The legal corruption is so bad on both sides that the idea of public service is a joke. One goes to Washington, you make contacts, you become a lobbyist because of contacts with those still in government or you make speeches. No one ever suggests that you make money for supporting certain policies, but people who support oil, corporate interests and Wall Street are taken care of when they get out of office . Did Bill Clinton know that he would ultimately become rich by supporting free trade or getting rid of Glass-Steagal, or not regulating derivatives. Maybe he just had a good faith belief that this would be good for America or maybe he had a mixed-motive. If he believed that he would ultimately be taken care because of his pro-business, pro-Wall Street policies...well, then he made millions, we lost trillions. The same could be said of Cheney. I think Cheney's conduct was the on the far end of legalized corruption, but again it has not been shown that he committed a crime. Ultimately, this is why Congress is so unpopular and why people are just ignoring Establishment attempts to dissuade them from voting for Trump or Sanders. They are desperate for a politician who has not in some sense been bought.

Sassenach wrote:

Let me put it another way: has anyone ever benefitted as much financially as the Clintons from "public service?" If so, it is hard to imagine who it might have been.

http://www.davemanuel.com/net-worth/dick-cheney/

This is just one example of many. Sadly, the Clintons are far from unusual in personally profiting from their public service. It's closer to being the norm than the exception.

Sorry, he doesn't even compare--he's not worth near what they are and you cannot draw a straight line from donations to influence as opposed to the Clintons.

Sassenach wrote:We also ought not to overlook this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professio ... ge_W._Bush

Not sure whether GW could be said to have profited from 'public service' per se here since most of it happened before he become Governor, but he certainly made an awful lot of money through exploiting his political contacts.

Again, I'll emphasise that this is not unusual behaviour for the politically connected.

And, I will emphasize the Clintons have done virtually nothing in the private sector.

Freeman, Nixon was never convicted, and the FBI did not complete an investigation. By your criteria, Nixon is not a criminal.

Sorry, he doesn't even compare--he's not worth near what they are and you cannot draw a straight line from donations to influence as opposed to the Clintons.

Bullshit. The straight line between actions in office and financial reward couldn't be any clearer in Cheney's case. What, you think they hired him for his experience in the oil business ?

The Clintons' wealth may be greater but we know where it came from by and large. Bill got a $15 million advance on his autobiography. The rest was earned largely through the corporate after dinner speaking circuit where he was getting paid $250000 a speech. He's earned tens of millions this way. There might well be some suspicions about this lucrative post-career system of earning great wealth for Presidents, but they're only suspicions and amount to innuendo at best. He didn't go out and join the board of directors of a company that makes vast amounts of money from public contracts that he signed before he left office. What Cheney did would not be out of place in Zimbabwe.

freeman3 wrote:The legal corruption is so bad on both sides that the idea of public service is a joke. One goes to Washington, you make contacts, you become a lobbyist because of contacts with those still in government or you make speeches. No one ever suggests that you make money for supporting certain policies, but people who support oil, corporate interests and Wall Street are taken care of when they get out of office . Did Bill Clinton know that he would ultimately become rich by supporting free trade or getting rid of Glass-Steagal, or not regulating derivatives. Maybe he just had a good faith belief that this would be good for America or maybe he had a mixed-motive. If he believed that he would ultimately be taken care because of his pro-business, pro-Wall Street policies...well, then he made millions, we lost trillions. The same could be said of Cheney. I think Cheney's conduct was the on the far end of legalized corruption, but again it has not been shown that he committed a crime. Ultimately, this is why Congress is so unpopular and why people are just ignoring Establishment attempts to dissuade them from voting for Trump or Sanders. They are desperate for a politician who has not in some sense been bought.

I think that's right ... a pox on both parties and politicians of many stripes.

Ultimately this is an argument for limited government. The more of our economy that runs through the government, the greater the opportunities for abuse. Sanders seems like a particularly trustworthy politician, but by funneling even more money through the public sector he will open up new opportunities for politicians of all kinds to use the system for their own advantage.

