Charlie Rangel is corrupt

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,172
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Sad to say, but Charlie Rangel, one of the most powerful members of congress (Chairman of Ways & Means), is corrupt. I can't see any other to spin or excuse this story. Sadly, he's also so firmly ensconced in his district that, unless he dies or retires, he cannot lose his seat no matter how big a scandal this creates.

“There was no quid pro quo,” Mr. Isenberg said in an interview on Friday.

What is clear is that Mr. Rangel played a pivotal role in preserving the tax shelter for Nabors and the other companies in 2007. And while the issue was before his committee, Mr. Rangel met with Mr. Isenberg and a lobbyist for Nabors and discussed it, on the same morning that the congressman and Mr. Isenberg met to talk about the chief executive’s potential support for the Rangel center.

Mr. Rangel’s opposition to closing the loophole surprised his Congressional colleagues, who had viewed him as an outspoken ally in the effort to eliminate the tax shelter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nyarlathotep said:
A corrupt congressman. Quelle surprise.
Click to expand...


Ya, so let's just ignore it and maintain the status quo forever. Whatever happened to change?

Oh, I know, you aren't saying that. But then.. what were you saying? Oh, just letting us all know it doesn't surprise you? Ok then. It doesn't surprise me much either I guess.
 
Whiplash said:
Ya, so let's just ignore it and maintain the status quo forever. Whatever happened to change?

Oh, I know, you aren't saying that. But then.. what were you saying? Oh, just letting us all know it doesn't surprise you? Ok then. It doesn't surprise me much either I guess.
Click to expand...

You can no more change corruption in politics than you can repeal the law of gravity. Its the nature of the game.
 
Cicero said:
You can remove the entrenched corrupt politicians through term limits.
Click to expand...

Not meaingfuly. In fact that kicks in the problem that politicians have an insentive to be more corrupt (less time to make money and a better chance of being out of office before anyone does the digging needed to find out).
 
Nyarlathotep said:
You can no more change corruption in politics than you can repeal the law of gravity
Click to expand...

Sigh history stongly suggests you can. Elimination of pocket boroughs in the UK for example.
 
geni said:
Not meaingfuly. In fact that kicks in the problem that politicians have an insentive to be more corrupt (less time to make money and a better chance of being out of office before anyone does the digging needed to find out).
Click to expand...

That has been the lackluster argument to keep the status quo of career politicians. Duke Cunningham served 13 years in Congress before taking bribes. Rangel had served 19 years before he figured he was entitled to use his position for personal gain.

A politician does not accumulate power until they have been in government for a decade. Without that power, they are useless to special interest groups who seek to curry them with favors.
 
Last edited:
geni said:
Sigh history stongly suggests you can. Elimination of pocket boroughs in the UK for example.
Click to expand...


I won't argue UK politics with you, since I have only a rudimentary knowledge of them, and you live there. But if I were a betting man, my money would be on the likelyhood that you simply replaced one form of corruption with another.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
And replace them with brand NEW corrupt politicians. Not much of an improvement.
Click to expand...

If you beleive ALL politicians are inherently corrupt, you would think that. But if you realize that the system is designed to corrupt politicians once they achieve power, then term limits would be an effective measure to eradicate career, i.e. powerful, politicians.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
I won't argue UK politics with you, since I have only a rudimentary knowledge of them, and you live there. But if I were a betting man, my money would be on the likelyhood that you simply replaced one form of corruption with another.
Click to expand...

Technicaly true but but you were complaining about the politicians being corrupt not the voters (at the time it was quite legal to buy votes). Overal curruption was reduced (well it could hardly be increased since pocket boroughs are by defintion corrupt).
 
geni said:
Not meaingfuly. In fact that kicks in the problem that politicians have an insentive to be more corrupt (less time to make money and a better chance of being out of office before anyone does the digging needed to find out).
Click to expand...
Don't know how it works there, but here in Illinois the corruption is generally about doing favors (generally rigging government contracts or zoning changes) for your cronies in businesses, in return those businesses donate generously to your re-election piggy.

Without a re-election fund to donate to they'd have to deposit bribes directly into their bank accounts, which is much easier to discover and prosecute.
 
Last edited:
Rangel is corrupt, but he is a freaking amateur compared to Senator Byrd of West Virginia, the King of Pork. A standing joke is that the only reason Byrd opposed the Iraq war was because he could not figure out a way to get Pork for West Virginia out of it.
And lest anybody think one party has the corner on corruption, The Late Senator from Alaska comes to mind.....
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
If you beleive ALL politicians are inherently corrupt, you would think that.
Click to expand...

Got it in one, or close enough anyway. Politics attracts extremely corrupt and venal people pretty much the same way Basketball attracts extremely tall and athletic people.

I suppose their might be a handful of non-corrupt politicians out there, though they generally get winnowed out fairly early in the process, but term limtis would be no help there, since if by some miracle a non-corrup politician made it through, as soon as he hit the wall of term limits he would be replaced, most likely by a more corrupt replacement.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Got it in one, or close enough anyway. Politics attracts extremely corrupt and venal people pretty much the same way Basketball attracts extremely tall and athletic people.

I suppose their might be a handful of non-corrupt politicians out there, though they generally get winnowed out fairly early in the process, but term limtis would be no help there, since if by some miracle a non-corrup politician made it through, as soon as he hit the wall of term limits he would be replaced, most likely by a more corrupt replacement.
Click to expand...

Your aversion to term limits seems to be predicated on the better-the-Devil- you-know for their natural lives rather than taking a chance on the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington type.

I guess unlimited term limits and cynasism go hand in hand.
 
Cicero said:
Your aversion to term limits seems to be predicated on the better-the-Devil- you-know for their natural lives rather than taking a chance on the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington type.
Click to expand...

Fair enough though I prefer to look at it as simply being realistic about the kinds of people that go into politics and adjusting my expectations accordingly. There is a reason you don't find Mr. Smith Goes To Washington in the documentary section.

My aversion to term limits also stems from a simple philosphical aversion to them based on the simple fact that I don't like the ideas of people's choices being arbitrarily reduced by term limits. I take the view that If one doesn't want politicians to serve for longer than X number of terms, then don't vote for them after X number of terms, but they shouldn't tell other people that they have to make the same decision.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
My aversion to term limits also stems from a simple philosphical aversion to them based on the simple fact that I don't like the ideas of people's choices being arbitrarily reduced by term limits. I take the view that If one doesn't want politicians to serve for longer than X number of terms, then don't vote for them after X number of terms, but they shouldn't tell other people that they have to make the same decision.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the way I see it, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom