Liberals say "it's ok to steal from the feds"

[10010011]

The choice is yours...........

It's not my fault, I voted for the Giant Douche.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

How does that editorial, written by one person, equate to "liberals defending crooks" and saying "it's okay to steal from the feds"????

I was referring to the liberally themed 'non-logic' in the article which is typical of anything coming from the NYT, LAT....etc, etc, etc.

The whole point being made in the article was.......

It's Wrong to Blame Victims for Spending Irresponsibly. Blame the government agency giving away the money - not the cheats who rip off the system and the taxpayer. This is big-government liberal paternalism laid bare. Based on that article, I think my thread title is quite fitting.

What article were you reading??

 

[Sheep]

The choice is yours...........

Hahahaha,

SheepStar
EDIT: Why the hell was I given a negative chicklet for this post? I was laughing at the pictures... Oh, nice job signing your name you pussy.

 

[10010011]

The whole point being made in the article was.......

It's Wrong to Blame Victims for Spending Irresponsibly. Blame the government agency giving away the money - not the cheats who rip off the system and the taxpayer. This is big-government liberal paternalism laid bare. Based on that article, I think my thread title is quite fitting.

What article were you reading??

I read this article, sure it had a "don't blame the victims" slant (and it was an opinion, not a news story) but it did not let the government off completely.

But just because FEMA faced a daunting task does not mean it should be given a pass for its sloppy oversight. The GAO cited several quick fixes that should be put into effect immediately, most notably simple tests for misrepresentation when citizens register for federal disaster assistance.

Quite frankly I blame both, I mean it's the governments fault to not put a limit on what can and can't be bought with a the card. Foodstamps is a good example, they don't give you a book of stamps anymore, they give you a debit card that you can only buy food with.

I also blame the idiots that bought stupid crap with it, but I am not surprised. If you give a drug addict or alcoholic $100 to buy food would you be shocked if they bought $100 worth of drugs or alcohol instead?

Obviously if there was indeed fraud and misrepresentation then they should be delt with acordingly.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I agree that both are to blame, but the feds were under incredible pressure to get relief money out fast after the disaster.

The reason I posted this thread is because this article perfectly represents the entire 'theme' being discussed by the media and democrat elected officials.

No matter who you talk to, the response is in a tone of..... "Dont blame the VICTIMS for stealing, blame Bush". Hense, the title of the thread.

 

[Craig234]

The issue

The issue is the incompetence of the government agency, which had not prepared to be able to hand out money with protections against fraud.

Then, when they had to rush and do it without the protections, it lost over $1 billion to the fraud as a result of their incompetence.

Of *course* there are some in the public who will steal and commit fraud given the chance and they're wrong.

But does a bank employee leave the vault and front door open overnight and then say the blame is on the thieves the next day when the money is stolen?

On a political level, this is simply an attempt to not be responsible for the party in power by changing the topic to the thieves and abusers.

Put the thieves in jail, and put the party who did not run the government right because it's busy grabbing its own money out of office.

 

[ForMiseri]

The people defending those crooks aren't liberals, they're idiots, and to the severe right wing people who will say, 'aren't those the same thing?' no they aren't . I know plenty of liberals who are idiots, and I know plenty of people in sitting in their red states who think everything that comes from D.C. is the truth, they are idiots too! Anybody on one far extreme of the conservative/liberal or right/left spectrum, isn't what I'd consider a mental giant... rather foolish. One has to be able to see both sides and assess for themself the situation without preconceived notions blurring their political views.
Yes FEMA dropped the ball in many ways, but the spending that we now see documented is awful and the result of ignorant people fleecing the system. I can't believe I was surprised when I heard about it; typical common behavior when you think about it. For as much as my occupations have revolved around helping people, sometimes I really think people can really be animals. For as bad as this is though, it goes nicely right along with the oil fleecing we experience everyday @ the pump...
Now that I've vented too, think I'll catch a couple hours sleep before I have to get back to work so I can pay more taxes to be well spent...

