Slashdot Mirror
Ted "A Series of Tubes" Stevens Found Guilty
techmuse writes "According to a series of tubes sites, Senator Ted Stevens has been found guilty of lying about free home renovations that he received from an oil contractor. He faces up to 5 years in jail, and the outcome of his current reelection bid is now in doubt. 'The conviction came after a tumultuous week in the jury room. First there were complaints about an unruly juror, then another had to be replaced when she left Washington following the death of her father. Finally, jurors on Monday discovered a discrepancy in the indictment that had been overlooked by prosecutors. Jury deliberations in this historic trial have at times been as contentious as some of the proceedings The Justice Department indicted Stevens on July 29, and the Alaska Republican took a huge legal gamble and asked for a speedy trial in order to resolve the charges before Election Day. Judge Emmet Sullivan complied with Stevens' request, and in less than three months from the time of his indictment, Stevens was found guilty.'"
Prison, it's not like a big building, it's more like a series of cubes.
I can forsee the senator saying that his jailtime will be much like living normal life, but behind a series of bars connected together. I look forward to his jailing, so I can enjoy more humorous remarks about the particular "Series of Bars" he is behind at any given time.
Dubya will pardon him on his way out
Scooter will get a full pardon too (in addition to the sentence commutation he already got)
'pubs will take care of their own, don't you worry
I would celebrate, but I know in my heart he'll be replaced by someone just as bad. Our body politic is rotten to the core.
So your a Senator of one of the largest oil producing states, an you hire an oil services company to renovate your house, instead of say, a home builder.
Yea that doesn't look odd at all.
Prison's not a dump truck. It's more like a series of metal bars.
He faces up to five years for each count. Although most seem to agree he won't serve anywhere near that much time.
for his own rape kit?
I hope he does the proper thing and resigns. Although the Republicans cannot afford a single loss of Senate seats, he needs to immediately show respect to the people of Alaska. Of course, I'm still waiting for William Jefferson (D - LA) to do the right thing too ...
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
The summary indicates that he faces up to 5 years in jail. This is incorrect. He faces up to 5 years in jail *per count*. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/stevens.jurors/index.html
A scene a few months from now:
Hello senator. Congratulations on being reelected dispite being a convicted felon. I hope you enjoy serving your remaining term in PMITA Federal Prsion. Have a nice day.
Test your net with Netalyzr
The truely sad thing is that if he is reelected then he can serve. Forgetting there being no law against a felon holding office. Shouldn't there be some law to protect the American people from legislators who commit felonies relating to their position?
Another bad apple is fine. We will send him to prison just like Stevens. Eventually America will get pissed enough to start hanging these crooks in the street.....then it will stop.
This pretty much ruined Ted's shot of being reelected, but will this hurt the image of political figures from Alaska? So close to election day, could this affect Sarah Palin's image? Morality? (Which has already been questioned).
So what could this do to John McCain's campaign?
(Probably already missed first post)
Finally. I'm only saddened that it took criminal charges to get rid of that porker. I wonder how Sarah Palin is going to govern her state without all that federal money coming in?
Thats 5 years for each count.. and he was found guilty on all of them.
When did embracing a war criminal's endorsement become a good thing? People must have short memories. Don't they realize that he sold his credibility down the river so we could go to war with Iraq?
Its also worth mentioning that this endorsement came 2 days after the movie W. released, which painted Colin Powell as a genius. Not surprisingly the movie didn't do very well. Who wants to watch a movie about a recurring nightmare they've had for the past 8 years? Not me.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Couldn't happen to a better guy.
Instead of getting "gifts" he should have taken money wired through a "Series of Tubes" to an dummy company somewhere in Panama.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
If you check you will find that that is 5 years on each count. I haven't seen anyone report how many counts there are, but the implication is that the number is greater than one. He will of course not spend a day in jail. If need be, such a friend of the oil industry will be pardoned by the great tool of the oil industry, Dick Cheney who will pull the appropriate string on his puppet and have Bush issue a pardon.
OTOH, one has to think that a guy that can't control his household might be over the edges. That he is so much a part of the Washington Elite, that he might not distinguish between what is done to benefit the country and what is done to enrich himself. It really speaks to the accumulation of power, and the corruption that accompanies it. One can imagine that a dictator might not be such a bad thing, except eventually the accumulated power and privilege ends up warping the sense of reality to a mentally deformed image. It is kind of the story of this election, can a guy with 8 houses and 13 cars and a corporate jet and a young rich second wife really represent the bulk of the people who do not have any of these. I don't know. It will be a change in Alaska, and we will see if they can make it. If they have been broken from their benevolent benefactor, or freed from their father figure. I sure he did good, but perhaps did not get out when the good he did was not overwhelming.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I wonder if his fellow prisoners will come to view Mr. Stevens as "a series of..." It's a joke that begs to be made. But I just can't...
