Is the United States Government Corrupt?

[MACDRIVE]

I have no link or quote at this time; instead, I'm leaving the question in the thread title wide open for you to answer or comment however you like. Before you say anything though, take a moment and ask yourselves what George Washington would think about how this country is being operated if he were alive to witness it today. ;)

[solvs]

Corrupt and incompetent, surrounded and supported by the corrupt and incompetent, but why did you have to start a new thread for this?

[JW8725]

who cares about the USA?:rolleyes:

[skunk]

Does a bear defecate in the woods?

[MACDRIVE]

Corrupt and incompetent, surrounded and supported by the corrupt and incompetent, but why did you have to start a new thread for this?

It was after watching the two part series "Bush's War" on PBS FRONTLINE (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) and the season finale of Jericho that got me pondering whether the U.S. Government could be corrupt. I wonder what few choice words George Washington would have for Don Rumsfeld. :D

[Eraserhead]

I was going to say, Is the <<Insert Name of Country Here>> Government Corrupt?

[solvs]

who cares about the USA?:rolleyes:
According to Americans, everybody. And if you hate us, you're just jealous. But some of us are very self centered. USA! USA!

But no, seriously, our gov sucks. As a matter of fact, they suck worse than anyone else's. Ever! See, we still win. Either way, it's all about us baby. Why do you think we spell it U S. ;)

[psychofreak]

I was going to say, Is the <<Insert Name of Country Here>> Government Corrupt?

Not every government is corrupt. I see no hint of corruptness in The Principality of Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand).

[Dont Hurt Me]

The answer is a big yes, Our govt isnt working for the people anymore. It works for the corporations who in turn give candidates big $$$ for commercials on TV so they can get elected. In essence they are bribed by the corporations. So our Govt is working for Greed and $$$ and only notices the people at election time. Or pretends to.

Hypocrites infest our Govt. Bush is a great example. Calls himself a christian yet started a war,wants to torture, spy on Americans while ignoring borders, trying to sell our ports off and build a highway from Mexico to Canada without any oversite by the U.S. or his wanting to get the people who outed out a cia agent but then pardons Libby knowing well Rove & Cheney were behind it all the time. Hypocrite and Corrupt.

[Queso]

LOL. If it isn't it's the only government on the planet that's clean.

And the likelihood of that is pretty much 0.

[MACDRIVE]

Our govt isn't working for the people anymore. It works for the corporations who in turn give candidates big $$$ for commercials on TV so they can get elected. In essence they are bribed by the corporations.

We definitely as a nation need to figure out a way to keep corporation finance out of election campaigns.

[Dont Hurt Me]

We definitely as a nation need to figure out a way to keep corporation finance out of election campaigns.This would solve 90% of our problems. At the moment its the democrats and their special interests vs the republicans and their special interests and the people are on the side lines. Neither working for the Constitution or its people.
The system is broken, some of us have to wonder if its broken beyond repair.

[RacerX]

Any government made up of people has the potential of being corrupted. The solution was simple enough... don't give anyone too much power and have a system of checks and balances to keep any one part of government from getting too far out of line.

The mistake we are faced with is a political system of two competing parties... parties which operate outside of the normal checks and balances, and parties whose members put political considerations before those of the public interests.

What is funny is that part of the solution to our problem here in the US was put forward by our founding fathers, and then quickly removed... I think we should repeal the 12th Amendment.

The president should be the winner of the election, and the vice president should be whoever came in second. Do you think that Bush would have attempted half of what this administration has done if Gore was watching over his shoulder? The Executive Branch was never intended to be controlled by a single party, and it is the single party control of that branch along with blind party loyalty in the other branches that have brought us to where we are today.


And lets be clear about this... just because the Democrats are less corrupt than the Republicans doesn't really make them all that much better. When people put party before country, we have a problem... and I've seen enough of that from both Democrats and Republicans to realize that neither of these parties are a solution because both parties are the root of the problem.