I couldn't agree more. In this day and age the lines between both parties have blurred to such an extent that it would seem there is no distinction. RJBUDZ also makes a valuable point in that politicians spend millions to be elected to a position that pays thousands. The American public needs to reconsider the 2 party system. There are and have been so many monetary debacles for which both sides have perpetuated that finger pointing is rather pointless. What it boils down to is conservatives and liberals standing on the opposite side of a fence taunting each other like children. This is the current state of our political process..NYYYA, NYYYANYaaaNa. I wonder if people ever heard of posessing the ability to agree to disagree. Our politicians no longer serve the people they are supposed to represent. They serve the special interest groups who will put the most money into their campaign coffers. They do not care about right or wrong being ethical or not. They are like whores selling themselves and the people they represent out to the biggest contributors. Our elected leaders have no problem with misappropriated money and all too often the people with the same ethical code belive it is OK to do the same as those that lead and set examples and standards of appropriate or innapropriate behavior.
"Ihave lived through many horrible things... Some of which have actually occurred." Mark Twain

 

[Craig234]

...politicians spend millions to be elected to a position that pays thousands. The American public needs to reconsider the 2 party system... Our politicians no longer serve the people they are supposed to represent. They serve the special interest groups who will put the most money into their campaign coffers. They do not care about right or wrong being ethical or not. They are like whores selling themselves and the people they represent out to the biggest contributors.

The problem isn't the two-party system. The problem is the excessive role money plays in the elections.

Few politicians spend millions for something that pays thousands - to discuss it in those terms is a misunderstanding of the issue.

Our society has an economy in trillions, with an utterly huge government budget, necessarily to function.

(If you think the answer is to slash the government accountable at some level to the people democratically to be replaced by utterly unaccountable private power, then you have a disagreement with the basic concept of our democracy, and we can't discuss this issue until resolving that one).

All those billions pose a huge temptation for wealth, and it's imperative that we somehow keep the control of them 'in the public interest'.

Instead, now, based on the legally absurd ruling that corporations are legally people and deserve equal rights under the constitutional amendment meant to protect the rights of former slaves, the corporations who stand to make billions from corrupt governing can donate huge sums, counteirng the public's interests, to buy the politicians - and the public lets them get away with it. Look how there's a huge correlation between campaign budget and election.

I think you go too far when you personalize the issue. You *cannot* protect society by expecting politicians to ignore what works and to somehow all refuse to take the corporate money. If 99% do, the 1% will take it and get elected instead of the 1%. You have to fix the RULES, not blame the people.

In fact, many politicians are very upset and concerned by the situation - they want to do the right thing, yet they need funds to get elected.

What can you do? Read Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection" and lobby for campaign finance reform. Create a grass-roots pressure.

Don't look for villains and throw up your hands and give up - fix the broken system. If you were a corporation in the current system, you would probably have to play the game for competitive reasons. If you were a politician, you would have to choose to shamelessly sell out and win power (republican) or lose elections (democrat) (OK, I over-simplify, but there's some truth to that).

Today, you have it so bad that the literal head lobbyists for industries are placed in government positions (200+), and industry writes many laws.

The public can blame itself to an extent for not getting informed and pushing the finance reform by voting it as their issue.

Instead, they vote gay marriage, or other 'PR image' based issues and such, or whatever well-funded propaganda they've been sold.

 

[majorloser]

Why the hell was I given a negative chicklet for this post? I was laughing at the pictures...

Must have been a member of PETA

 

[ForMiseri]

I am afraid I must disagree that I misunderstand this point. On the contrary. I do not believe that it should be necessary to pay a politician to do his/her sworn public duty. We already have ethics laws on the books which are a joke. For years we had a fully funded (by the taxpayers) broadcast system in the forms of radio and television broadcasts. These mediums could have and can still provide all of the political debates open to the American people. Take this farce off of the regular airwaves and reduce cost. Don't you think this would be a bit cheaper as well as removing the need for the ridiculous amounts of money needed to run a political campaign? I do not believe that my 83 year old mother should have to receive mail soliciting money for yet more special interest groups who need the cash to lobby our politicians to do the humane and ethical job. We the people have watched this corruption of a democratic society so long that we believe there is nothing we can do. Grass roots my foot! Where is the ethical concerns of corporate America?