Fate

Ultimately this is an argument for limited government. The more of our economy that runs through the government, the greater the opportunities for abuse. Sanders seems like a particularly trustworthy politician, but by funneling even more money through the public sector he will open up new opportunities for politicians of all kinds to use the system for their own advantage

This is crap.
Most US politicians are wealthy before they get into politics. They do get advantages in Congress (like legal insider trading) and there are pay offs when they reenter private life ... But they are wealthy to start with... (see two links from disparate sources, so you ca't blame bias Fate)
That's because it takes far too much money to run for office in the US. And because there is no such thing as public financing of elections. Money, is essential in a campaign, and so it keeps the political system participation limited to the financial elites.
Public financing, would open up the system.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... hy/379848/
http://watchdog.org/123522/congress-mil ... ch-system/

You want an example of how lack of public funding is hurting the US? Look at two things..
- infrastructure is crumbling...
- construction spending is way down and has been going down since about 2000 except for a brief rebound due to the response to the crash of 08. Most of this is because public infrastructure spending is way down, at the federal, state and particularly the municipal levels. Due mostly to the push for "smaller government."
- Spending on infrastructure would keep employment higher, improve the income with an improved infrastructure, and improve productivity. (see things like electrical grid, rail system, high speed internet, road system). And could improve safety as well.

On of the problems of doing business efficiently and effectively in a third world country is the lack of decent infrastructure. Governments can borrow at 3% on 30 year bonds. Virtually giving the money away.....
And yet conservative politicians like Chris Christie have stopped infrastructure spending in their states due to "cost". All part of the that "smaller government" crap.

Sassenach wrote:

Sorry, he doesn't even compare--he's not worth near what they are and you cannot draw a straight line from donations to influence as opposed to the Clintons.

Bullshit. The straight line between actions in office and financial reward couldn't be any clearer in Cheney's case. What, you think they hired him for his experience in the oil business ?

The Clintons' wealth may be greater but we know where it came from by and large. Bill got a $15 million advance on his autobiography. The rest was earned largely through the corporate after dinner speaking circuit where he was getting paid $250000 a speech. He's earned tens of millions this way. There might well be some suspicions about this lucrative post-career system of earning great wealth for Presidents, but they're only suspicions and amount to innuendo at best. He didn't go out and join the board of directors of a company that makes vast amounts of money from public contracts that he signed before he left office. What Cheney did would not be out of place in Zimbabwe.

Indeed. If people want the Hillary's Goldman Sachs transcripts, do they also want to look at Cheney's dealings?

I'm surprised Sass has not brought up Alan Milburn. He was a Health Secretary who after leaving office got a lot of money from private healthcare organisations getting NHS contracts.

When I first saw the statement that limited government would reduce corruption I thought that was a reasonable inference to make--with fewer goodies for government to give out, less reason to buy influence, therefore less corruption. But thinking back to 1930s to the 1970s I don't have the impression there was quite the level of corruption there is now. I also am not sure that how limited a government we could have in order to meet the needs of a modern society.

Ultimately, I think it comes to the fact that there is a lot of easy money being made and that easy money is not being taxed. People don't contribute money earned by hard work to politicians so that they go out and make more money with hard work. Greed is part of the human condition and people would much rather make money by watching their stock price up, or by making deals, or watching their investments go up. Making money by working hard and actually making a contribution to society in proportion to wealth being made--that's for suckers. Speculation and corruption go hand-in-hand.

I see four main culprits: (1) tax policy which allows people to make unlimited amounts of money at low rates of taxation, (2) the reduction of bargaining power of average workers (symbolized by the firing of the air traffic controllers by Reagan), which has allowed greater return on investments due to higher corporate profits (3) lax regulations allowing oligopolies to develop , again allowing greater returns on investments due to higher profits, and (4) globilization which allows the free flow of money and business to search out the cheapest labor costs, again resulting in higher corporate/investment returns.Our best and brightest now in large numbers go to Wall Street.

I would argue Sanders is on the right track. High marginal rates on extremely high incomes discourages greed. There is something morally wrong when a person can make a billion dollars and pay 15 percent tax on it. What if that 995 million instead of going to the billionaire. ( he now only has five million to get by on) under different economic policies now went to a hundred thousand people who now had an extra ten thousand to spend? There is a moral component to high taxation rates on extremely rates of income--society is stating that income beyond a certain point is something to be discouraged. Maybe a CEO should reward workers that helped him earn his bonus instead of keeping everything for himself.

