dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
984
« The People
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: Corruption

A subsidy from your work place is still part of your compensation package. It's part of your salary that's not cash similar to how you may look at a company cell phone, laptop etc where you were allowed to use it for both personal and business use.
battleop

battleop to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer
I didn't say that. I pay for my medical costs, i.e. my insurance. It's built into my comp plan from my employer so it does cost something, i.e. not free.

" said Romney calls them the 47%, you simply call them people who 'sit on their asses and do nothing'."

Among the 47% there is no corruption or abuse of the system?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

If you pay for your own individual health insurance w/o any subsidy from a workplace, then you are paying entirely for your own medical costs.

No, you are paying into a system where your medical costs are paid by the funds of all the other contributors... then the system skims off whatever is left. I can see why he would be sick of paying into that!
CXM_Splicer

CXM_Splicer to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
quote:
Among the 47% there is no corruption or abuse of the system?

Yes, of course there is. There is also corruption in the Republican & Democratic parties and in the insurance industry. That doesn't mean they should be eliminated... when you have a system that you know is corrupt, you fix the corruption.

StevenB
Premium Member
join:2000-10-27
New York, NY
·Charter

StevenB to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
I'm willing to pay higher taxes so every person living in my country has it. I know that also i will not be paying higher taxes because i fall under 250k a year income, only people who have a problem with it.. Are wealthy people making over 250k a year, or people touting the republican/tea party line.

but hey i should enjoy paying out of my own pocket 11k plus a year on it.
StevenB

StevenB to NOCTech75

Premium Member

to NOCTech75
so if i'm allowed to by the irs, i shouldn't according you right.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer
I never said they should be eliminated only that there is no such thing as "Free" health care.

NOCTech75
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA

NOCTech75 to StevenB

Premium Member

to StevenB
said by StevenB:

so if i'm allowed to by the irs, i shouldn't according you right.

Only thing you should take is the standard deductions.. that's it. Make sure you pay the maximum amount of tax you can, lead by example.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to StevenB

Member

to StevenB
EVERYONE should pitch in not just people making more than $250k. The 1% didn't get into the 1% by being stupid. If you try and make them pay more just because they are in the 1% they will figure out a way to pass it right back to the 99%.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker
How is that corruption? He transitioned from one career to another. He's simply touting his employer's party line. Now, if you can point to activities that demonstrate actual corruption while he was an FCC commissioner, then you'll be on to something.

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958 to old_wiz_60

Premium Member

to old_wiz_60
said by old_wiz_60:

Absolutely! I wonder how much he was promised or paid while still working for the FCC? ALL government agencies are so corrupt that it's hard to figure out which ones are honest. The FCC and DOJ are certainly not honest.

Fixed that for you by just changing one lousy word!!

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

How is that corruption?

Are you serious? Its an enormous conflict of interest, not to mention suggests serious lapses of partiality and ethics.

I can't believe you even suggest this passes the smell test.
DataRiker

1 edit

1 recommendation

DataRiker to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

Funny you never mention that about our Defense industry, and its best friend the State Department which has spent enough money in the past decades to give every American a house and health care 5 times over.

And yet we have nothing to show for it but more enemies.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker
He has a different job now. It smells just fine. You may not like his positions or arguments, but I'm hard pressed to see a conflict of interest.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

It would be a conflict of interest if he used his former position of power to influence people that he used to work with or his connections to pull strings that others don't have access to. Lets face it, anyone with half a brain knows that is exactly why he was hired as a lobbyist.

It would also be corruption if he made 'arrangements' for this new job while he was still in office which included (for instance) reducing the regulatory authority of the agency.

Would you have a problem if the AFL/CIO started offering the Secretary of Dept of Labor a multimillion dollar lobbying position for when she retired? And then she in fact took it?

Not only does this smell but it is more proof that our entire political system stinks to high hell.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

"If" That's why corruption is difficult to demonstrate/prove. The accusations are full of conjecture and hyperbole.

One way to prevent this "corruption" is to pay our public representatives/regulators significantly more money with tons of benefits and a nice healthy pension above what they already receive. Then prevent them from further employment once they leave public office.

I simply do not see that happening.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

As far as I'm concerned there is no "IF". Taking a lobbying position from a company you were supposed to regulate is immoral, unethical, slimy, and just plain wrong.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Morality loses every time. Unethical? Maybe. Slimy? Politics. Wrong? Your perspective.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

I actually feel sorry for you having to defend such ridiculous positions.

Saying you don't see a conflict of interest ( which this is the very definition of ) is so over the top, nobody can take you seriously.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

You don't need feel sorry for me for anything. I explain my positions and I'll stand by them until someone is able to convince me otherwise. You haven't, yet.

Wouldn't the conflict of interest, if it existed, have occurred while he was at the FCC?
said by Dictionary.com :

conflict of interest
noun
1. the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive, or the like, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence: The senator placed his stocks in trust to avoid possible conflict of interest.

2. the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them.


DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

This is too silly to even argue.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Because you can't? You have yet to explain any conflict of interest. The man left public service for a private company in a business sector that he was knowledgeable of. If he gave favors as a commissioner with promise of future employment, then you have an argument.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

He regulated the very company he is working for. Sorry you don't understand.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Sorry you can't seem to understand that he had a job then and he has a different job now. That does not guarantee a conflict of interest. IMO, he can't have a conflict of interest now. He's done with his regulatory authority. He may have had a conflict of interest as a commissioner if he was working on securing his current job through promises and favors.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by openbox9:

He may have had a conflict of interest as a commissioner if he was working on securing his current job through promises and favors.

Your getting warmer

Do you think he was given his current job because he is such a good guy?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

I don't need to get warmer. I understand the situation just fine.

I stated it a couple of times in this thread already, but I'll say it one more time. He doesn't currently have a conflict of interest as was implied. Any potential conflict of interest would've occurred during his last appointment.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by openbox9:

I understand the situation just fine.

No you absolutely don't.

I know people of every variety of political background and this is probably the universal ire of any American. The circular path between regulators and lobbyist. It is absolutely wrong on a grand scale.

It is unbelievable that anybody under any circumstance could defend it.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

I'm not defending it. In fact, I posted previously an option/suggestion to prevent regulators from moving to private industry in the same regulatory sector.

Don't tell me I don't understand something. You don't know me and it's flat out rude.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Yet you don't see the conflict of interest.

Makes sense......
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Obviously this discussion is going nowhere. You're focusing on something that may have happened, not what is currently occurring.
« The People
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next