 

[Craig234]

In a nutshell

Where is the ethical concerns of corporate America?

It is *illegal* for corporations to put ethical concerns ahead of shareholder profit.

Because of the warm and fuzzy PR campaigns, the public often misunderstand how this works.

Corporations have been around since Queen Elizabeth I found they were a nifty way to make money (the American revolution was mainly against the larget corporation in the world, because the special treatment it got from the government of England made them unable to compete). Corporations are a great tool for society to increase its wealth. However, it is absolutely essential for society to have a democratic government act as a limit on them.

That's what's missing more and more as the corporations take over the government.

The law requires corporations to maximize the profit for shareholders. They arne't allowed ot say "tearing down the pretty mountains might make us profit, but it sure would hurt the environment so let's not do it", even if they want to. (They have some latitude when the negative public reaction might outweigh the profit). It's the government's role, representing the public, to put those limits in - transparent accounting, safe goods, etc.

That way, all corporations are playing by the same rules; the 'good' corporations aren't forced, for competition, to do 'bad' profitable things.

But when you have the pharmaceutical industry stanidng to gain $165 Billion more profit when the drug bill has a sentence saying the government is not allowed to use its huge buying leverage to negotiate better prices, and you have THEIR political donations to politicians who will put that clause in against the few Americans who will donate to NOT put it in, the people who stand to make the money donate far more.

And that means you have ten times the ads saying 'coroprate guy' loves America as you have saying 'public interest guy' loves America.

Guess who wins? You know the answer.

You can't just whine that you shouldn't *have* to donate to get honest government. If you just do that, you will continue to get screwed.

You need to do more and get the system fixed.

I've given you a couple steps you can do. Read "Unequal Protection", and get involved in groups pushing for public campaign financing.

There's a saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO good for donors". Until you get the money from corporations out, you're screwed.

All you will get are corporate-donation funded ad campains saying how great the politician is, which do fool people enough to vote for them.

 

[ForMiseri]

What I am trying to say here is there is a way to get the corporations out of this. Take the need for bribes, and that is what they are, out of the equation. I agree with you that corporations have no place in making political decisions however, when you have both parties in a two party system willing to "tear down the mountains" for profit, these parties are no longer representative of its people. Here in PA, if you are not registered to vote as a Republican or a Democrat in the primary elections you are not allowed to vote in the general elections since no other party is on the ballot. For instance, if you are registered as Independent in the primary and no one is left on the ticket from the independent party, come general election time, you are inelligible to vote at all. Makes no difference. If you want to vote for a Dem., Rep., Green Party, whatever, You no longer have a vote.

 

[Craig234]

Voting in PA

ForMiseri,

I was shocked by the description you posted of voting in PA.

So, I wrote to the Secretary of State's office in PA, and they said that your description is not accurate. To quote their response:

Voters are not required to be a member of a party to vote in a general election.
They are certainly not to be treated any differently either.

Now, I know the response does not specifically say to vote *for a candidate* in a general election, but I did ask the question carefully to include that.

 

[ForMiseri]

Sorry, General Elections No Vote PA

I have personal experience with this. I was registered as an independant with no independents on the ticket. I was told that I could not vote at the polling place that I could not vote because no one from the independent party was on the ticket. This was in the General elections. In PA you cannot vote for another candidate be it Dem, Rep., Green, Independent, etc... If a member of the party you are registered in has no candidate you are not allowed to vote for another party member.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, you can vote for others

ForMiseri,

Of course you can vote for candidates of another party in a general election.

In many states, you cannot vote in another party's *primary* election, which makes good sense.

I've cut and pasted your post to the PA Secretary of State again, to use some more of your tax dollars for the answer, to get 'official' word for you.

 

[ForMiseri]

Why does this make good sense?

 

[cyberbri]

Why does this make good sense?

Primaries are to select candidates for specific parties that would then move on to the general elections. Would it make sense to have people from the main opposing party come in and vote for the doofus to make it to the generals, so it's easier for their candidate to win (although sometimes big-time doofuses win big, too! )? I think the primaries are about giving people registered for a particular party the chance to decide which candidate from their party would be best to put up for the actual election.