[kainjow]

who cares about the USA?:rolleyes:

Those of us who live in it? You will be jealous when we elect Obama later this year :cool: :)

[Pittsax]

What is funny is that part of the solution to our problem here in the US was put forward by our founding fathers, and then quickly removed... I think we should repeal the 12th Amendment.

The president should be the winner of the election, and the vice president should be whoever came in second. Do you think that Bush would have attempted half of what this administration has done if Gore was watching over his shoulder? The Executive Branch was never intended to be controlled by a single party, and it is the single party control of that branch along with blind party loyalty in the other branches that have brought us to where we are today.

Interesting idea. Unfortunately, I don't think it would really solve anything significant for a couple of reasons: First, Cheney has had more power than any VP in the history of our country. Second, NORMALLY the VP does little more than sit in on the Senate and maybe cast a tie-breaker vote once in a while.

If Gore had been VP, we might not be in the mess we're in now, but that'd be because Cheney wouldn't have been around to whisper in Bush's ear, not because of any sanity-factor that would have been imposed by Gore.

[RacerX]

Actually, what I'll be proposing is that the vice president be in charge of a shadow or mirror executive branch. That is to say, for every appointment made by the president, the vice president makes an appointment with the same clearances as the president's appointment has.

The real problem isn't that bad policies are being carried out, it is that the executive branch has effectively cut out the oversight roles of the other branches. The best way to ensure that oversight is not lost in this way in the future is to build oversight into the executive branch.

Additionally, I would suggest that the vice president be required to include a signing statement of sorts... that is, for every document signed by the president, the vice president must provide his/her opinion of the document and how he/she would have acted if president.

One of the things I think this would do is stop the political fighting and negative campaigning... would you really want to stab someone in the back and then have them watching your every move for the next four years?

[Desertrat]

I don't really have any solutions, but some observations going back to the 1960s: The onset of LBJ's Great Society dramatically increased the importance of the federal government to people's lives and business actions/profits.

The result is that more and more disparate groups have come to look to the central government for solutions to problems and to "largesse from the public coffers". Business interests of all sizes lobby to gain position and reduce regulatory overhead. I lump all of this as "human nature"; not at all unexpected.

Politicians are people, and many people like perks and power. Election and re-election become ends in themselves, and so you see dedication to those efforts which then lead to vote-buying. There's little difference in the degree of corruption between Republican and Democrat; they merely operate in different arenas.

Since party support is very important in our system, and control of the federal budget is essential to continued power, we have loyalty to party as supra to "the good of the nation".

IOW, we've gotten a helluva lot more Nanny State than we ever expected, and we're all suffering for it. IMO, it's out of control. I have no clue as to any politically viable "fix". Never forget that no major changes will ever occur which are not politically viable.

'Rat

[Krafty]

who cares about the USA?:rolleyes:

The gov't doesnt.

[leekohler]

Yes- there's no question it is. Our main problem is accountability. Politicians are rarely punished for breaking laws that any ordinary citizen would be sitting in prison for. Ask yourself what would have happened to Bush if he'd pulled the crap he's pulling now 30 years ago.

The gov't doesnt.

Not this administration anyway.

[Desertrat]

leekohler, the lack of accountability has long been a problem--and there's more direct impact on individuals from the lower echelons of bureaucracies than from Those On High. There's at least a minimal chance of change via ballots for TOH. No Congress has ever been willing to bring about any notable change in the problem.

'Rat

[leekohler]

leekohler, the lack of accountability has long been a problem--and there's more direct impact on individuals from the lower echelons of bureaucracies than from Those On High. There's at least a minimal chance of change via ballots for TOH. No Congress has ever been willing to bring about any notable change in the problem.

'Rat

You're correct- and this administration has taken lack of accountability to staggering lows. Lack of accountability is what I see as our main problem.

[Father Jack]

Yes of course it is, are there any that aren't?

[furcalchick]

The answer is a big yes, Our govt isnt working for the people anymore. It works for the corporations who in turn give candidates big $$$ for commercials on TV so they can get elected. In essence they are bribed by the corporations. So our Govt is working for Greed and $$$ and only notices the people at election time. Or pretends to.

Hypocrites infest our Govt. Bush is a great example. Calls himself a christian yet started a war,wants to torture, spy on Americans while ignoring borders, trying to sell our ports off and build a highway from Mexico to Canada without any oversite by the U.S. or his wanting to get the people who outed out a cia agent but then pardons Libby knowing well Rove & Cheney were behind it all the time. Hypocrite and Corrupt.

i agree, and i would like to also add to that the people are seen as threats to the government and they try to keep them distracted so that they are a non factor to their effort to to takeover, by passing laws that favor companies who's job is to keep us busy with daily life and less aware of what's going on in washington.

the two party system isn't helping either, you're just choosing your flavor of corrupt government, and that's why i'm not registered with any political party, neither of them care for the people, they only care for lobbyists and companies.

[MacNut]

The problem is that you have the same old men in there for 50 years. There is never any turn around because they never want to leave. Some of them have a strangle hold on their seats so nobody runs against them. We need term limits for Congress and Senate. You have to blame the people as well. They are the ones that keep voting the same people in.

[lofight]

I think with George Bush, things are very corrupt. Plus keeping hard facts secret.

[MacNut]

I think with George Bush, things are very corrupt. Plus keeping hard facts secret.That is government in general. It has nothing to do with Bush. Most of it is run behind closed doors where nobody knows the facts.

[miloblithe]

According to the corruption perceptions index, the US is the 20th least corrupt country in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#CPI_Ranking_.282002-2007.29

Certainly not a definitive list, but while there's certainly corruption, it would simply wrong to compare the US to, say, Bangladesh or Turkmenistan in terms of corruption.

[PlaceofDis]

yes its corrupt. anything that has power associated with it will lead to corruption more oft than not imo.

[TEG]

Every legitimate country in this world has some form of corruption. This is more often true in Parliamentary Democracies than in Representitive Democracies. The real question overall is... "Is the United Nations Corrupt?" The answer is yes, otherwise, they would respect human life, have a huge force in Sudan, and not have any dealings with the PRC.

TEG

[lofight]

According to the corruption perceptions index, the US is the 20th least corrupt country in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#CPI_Ranking_.282002-2007.29

Certainly not a definitive list, but while there's certainly corruption, it would simply wrong to compare the US to, say, Bangladesh or Turkmenistan in terms of corruption.
And just below US is Belgium :D

[SMM]

Greed is the breeding ground of corruption. Some countries seem more susceptible to greed than others. America is one of the worse. So, our political system is well-suited for fostering corruption. We have discussed our drug policy many times on the forum. I think one of the main reasons we continue to maintain this policy is because there is far too much money involved by keeping it illegal. Virtually everyone involved, from cultivator to law enforcement, is benefitting from it. The only ones who are not are the victims. It is not my intention to get this thread going sideways. I only use this as an example where corruption and insane policy are the result of greed.

Unfortunately, America's insatiable consumption, and compulsion to accumulate material wealth, is indelibly burned into our core values. Some are able to maintain a balanced view of life, and are very happy. Others just cannot find satisfaction with what they have. If you spend time in third-world countries, and actually assimilate with the local people, you will discover people who do not have much materially, but are very satisfied with their life. So, greed is not an automatic part of the human experience. However, it can be found everywhere.

[Badandy]

Of course there is corruption in the U.S. government, just like any government in the world. The claims of corruption are far exaggerated in my opinion, considering how corrupt other nations' governments are.

Also, I don't think Bush is necessarily the evil, corrupt fascist dictator everyone else seems to think he is. I certainly don't like him, but a much more plausible explanation to me would be that he is just unaware and grossly incompetent. I really don't see him being this corrupt mastermind.