Let's just say I hope Mr. Steven's enjoys his new position on the Cigarette Appropriations Committee" and leave it at that.
Corollary to Hanlon's razor: Any significantly advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
Despite being a convicted felon, he is not required to drop out of the race or resign from the Senate. If he wins re-election, he can continue to hold his seat because there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress. The Senate could vote to expel Stevens on a two-thirds vote. Article here
WTF?!?! Seriously?
From same article, when asked about stepping down: "Put this down: That will never happen - ever, OK?" Stevens said in the weeks leading up to his trial. "I am not stepping down. I'm going to run through and I'm going to win this election.
What an absolutely arrogant bastard! It's good to know what the rule of law really means to the men in charge of this country.
More than likely, he'll be beaten in the election by Mark Begich, the current Mayor of Anchorage. Other than being a proponent of photo radar, he doesn't seem like such a bad guy.
That said, power has this tenacious tendancy to corrupt.
Agreed. Maybe he can join Stevens in the pen, someday.
A Senator in the Fed Pen? he's going to come face to face with a whole new series of tubes!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I don't care about the hype around the silly "series of tubes" comment. The corrupt bastard got what he deserved.
Kickbacks are far too common in politics, and ultimately lead to the "lobbyist" driven politics like the DMCA.
gadgetophile.com
I would celebrate, but I know in my heart he'll be replaced by someone just as bad. Our body politic is rotten to the core.
Mark Begich, mayor of Anchorage, is the man who will most likely replace him if Stevens loses on Nov. 4th. However, I have read that there is no rule in the Senate which forbids senators from being convicted felons. With the option of a Bush pardon still on the table, it is entirely possible that Stevens could hold his senate seat.
I came here for a good argument
Everyone's known this guy was corrupt when he gave his silver-tongued speech about the blogotubes years ago. Today, we finally see that sometimes, someone will do something about it -- and succeed. Now, if only we could get some 5-year prison sentences rolled out for all those who didn't vote an explicit "Nay" on the FISA bill Before my little girl loses faith in democracy...
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Convicted felons in Alaska are unable to vote while they are serving their sentence, so I find it very odd that they would be able to run for office.
Have fun at Gitmo.
Cordially,
Kilgore Trout
Why do you think he wanted a speedy trial?
Now when will it be Palin's turn, or will they just simply say that they didn't have the authority?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
There'll be enough signal as well as noise regarding felony conviction vs. senate election and so forth. I've got a different angle:
If Stevens is guilty, then the oil company/lobby/unnamed source is too. Said 'too' is undoubtedly backed by big money (of at least buy-a-Senator amounts). As a sentence, whether from the senate building or a jail cell, Stevens should be made to administer an agency that uses money from 'too' to renovate everybody else's houses. To add a touch of irony, the covered renovations should only be those which reduce oil consumption.
Sure it's silly. So's the assumption that Stevens will suffer any ill effects of any sentence. He's too rich for that to happen.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
...a presidential pardon in 85 days.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Just askin.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
232 years and counting, and that still hasn't happened. But sure, the next one will do the trick.
That race was neck and neck already. Don't kid yourself. Stevens doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. Even Alaska won't elect a felon.
Many Alaskans would vote for a Sled dog if it had a R next its name on the ballot. It wouldn't suprise me if they reelect Stevens - then Sarah Palin would appoint his successor. Sarah may be going to Washington after all. Somehow I just don't see her appointing Cathy Murkowski ...
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3975103&IDComment=45754482#c45754482
You owe Decados an apology!
Stevens feathered his own nest a little bit with his job, but to be honest: what he did wasn't serious and did not have substantial consequences. There's too much Schadenfreude over nothing going on here.
And I say this as someone solidly on the left who is looking forward, somewhat, to a Democratic Congress. It's funny how this kind of error-correction is more likely on the left than on the right, though: people say they are equivalent, but if you look at the margins of left and the right, they way that they treat heterodoxy is different. Nutty liberals get corrected from the center and usually either accept the correction or find another target: the rabid right values loyalty over truth and attacks any nuance or correction as traitorous.
Corruption is a problem of availability, not so much moral strength.
Separate temptation from politicians and you will see fewer troubles. It would be far cheaper to grant politicians in key positions generous allowances for the rest of their lives and to clear all expenses over certain through some sort of oversight board forbidden to have any contact with the people they are overseeing. They should be very well taken care of and at the same time, isolated from their keepers. Then let the special interests make their arguments for legislation and let it be balanced against public interest groups and may legislators then make fair and balanced choices, actions and decisions.
No more revolving doors. No more contributions from special interests. Once a politician enters public service, he should never again need to consider private sector life and would therefore have less tempting him now and in the future.
the anus is just like a series of tubes. You can also put other tubes into them. That's what real love is all about dear friend
Alright, I'm certainly happy to see Ted Stevens convicted. He probably deserves it. I am in fact a far left winger. I'm always happy to see any Republican convicted of anything.
With that said:
Give Ted Stevens a break on the "series of tubes" analogy. He was trying to describe saturation of available bandwidth in terms of water going through a pipe. It is a particularly good analogy given that educational metaphor for electrical systems are usually in terms of water in a pipe (or tube). All the snickering about "tubes" makes us look stupid to the community that knows about these things. Among the slashdot community it is just self-degrading. We should know better and attack him with points of merit.
To sum up...Ted Steven's tubes refer to capacity of bandwidth to carry data. He does not seem to think that the internet is a bunch of vacuum tube technology. To persist with this insult makes the critic look stupid, not the target.
Please let him go to jail where he'll find out all about big fat tubes.
A Senator in the Fed Pen? he's going to come face to face with a whole new series of tubes!
Better get some lube for your tube, Stevie boy!
"Hanging people in the street" is considered insightful on slashdot.
This is a pretty lowbrow crowd.
Put him the same the same place as George H. Ryan
This guy has been in office since the late 60's. That's 50 frekin' years in the Senate. With the number of lobbyists in Washington, there's just too much temptation to compromise your beliefs and the needs of your constituents. With term limits, lobbyists can only get their meat hooks so deep into a Senator before they're forced to leave office, having to start the process all over again. It's not a foolproof solution for Washington corruption, but I certainly think it would help.
> So what could this do to John McCain's campaign?
McCain's campaign is already hosed. BADLY. Oh, and an assassination plot targeting Sen. Obama was just thwarted today, too.
There's no good news this year for Republicans. They're BONED. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 electoral votes. (The most probable split is 375 to 163.) Right now, they're HOPING the Democrats don't get 60 seats in the Senate (which is unlikely, but plausible).
The McCain-Palin ticket isn't just dead, it's pining for the fjords. McCain is going to go down as another Goldwater (at least in EV totals), though I'm not sure whether he'll be remembered quite as fondly.
In a perfect world, a felony conviction would include the automatic loss of that fat pension and other benefits that should only come with 'honorable' service.
This should be like a 'dishonerable discharge'. Oh wait- I guess that was Larry Craig.
The penalty is 5 years per offense. Not 5 years in total.
From here:
" Among the articles of faith of "progressivism" is the theory - which never yields to experience - that you can fill the sea with enormous quantities of fresh red meat and then, Moses-like, successfully command the sharks not to devour it."
"As long as Uncle Sam continues to stock the Potomac by ripping from the body politic such enormous quantities of flesh and muscle - now more than three trillion dollars worth annually - sharks and vultures will inevitably swarm throughout Washington in a competitive struggle to gorge themselves on this unfortunate feast."
He lost his conservative media blessing. (Score:0, Flamebait) Now when will it be Palin's turn, or will they just simply say that they didn't have the authority?
Not much difference between the two, except Stevens caused a bit more benefit. Expect a Palin-hostile candidate if not a Democrat to replace him. That's presuming that he doesn't get pardoned.
Sen. Stevens (R-AK) is being kept alive by a series of tubes after an apparent failed suicide attempt following Monday's verdict. The senator is listed in critical condition, and while his doctors are optimistic they cautioned that "Life support is not a truck. We can't just put somebody on it and be assured they will pull through. We just have to stay vigilant and monitor his progress."
Congress is a series of tools. Each one 2-4 years long. I guess this one was older and rustier than most.
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
He won't serve hard time - he'll end up in one of the Hotel jails at worst, until such a time as Bush pardons him. In return he'll agree to go quietly into private life and be no more embarrassment.
It would be far cheaper to grant politicians in key positions generous allowances for the rest of their lives
Indeed. Instead, we have many people (including many on Slashdot) advocating for term limits, which force those politicians to immediately start thinking about their income post-service, and what they can do now to ensure it.
I've always thought that being a lifetime public servant, if your constituents allow it, is far better than being another revolving door politician heading from a law degree into a cushy PR position at a company paying for the laws you gave them.
Obviously Ted Stevens decided he could keep the office and get the payback, too; he should have retired six years ago, after which time he could have gotten all the house upgrades he desired for the work he'd already performed for the oil industry.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Yep!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Will DOJ investigate Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? I hope the judge holds this jury over for more trials.
Stevens: Allen didn't have permission to remove the furniture, we didn't want it, and it was tasteless furniture.
Prosecution: After Allen removed the furniture, Stevens didn't get back his old furniture but kept the new furniture, and didn't report Allen to the police. More importantly he didn't report this furniture among other things to the Senate. Also Senator Stevens reportedly wanted to gift this "tasteless" furniture to his newly married son.
Stevens: It was not a gift. It was a loan, and we hardly used it.
Prosecution: A loan for 7 years, interest free? Also Stevens sent a note thanking Persons for his "gift" and that he (Stevens) used it all the time.
Stevens:"Ms. Morris, I have not died yet."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'd vote for the sled dog. They're so cute and cuddly and can't possibly produce any legislation more stupid then some human politicians I'm aware of.
Still, a few well placed biskets, or a good scratch behind the ear, could lead to a bad corruption scandal.
yeah, but if they stop the messenger taking that news, Alaska might not know that he's a felon until after they've re-elected him.
So you want politicians to change the current rules to one less favorable to corruption. Who do you think set things up the way they are now? Martians?
The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of the high places, and anarchy is the means to do it.
Oh, you mean Royalty as senators? That was discussed and abandoned a few hundred years ago.
Just because you disagree with the parent doesn't mean the post deserves 'troll'. It wasn't a flamebait, either.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Obviously some people who STILL support Bush's administration are modding tonight. -1 Troll? That is ridiculous.
~ Ron Fitzgerald
..I'd say 99 to go. And then I'd subtract the ones who have already left office over the last 10 years.
But that's all so subjunctive. If I could count.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Any chance for +5 Troll?
"Clinton is well known for having pardoned many cocaine traffickers before leaving office. One of the first things Bush did when getting into office was block a congressional investigation into it." - by megamerican (1073936) on Monday October 27, @05:43PM (#25533911)
Heh, that's easy, as to why (on the latter portion especially) - BUSH is a coke head, see here:
Bush Jr.'s Skeleton Closet:
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine
PERTINENT QUOTES:
-----
"Three independent sources close to the Bush family report that Governor Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession, and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's dirt-poor Third Ward"
&
"Bush has essentially admitted that he used cocaine in his Clintonesque, carefully worded partial denials. He won't deny using cocaine or marijuana, though under persistent questioning he said that he hadn't used cocaine in the last 7 years. Most newspapers report that he denies using cocaine since 1974, but that's not exactly true.
That is the most favorable interpretation of what Bush said, but since Bush and his campaign have already made Clintonesque denials on other issues, we need to look at his words carefully.
What Bush actually said was "I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," Mr. Bush said. This is ambiguous because background forms ask slightly different questions, depending on the position. Drug questions can go back one year, seven years or 10 years. Bush Jr. didn't have any formal position in his father's administration, so which one applies is unclear. And 15-years is not one of the choices.
Since Bush Sr.'s presidency began in January 1989, reporters assumed that Jr. was denying drug use for 15 years before that, to 1974. But that is not at all clear. His only direct statement was for seven years before today. He could easily have been denying drug use only for 15 years before today, based on 7 or 10 years dating back from the END of his dad's term. 10 years before 1993, the end of Bush Sr.'s term, is pretty close to 15 years before today.
The Clinton administration actually has a stricter standard than Bush did -- the FBI now asks about any drug use after age 18. But Governor Bush has refused to say whether he would pass that standard, even though that is what he will be asked if he wins. Bush also has refused to answer whether he could have passed the FBI test when his father was vice president, during the 8 years from 1981-1989.
As for the arrest and diversion charge, Governor Bush admits working at the center in 1972. When asked for comment, Bush's campaign spokesman reportedly said "Oh shit... no comment." McLellan denies saying that.
Bush's father, ex-president George Bush, denies the cocaine arrest charge, and in yet another carefully worded denial, Bush said ""It's totally ridiculous what he suggested and it's not true."
-----
Make some sense now? I think so, & so will anyone else reading those words (if not the rest of what is on that website in the URL link above).