When people and corporations stop making as much easy money that they can throw around to make more easy money then corruption should substantially decline. That's my theory anyway. A society can have vibrant competition over who in society makes $30,000 and who makes 5 million (high taxes should kick in at a million and then really high rates at 5 million)- but it is morally wrong for a rich society to allow workers who put in 2,000 hours to make less than a liveable wage and make only 15K and allowing people to make a billion dollars and encouraging that greed with low tax rates .

rickyp wrote:Fate

Ultimately this is an argument for limited government. The more of our economy that runs through the government, the greater the opportunities for abuse. Sanders seems like a particularly trustworthy politician, but by funneling even more money through the public sector he will open up new opportunities for politicians of all kinds to use the system for their own advantage

This is crap.
Most US politicians are wealthy before they get into politics. They do get advantages in Congress (like legal insider trading) and there are pay offs when they reenter private life ... But they are wealthy to start with... (see two links from disparate sources, so you ca't blame bias Fate)
That's because it takes far too much money to run for office in the US. And because there is no such thing as public financing of elections. Money, is essential in a campaign, and so it keeps the political system participation limited to the financial elites.
Public financing, would open up the system.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... hy/379848/
http://watchdog.org/123522/congress-mil ... ch-system/

You want an example of how lack of public funding is hurting the US? Look at two things..
- infrastructure is crumbling...
- construction spending is way down and has been going down since about 2000 except for a brief rebound due to the response to the crash of 08. Most of this is because public infrastructure spending is way down, at the federal, state and particularly the municipal levels. Due mostly to the push for "smaller government."
- Spending on infrastructure would keep employment higher, improve the income with an improved infrastructure, and improve productivity. (see things like electrical grid, rail system, high speed internet, road system). And could improve safety as well.

On of the problems of doing business efficiently and effectively in a third world country is the lack of decent infrastructure. Governments can borrow at 3% on 30 year bonds. Virtually giving the money away.....
And yet conservative politicians like Chris Christie have stopped infrastructure spending in their states due to "cost". All part of the that "smaller government" crap.

Your post has little to do with what I wrote ... nor were you able to correctly identify the writer. Use your eyes (instead of your impressively long fingers).

Ray

Your post has little to do with what I wrote

It has everything to do with it.. Although it was a knee jerk reaction ...
Your saying that perceived and actual corruption is an argument for limited government.
And implying that political office has become a way to get rich.
If they are already rich, and most are, they don't need the office... Some will abuse their positions for gain, but the notion that most US politicians are corrupted by the urge to get wealthy is not supported by the facts. The "transparency index" rates te US 16th best in transparency of 168 nations. Not bad. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

If you wanted to point to the lobbying industry, and the corrupting influence on political staff, perhaps. But the millionaires in elected office have to be motivated by more than money. They mostly already have that, and presumably could have just kept making more but chose politics.
Freeman makes the point that in years of more limited government there was more corruption . And that's the point I jumped over to get to my knee jerk reaction to your blaming big government for something but offering no evidence. (perhaps why I confused you with fate)
The problem the US has is that for decades people have blamed "big government" for all kinds of ills with out significant evidence. Including your outrageous claim that it somehow contributes to political corruption. Its this reliance on truisms without actually investigating the facts that might support or deny one's claims that has contributed to a lot of the inequality in the US today...

The laboratory of the 50 states has offered a few examples where ideologues have actually brought in limited government and where the results in those states have been disastrous. Kansas, and Louisiana for instance.

Sassenach wrote:

Sorry, he doesn't even compare--he's not worth near what they are and you cannot draw a straight line from donations to influence as opposed to the Clintons.

Bullshit. The straight line between actions in office and financial reward couldn't be any clearer in Cheney's case. What, you think they hired him for his experience in the oil business ?

The Clintons' wealth may be greater but we know where it came from by and large. Bill got a $15 million advance on his autobiography. The rest was earned largely through the corporate after dinner speaking circuit where he was getting paid $250000 a speech. He's earned tens of millions this way. There might well be some suspicions about this lucrative post-career system of earning great wealth for Presidents, but they're only suspicions and amount to innuendo at best. He didn't go out and join the board of directors of a company that makes vast amounts of money from public contracts that he signed before he left office. What Cheney did would not be out of place in Zimbabwe.

We disagree.

Interesting article on corporate lobbyists and their disproportionate influence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mo ... orruption/

Evidence of the revolving door between government and lobbying.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dealboo ... /?referer=