[Blue Velvet]

How corrupt is the US? In 2007 and at 20th place after:

Denmark at no. 1 for being the least corrupt
Finland
New Zealand
Singapore
Sweden
Iceland
Netherlands
Switzerland
Canada
Norway
Australia
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Hong Kong
Austria
Germany
Ireland
Japan and...
France

http://www.transparency.org/

[skunk]

Also, I don't think Bush is necessarily the evil, corrupt fascist dictator everyone else seems to think he is. I certainly don't like him, but a much more plausible explanation to me would be that he is just unaware and grossly incompetent. I really don't see him being this corrupt mastermind.I believe that starting a war on false pretences is about as corrupt as you can get.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I believe that starting a war on false pretences is about as corrupt as you can get. A trillion dollar screw up..... but go steal a loaf of bread. It just dont figure.

A key point was made earlier and thats having 1 party run 3 branches and what it brings.

[Queso]

...France
LMAO. You Americans are more corrupt than France!! :D:D:D

Which puts you about half a step above Italy and only slightly better than Nigeria :D:D:D

[Prof.]

I think with George Bush, things are very corrupt. Plus keeping hard facts secret.
Agreed!

The US is even more corrupt with the Bush Admin than the US has been with previous admins.

Maybe I, or one of us, should be president. Apparently you don't need to be that smart and have that many qualifications. *cough*Bush*cough*:rolleyes:

[SMM]

Of course there is corruption in the U.S. government, just like any government in the world. The claims of corruption are far exaggerated in my opinion, considering how corrupt other nations' governments are.

Also, I don't think Bush is necessarily the evil, corrupt fascist dictator everyone else seems to think he is. I certainly don't like him, but a much more plausible explanation to me would be that he is just unaware and grossly incompetent. I really don't see him being this corrupt mastermind.

That is definitely seeing the glass half-full. I would recommend you read The Authoritarians (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/), by Robert Altemeyer, Worse than Watergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_than_Watergate) and Conservatives Without Conscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatives_without_Conscience), both by John Dean.

The truth is out there!

[Badandy]

That is definitely seeing the glass half-full. I would recommend you read The Authoritarians (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/), by Robert Altemeyer, Worse than Watergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_than_Watergate) and Conservatives Without Conscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatives_without_Conscience), both by John Dean.

The truth is out there!

I think I remember you mentioning those sources somewhere on these forums, but as of right now I have a lot of reading on my plate. On a semi-related note, I don't know how people can portray Bush as either a complete idiot AND a corrupt mastermind. Is it that hard to believe he's just grossly incompetent and accepts suggestions from other people when he shouldn't?

[SMM]

I think I remember you mentioning those sources somewhere on these forums, but as of right now I have a lot of reading on my plate. On a semi-related note, I don't know how people can portray Bush as either a complete idiot AND a corrupt mastermind. Is it that hard to believe he's just grossly incompetent and accepts suggestions from other people when he shouldn't?

Yes, I understand about having a huge reading backlog. Do you ever listen to Books on Tape? It is a great way to get caught up on reading and make the commute more relaxing/enjoyable. Most books are available for free from your public library. Just a suggestion.

[lofight]

Agreed!

The US is even more corrupt with the Bush Admin than the US has been with previous admins.

Maybe I, or one of us, should be president. Apparently you don't need to be that smart and have that many qualifications. *cough*Bush*cough*:rolleyes:

:p with Bush it looks like that. I hope a smart, democratic, person wins the president elections.

[Badandy]

:p with Bush it looks like that. I hope a smart, democratic, person wins the president elections.

Well, there are no smart Republicans running...

(I'm a registered republican btw)

[Prof.]

This is something I have never come to understand. Why do people vote democrate or republican? If you absolutely hate your candidate and he/she is your only option, then why vote for that person? Why not vote for the other political party member?

Example: If you absolutely hate John McCain, then why vote for him? Just because you're a republican? Or if you hate Clinton or Obama, and you're a democrat, don't vote democrat, vote republican.

The point I am trying to make is... If Bush ran again (even tho he can't) there would be people who would vote for him purely because he would be the only choice for the republican party.

In this coming election, instead of voting for your party member, vote for the person who you believe is going to change the US for the better, be it democrat or republican.

[atszyman]

I don't know how people can portray Bush as either a complete idiot AND a corrupt mastermind. Is it that hard to believe he's just grossly incompetent and accepts suggestions from other people when he shouldn't?

I think the gross incompetence surrounded by the corrupt masterminds giving the advice he shouldn't take is probably the apt description. Bush himself provided electability, an amicable face, and a singnatory/scapegoat for the real masterminds. Many times when the term Bush or W is invoked it's meant to refer to the administration as a whole, rather than their figurehead.

This is something I have never come to understand. Why do people vote democrate or republican? If you absolutely hate your candidate and he/she is your only option, then why vote for that person? Why not vote for the other political party member?

Example: If you absolutely hate John McCain, then why vote for him? Just because you're a republican? Or if you hate Clinton or Obama, and you're a democrat, don't vote democrat, vote republican.

The point I am trying to make is... If Bush ran again (even tho he can't) there would be people who would vote for him purely because he would be the only choice for the republican party.

In this coming election, instead of voting for your party member, vote for the person who you believe is going to change the US for the better, be it democrat or republican.

That would be too logical. The problem is, by my estimate, more than half of the voting population pays no more attention to the election than the commercials that interrupt their TV shows (and with TiVo and other DVR options that's becoming even less of a factor). They were raised to believe that the Democrats are all tax and spend liberals who are going to tax you into the poor house to give yachts and big screen TVs to people who are poor simply because they don't want to work. Or they were raised to believe that Republicans are all about making money for the rich and doing everything they can to keep anyone not making at least 6 figures in yearly income poor and out of their "old white men's" club.

Most voters won't watch a single debate, and will barely tune into enough of the news to get any idea of how a debate went. When they do get that sort of information it comes from biased sources like Limbaugh or MoveOn.org and they only go there because it makes them feel good since they agree with the assertions put forth by those pundits (nobody likes to be told that they are wrong).

The more I think about it, it makes me believe that the Electoral College could be a great system if we hadn't bastardized it to the point it's at now. Due to the limits of travel and communication it was nearly impossible to reach the entire country to campaign in the olden days so electors would campaign locally and get elected to make an informed decision on who was best qualified to run the country. Sure, you might end up with some presidents no one expected, but hopefully qualifications would be taken into account rather than the national popularity contest we currently run.

Think about it, we could dress them in red robes and lock them in a room where they burn their ballots, when we see white smoke we'd know we had a new president. We could even give the new president a funny hat...:D

[Lord Blackadder]

What government doesn't feature corruption at some level? How much corruption must there be for a government to be considered corrupt??

[freeny]

Those of us who live in it? You will be jealous when we elect Obama later this year :cool: :)

People who say things like that scare me a little bit.

[Unspeaked]

People who say things like that scare me a little bit.

What? You're not looking forward to the streets turning to gold, rivers turning to champagne and dollar bills falling from the sky on inauguration eve?

[Badandy]

This is something I have never come to understand. Why do people vote democrate or republican? If you absolutely hate your candidate and he/she is your only option, then why vote for that person? Why not vote for the other political party member?


This is a complicated question, so I'll tell you my view on it. Even though some people hate the member running for their party, they hope that person is more aligned with their views than the other party member, hence the reason they registered the first party to begin with. For example, I'm a Republican; I think John McCain is a horrendous candidate (Mitt Romney would have been far superior) and he seems to be another Bush all over again, but with even more spending (hardly possible, I know). On the other hand, I find Obama a decently likable guy who has a gift for public speaking. I like what he's done with government transparency, I recognize that he's intelligent, but I simply won't vote for him because at the core of it, I have vastly different political views than he does. I want our government to be small, have limited powers, few social services, and lower taxes for everyone. No matter how much I like Obama, I can not vote for him because of my core beliefs.

However, when someone like McCain comes around, I have to rethink my decision to even vote FOR a Republican. McCain is no better, when it comes to those views I listed, than Obama, and because of this, I don't see McCain as the lesser of two evils. Due to these reasons, I will probably abstain from voting. And it's not because I don't care, it's not because I'm lazy, it's because I'm tired of being lied to by both parties and I'm tired of voting for a party that has views barely more related to my own than the opposition. Give me a Romney, a successful business man proven to understand economics. Give me a less crazy Ron Paul, someone who has goals that are not quite as extreme, and hence achievable. Please politics, give me someone to vote for.

[solvs]

I think we should repeal the 12th Amendment.
And then some nutjob kills the President because the VP is his preferred choice, giving us a completely different administration than the one we voted for.

[zioxide]

corporate lobbyists. enough said

[MacFanBoyIIe]

Show me a country whose government isn't at least a little corrupt....

[Badandy]

corporate lobbyists. enough said

From many posts here, you seem to hate corporations in general. Let's just tax them all into oblivion and destroy them, right?

[Kashchei]

From many posts here, you seem to hate corporations in general. Let's just tax them all into oblivion and destroy them, right?

This sort of argument doesn't move the conversation forward since it is hyperbolic on multiple levels: any further conversation will likely be met with an even worse reaction, and a hard line in what is considered reasonable has been drawn that others may not cross. Conservatives have used this rhetoric quite effectively during the past 7 years, unfortunately.

[Badandy]

This sort of argument doesn't move the conversation forward since it is hyperbolic on multiple levels: any further conversation will likely be met with an even worse reaction, and a hard line in what is considered reasonable has been drawn that others may not cross. Conservatives have used this rhetoric quite effectively during the past 7 years, unfortunately.

It's not from his one post, it's a trend from zioxide I've been noticing and am interested in his/her views. Great attempt though.

[solvs]

It's not that we hate corporations or capitalism, we just hate that they seem to be getting away with things they shouldn't, mostly because the system is designed to help them, and worse, screw us.

[thechidz]

umm what government is NOT corrupt?

seriously???

[Badandy]

It's not that we hate corporations or capitalism, we just hate that they seem to be getting away with things they shouldn't, mostly because the system is designed to help them, and worse, screw us.


But many times, helping corporations helps the economy and the people. When there is competition and economies of scale, corporations deliver goods tailored to individual needs at lower prices than would be possible otherwise. Furthermore, they sometimes employ thousands of people per company.

[solvs]

But many times, helping corporations helps the economy and the people. When there is competition and economies of scale, corporations deliver goods tailored to individual needs at lower prices than would be possible otherwise. Furthermore, they sometimes employ thousands of people per company.
Sure, but that's not what we have a problem with.

[Badandy]

Sure, but that's not what we have a problem with.

I was just putting forth the idea that helping corporations doesn't mean screwing "us".

[solvs]

I was just putting forth the idea that helping corporations doesn't mean screwing "us".

It doesn't always, but sometimes they do screw us, and that's what we don't like.

[Eraserhead]

From many posts here, you seem to hate corporations in general. Let's just tax them all into oblivion and destroy them, right?

Obviously corporations should still get some say, just it should be significantly reduced from their say at the moment.

[RacerX]

And then some nutjob kills the President because the VP is his preferred choice...You don't have to kill the President. :eek:

Besides, I doubt that this will significantly increase the risk for the President or Vice President over what it is currently. And the inclusions of checks and balances that the executive branch can't side step works for everyone (accept the corrupt). I, personally, have no problem with our leaders screwing up (they are, after all, human)... but when they start ignoring laws because they are inconvenient for them, yeah, that needs to be addressed.


Of course one other way to address corruption in government would be to lock members of government out of using their position (or past positions) for profit. We could make it so that elected officials are unable to reenter the private sector by forcing them to live off of their office's salary for the rest of their lives.

If elected to the Senate for example, you'd get what a Senator makes for the rest of your life. You could take positions at academic institutions, but never again receive money from companies or special interests. If the Senate's salary increased, yours would too. The key would be that you would not be able to profit by being or having been part of the government.

Generally corruption is based on acquiring one or both of two things... wealth and/or power. If we remove the ability to use a government position to gain wealth, and we limit the amount of unchecked power of anyone in the government, there should be a decrease in the amount of corruption.

:rolleyes:

Of course, one could argue that there would also be a decrease in the number of candidates of certain parties, but I would argue that the quality of candidates would increase.