready job' was inadvertent and well intended? Do you honestly think at least some of it was not distributed as payola to those who directly or indirectly helped Obama or others get elected?

Are you crazy or just too wrapped up in partisan mythology?

Every federal employee involved in the procurement process from GS-12 through SES has to file an annual financial disclosure form. You have to list every stock you own, all contacts with other companies, all your debts. That is for you and your spouse. The Hatch act prohibits them from being involved in any political process outside of voting.
If you have a conflict of interest you are reassigned or fired if you refuse to divest yourself. If you lie on your disclosure you are criminally liable

Um, I don't believe I mentioned federal employees. We were discussing corporate donations were we not? I'm onto you RW. You won't be as successful in your usual tactic of diverting the discussion to a different subject when it isn't going well for you. You need to figure out a new schtick.

Please read post 494 and then offer your apology

. Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.R

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you crazy or just too wrapped up in partisan mythology?

Every federal employee involved in the procurement process from GS-12 through SES has to file an annual financial disclosure form. You have to list every stock you own, all contacts with other companies, all your debts. That is for you and your spouse. The Hatch act prohibits them from being involved in any political process outside of voting.
If you have a conflict of interest you are reassigned or fired if you refuse to divest yourself. If you lie on your disclosure you are criminally liable

Um, I don't believe I mentioned federal employees. We were discussing corporate donations were we not? I'm onto you RW. You won't be as successful in your usual tactic of diverting the discussion to a different subject when it isn't going well for you. You need to figure out a new schtick.

Please read post 494 and then offer your apology

. Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.R

You are so naive. And no, I won't apologize. I am talking about those elected to high office, appointed to high office, and hired to high level positions via payola rather than those who come up from the bottom and progress to the top. These are not public servants. They are career politicians and bureaucrats living off the gullibility and willingness of the people not to object. Take away their ability to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes in these positions, and they won't seek the positions. We will again have public servants who are genuinely there to serve and who have no ability to profit other than via what they contract to work for.

And you get public servants instead of career politicians and bureaucrats by taking away their ability to buy votes to keep themselves in those cushy positions.

 

[rightwinger]

Um, I don't believe I mentioned federal employees. We were discussing corporate donations were we not? I'm onto you RW. You won't be as successful in your usual tactic of diverting the discussion to a different subject when it isn't going well for you. You need to figure out a new schtick.

Please read post 494 and then offer your apology

. Currently those in high federal office, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are dependent on corporate cash to keep them in their cushy and lucrative positions. Take away their ability to benefit those corporations whether by direct cash subsidy or tax policy or regulation and you take away their ability to reward bad behavior;choices, failure, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, either from individuals or entities.R

You are so naive. And no, I won't apologize. I am talking about those elected to high office, appointed to high office, and hired to high level positions via payola rather than those who come up from the bottom and progress to the top. These are not public servants. They are career politicians and bureaucrats living off the gullibility and willingness of the people not to object. Take away their ability to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes in these positions, and they won't seek the positions. We will again have public servants who are genuinely there to serve and who have no ability to profit other than via what they contract to work for.

And you get public servants instead of career politicians and bureaucrats by taking away their ability to buy votes to keep themselves in those cushy positions.

In that case you are just demonstrating how ignorant you are

Those elected to high office can be as corrupt as possible. There are no rules because they make the rules

Once you are appointed to high office, the rules start to apply to you. You must disclose your finances, who you have contributed money to, who you are beholden to......that is why it is difficult to get the best people to accept theses appointments....low pay and high disclosure

Those hired are in the Senior Executive Service. They are federal employees and subjected to strict ethical and financial disclosure rules. These rules have been in place for decades.

You have obviously bought into the rightwing anti-government propaganda and I am still expecting your apology for your personal attack.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Someone recently posted that China is building a middle class or some such nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Really weird are their huge ghost cities. They drive people out of their homes and then build enormous cities on the village/farm land. No one can afford to buy there so the building are empty. And, the people homeless.

You mean like Detroit?

More like a Hollywood set.