Or, in non-geek-speak, GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
I hope they sentence him to 40 years hard-wiring routers ....
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What you read is correct: Only a 2/3 vote of the Senate can expel a member. This might seem unreasonable in the case of a felony conviction fro corruption like this. But the drafters of the constitution (rightly, IMO) wanted to make it very difficult for one branch of government to pull dirty tricks on another, or for anyone to override the will of the voters.
Based on my moderate understanding of Alaskan politics, the smart money says Stevens will lose the election now. It was already close, and corruption amongst the old-guard republicans is a big campaign issue. Stevens had put a lot on being exonerated here.
Even if he does win, resignation seems certain. None of his Republican "friends" are going to want him around generating press, and if he decides to ignore them and hang on just because he can, they might get pissed off, which is the only way you'll see 67 votes for expulsion.
So the election looks like the popular mayor of the states largest city vs. an unspecified Republican to be named by Sarah Palin. Hard to think there won't be an enthusiasm gap there.
Two counterarguments:
1) Human greed knows no limits, and if it does, they are way above any country's budget for public sector salaries.
2) The "keepers" can be corrupted too. Raise their own salaries, assign someone to watch over them, and you have an infinite loop.
Yes, they're called sociopaths. They're medically unable to accept personal responsibility, or feel themselves as the same as other people.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Alaska is the only state governor doesn't get to appoint a replacement. There would have to be a special election if Stevens was elected and the Senate voted to kick him out.
> Old Ted had better be watching his ass, lest his own tubes get clogged.
Is he really in any more danger in prison than he was serving in Congress with Foley or Larry Craig?
> Don't they realize that he sold his credibility down the river so we could go to war with Iraq?
Are you talking about McCain or Powell?
Because I remember McCain telling us that it would be a short, easy war and that we would be "greeted as liberators." But he gambled on the surge, so we're supposed to focus on that part and ignore what he said at the start of the war...
...try visiting about:internets in the Google Chrome browser.
EOF
People wanting to get voted into office will be willing to change the rules for the incumbents. Also, people wishing to keep their jobs and boost their benefits would be likely to be interested in this as well. And let's face it, it'd be a LOT easier to manage things as well without having to worry about inadvertently pissing off a contributor.
He's been neck and neck with his opponent up until now, but with this conviction on his resume, he should win easily.
Squirrel!
Yes there have always been corrupt politicians from all parties. The difference is Tom Delay and the K street project institutionalized corruption. That's why the Republican party is going down so hard in this election.
Either that or the government is in worse condition than we know and and the republicans want to make sure there are no republicans anywhere near government for the next four years. I don't know how else to explain the terrible campaigns being run by all republicans this year.
1. Greed is irrelevant. Their allowances would be controlled to nearly the last detail as I suggested. If they have more than they are allowed, then something is wrong and it would be pretty obvious.
2. Their budgetary keepers are not allowed contact with those they keep, nor should the public officials know who is keeping them.
If he had done the right thing and reported all those gifts on the forms, what then? He pays taxes on them and what else? Unless they can tie the gifts to actual favors granted, he would look like a schmuck but would not be in trouble, am I right? Seriously, I want to know.
More like in time for a pardon by W before he leaves office.
There have probably been a few instances of pardons being put to good use, but they're likely outnumbered 100 to 1 against the bad uses. I hate to throw away a potentially useful tool for the executive, but when Stephens gets pardoned, it'll be garbage - just like nearly ever other pardon.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The real sad thing about this is that he will probably still win his election.
Why bother
AAAAAHAHAHA Oh yeah, that will TOTALLY fix this. Let me see...we have corrupt little shits running for office knowing full well that they will get taken care of by special interests. So instead of nailing them to walls to make the risk not worth the reward, we will skip that and just give them a blank check to do what they wish. That way we can skip the pretense of anyone actually trying to run for office that wants to accomplish something. I mean hell...no better way to form a permanent good ol boys club than to give the existing members the unlimited resources to help get their buddies in too.
No...this is a risk vs reward thing, and if we executed these assholes for their treason then you can be damned sure that fewer would get involved in it. I think our death penalty is extremely backwards. Government with the ability to execute citizens is a recipe for disaster. However, citizens with the ability to execute members of the government is a recipe for a very well behaved government.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Term limits have turned into a disappointing disaster in California, because everyone wants to stay in "public service." They get into one house of the Legislature, and they want to move to the other when their terms are served out. They maintain their core popularity by attempting to screw the other party. Because at some point there will be no incumbent to hold onto the seat, the Legislature carved out perfectly-safe domains that always elect either a Democrat or a Republican at a fixed ratio, ensuring that any 2/3 vote requirement must be satisfied by all Democrats plus one Republican voting in favor (otherwise the Republicans weren't going along with it).
Once they've served out terms in the Legislature, they start bouncing through other offices and appointed committees. We never see the end of them.
Willie Brown was something of a model of excess when he led the Assembly. But he also knew how to work with the Republicans to get the compromises necessary to get his legislation passed. Now, the Legislature is so completely divided that almost anything proposed by a Democrat and requiring a majority gets passed, and anything requiring a 2/3 majority (like the budget) gets stuck for weeks or months.
I was once an avid proponent of term limits. Now I would like to get rid of them -- right after getting rid of the ability of legislators to draw their own districts.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Colin Powell has a LOOOONG history of doing what he's told. From Wikipedia, one of the more restrained accounts of how Powell "made his bones" in the power structure:
"Colin Powell, then a 31-year-old Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter [from an American soldier named Glen detailing US atrocities], which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal(sic) soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of My Lai."
The government should without question "fear" the people. On that we agree.
On the other hand, the very moment that the influence of special interests is muted and kept level with other interests is when they will actually be able to act within their own ideals and notions. They should never have anything to gain by legislating in the favor of one interest or another.
Separate leaders from money and I believe things will work better.
No more revolving doors. No more contributions from special interests. Once a politician enters public service, he should never again need to consider private sector life and would therefore have less tempting him now and in the future.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Those men shouldn't receive a penny for their services in political office. You tell someone they will be eating the same way their poorest widow eats, and sleeping in the same filth their poorest tramp makes his nest in -- for 4 years if they get elected -- you will get respectable leaders and public servants. You won't get these not-kings and not-princes like Stevens, Biden, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, and the other career politicians, rather you'll end up with people who actually care about their citizens; People with upholding the constitution in the forefront of their mind, rather than those who see it as a receipt for their monthly check. You want to supply politicians with all they'll need so they won't look for more. Unfortunately, a greedy man only needs one thing: More.
You mix power, money, lack of accountability, and a golden parachute and wonder why filth and the human equivalent of disease makes its way to the top? You wonder how the United States has managed to pick two blatantly-corrupt criminals as its best candidates for presidency out of somewhere around 150 million qualified people? Because there is a lot of money and power to be made, so the strongest shyster will get it.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
"series of tubes" is just a funny sound bite. The real point is that this imbecile was opposing net neutrality and this was his justification:
"There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet [i.e. email] was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discriminate against those people [...]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
[...]
Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.
Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.
It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a violation of net neutrality that hits you and me."
This story belongs in the political section at best. Even better, it belongs in the "I hate Republicans and limited government" section.
I haven't seen YRO articles on Cold Cash Jefferson (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson) or Alcee Hastings (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings) or even recently Tim Mahoney (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Mahoney).
Taco, if I want political BS, I'll visit the DNC/RNC/MOVEON/NRO websites, not slashdot.
Keep slashdot neutral, or at least keep the articles in the correct forum (which I block).
My opinion,
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
What's the problem? The national parliament of India has lots of members with long criminal records.
You see, Ted, anus is not like a big truck. It's more like a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
* only the first sentence is (partially) mine. :-)
So has Sarah Palin ever palled around with this convicted felon and corrupt politician?
"Republicans - they're a series of crooks!"
That is precisely why these people should have well-defined limits. The colored view of desperation is just another end of the spectrum of the 10+ house owning billionaires who think "rich" starts at 5 million. The whole idea I am developing is one where money isn't an influence in their decision making.
There is still the matter of greed for power and position but they become a lot less meaningful when money becomes less influential.
Well I see two problems here.
:)
You can't separate them from the money without either given everything to them and compounding the problem, or trying to lock them into a specific middle lifestyle and compounding the trouble with bribery. However, I don't know that a policy of a government run accounting for all of the personal finances and purchases of congress critters wouldn't be at least marginally better. Hmm...you got a lexus huh? Well our records indicate you didn't purchase a lexus...EXECUTION!
The other problem is not all special interests are created equal. Civil liberties for blacks was in the realm of special interests. They eventually turned from chattle to citizens because of that. Advocacy for military members and their families is definitely a special interest. People don't seem to realize that the government is more than happy to shit all over the military while flag waving about how patriotic the military is. It wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly legal for them to just not pay the military, and that happened. Congress didn't approve the budget, no military member got paychecks for a while, yet it was still illegal as hell for those military members to abdandon their posts. So you had unpaid people guarding nuclear weapons during the cold war. So...there are "special interests" that are indeed positive.
My biggest concern is how to fix things so that the government does fear the people without things going horribly wrong in either direction. Let's face it, a bunch of gun toting redneck "revolutionaries" like Timmy McVeigh aren't exactly a suitable replacement for our current problems.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I've seen that before, in 2003 or 2004, before Matrix Revolutions. A very insightful, relevant post, and in the middle of it... "blah blah blah etc trinity dies in the matrix blah blah". +5 troll. I looked through the archived stories, but I haven't been able to find it :(
It's more likely than you think!
I have to agree here. Congresspeople are already 'set for life' on the government's dime when they leave office.
Government pays for staff, office space, homes, cars, etc.
Supplying these people with this kind of lifestyle is the government equivalent of supply-side voodoo economics.
Just as massive corporate tax cuts don't guarantee jobs instead of corporate bonuses, massive payoffs to government officials don't guarantee public representation instead of further bribery.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
To bad rubbish.
...indicted for a felony (no waiting for them be convicted). ...shortly after his INDICTMENT...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Oh yea, Ted is getting busted for some crime or another. Everyone talks about it. Yah, look at another one of those evil capitalist exploiter Republicans. But when Democrats do something bad, like Obama hanging out with Reverend "God Damn America" Wright for 20 years ("Oh, you're taking his words out of context" says Obama), or with Bill "Nanna nanna boo boo I got away with Terrorism scott-free" Ayers (a "university professor" who was a bad boy "when I was 8 years old") for 20 years, or having dinner with Rashid Kalidi (a connection to Yasser Arafat, a really nice guy), nobody talks about it, and if they do, then oh, you're taking it out of context. I don't know about you, but I'm voting for John McCain so he can save Joe the Plumber, Mike the Carpenter, Bill the Transmission Fixing Guy, not Obama who won't even put his hand on his heart when the Pledge of Allegiance is being said. Yeah, Obama, Mr. the constitution is a piece of shit and let's restructure the supreme court to make it easier to take YOUR wealth away and distribute it to whomever HE decides. I don't know about you but where I come from, there is a name for that sort of thing. It's called THEFT! Vote for John McCain. So Ted messed up and he's gonna pay the price. But you know what? We need to vote ALL the incumbents out of the Congress and put brand new people in there. That's why the House of Representatives is changed every two years. The Constitution of this country is one of the most ingenious documents in history and it is NOT outdated. Obama's ideas are NOT fresh and new ideas. They are the ideas that got millions of people killed in the Communist USSR behind the iron curtain. Karl Marx's works were wrong then, they are wrong now, they are NOT fresh and new, they are GARBAGE. Proletarians versus the Bourgeoisie. Bullshit. I have a better idea. It's called Capitalism. You work for your own success. Your achievements are YOUR doing, they are not predicated on someone (certainly not the Federal Government) giving you a handout. And there is no limit to how successful you can or should be. The sky is the limit. That is what made America great. Put a cap on personal success and this country will look like the Soviet Union. What a shame to do such a horrific thing to such a wonderful and great country. God Bless America.
Same site, different link; check out the Heavy Hitters list of lobbyist money. 8 of 10 are very (D) oriented. The other 2 are just CYA even-handed, for now.
You want change? Just wait until the (D) party has a no-checks-and-balances majority.
Yes, because history has shown over and over again that greedy and corrupt people want a certain amount of wealth and comfort, after which point they entirely stop trying to get more money for themselves... right??? </sarcasm>
That would be ridiculously expensive, with every underling joining up for one term and retiring with their oh-so-cushy pension.
It would not remove the motivation to get favors for friends and family that aren't covered. Ditto for any staff and the like not included.
It would either have to entirely remove the motivation to get reelected (which is bad), or it would still leave open the temptation to get pork projects to ensure your reelection.
I can't believe we didn't solve the oldest and biggest problem in the history of the world in a one-paragraph policy recommendation on slashdot...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
you sound like a cubs fan
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
with a full 2% of the population in prison at any one time, and a vast majority of them being convictions related to drug abuse, and obviously many more people who have already served their time...
I wonder how quickly marijuana and many other drugs (and filesharing while we're at it) would be legalized if every one of them were given their right to vote again.
The classification of even minor drug use/possession as a felony was designed by the fascist nixon administration to assure anyone who opposed their extremist stance on drugs would never be allowed to push congress to restore their rights.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
.
Alaskans are not like us folk in the continental 48.
It is a "network of tubes".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
not just the "series of tubes" phrase.
This may be news to you, but Bill Clinton hasn't been news or powerful since 20 January 2001, and you only make yourself pathetic by excusing Bush's actions by saying "but Clinton!".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Original argument: The president will just pardon these criminal scumbags because he's unscrupulous.
Counter argument: Oh yeah? Well, Clinton did it too! That completely counters your argument, sucker!
Sorry, but the "counter" argument is nothing but an irrelevant rant about Clinton, while the original argument is an insightful statement about American politics.
Before you respond with something like "But it was slanted against Bush!" think first about how often people criticized Clinton while he was in office, with no counterbalancing criticisms of Bush Sr. or Reagan. Why is it okay to criticize Democrats but not Republicans? Consider your own biases before you try to find them in others.
So he's going to be having a problem with a series of pubes, huh?
The local paper endorsed Roy Blunt for office again -- every time they've done it, they bring up his seniority and power to bring home the bacon, never mind that he was one of Bush's chief allies and enablers, and thus shares responsibility for Bush's many fuckups.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Where do you get that from? As far as I can tell they just get a pension based on their previous salary and years worked. You know just like all other federal employees.
I think it could be solved by having a webcam (with sound of course) attached to each representative that is with them for the duration of their term.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Nope. When the hangings start the crooks are often the ones running the mobs and picking out people to hang. Human nature doesn't stop.
The trouble with reaganomics is, if everyone is saving, nobody is consuming, and consumption is a far greater factor in our GDP.
You fail Economics 101.
This story belongs in the political section at best.
Sure does.
I haven't seen YRO articles on Cold Cash Jefferson blah blah blah
You can whine about a lack of balanced coverage when the Democrats have caught up to the Republicans on corruption. You can name three corrupt Democrats? Whoop de fuckin do. There are dozens of Republicans sitting in jail, right now, and if we ever have investigations of the Bush Administration's crimes, we'll have dozens more.
Your party is corrupt. Your party is rotten. Your party is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Sad say for you.
Scooter will get a full pardon too (in addition to the sentence commutation he already got)
.
W. is not the sort who forgives and forgets:
The deadline for candidate replacement or withdrawal in Alaska was September 17. If Stevens resigned immediately and promised not to serve if he is reelected next week, Gov. Palin could appoint a Republican to serve out the rest of Stevens's term.
Unfortunately, any unofficial Republican replacement candidate would have to face an insurmountable hurdle next week in asking Alaskans to vote for a convicted felon. Stevens announced in a statement this evening: "I am innocent. This verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial. I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate. I will come home on Wednesday and ask for your vote." Stevens Found Guilty
The 84 year old Stevens is not going to do the gentlemanly thing and put a pistol to his head in order to save a Senate seat for the Republications.
Wow, what a really stupid analogy. If you hadn't noticed, Washington is massively in debt right now. So using that silly analogy, right now there's a negative amount of flesh floating around in the Potomac. But guess what? The sharks and vultures are still rushing in to grab their share and make the total quantity even more negative! Are you seeing the problem with the analogy yet? Not to mention that it has very little to do with the topic at hand, which is corruption (not government waste).
The trouble with reaganomics is, if everyone is saving, nobody is consuming, and consumption is a far greater factor in our GDP.
You fail Economics 101.
Typical Rovian tactic, accuse me of what you've already done.
Let me know when GDP, the primary metric of economic well being, stops being a measure of the value of all final goods and services sold.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
He will now be sent to a series of jails where he will be raped by a series of new friends.
Indeed. Instead, we have many people (including many on Slashdot) advocating for term limits, which force those politicians to immediately start thinking about their income post-service, and what they can do now to ensure it.
Exactly. And what's going to give you better job prospects down the road: doing the people's business, or selling out the people to cozy up to big business?
We don't have Rovian tactics in India, but we are good at spotting charlatans who speak about things they have no business talking about.
I was taught economics by the combined faculty of a top 20 undergrad institution and a business school ranked 6th in the world.
You are merely screaming repeatedly that I'm a charlatan with no rational counter-argument to my case.
Please provide a rational counter-argument. I don't reach my conclusions lightly, but when presented with more feasible arguments or evidence to the contrary, I do adjust my beliefs rather than cling to ignorance.
Personally, I think you're just a republican who is pissed at what I say.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Don't forget that Clinton pardoned like a million friends and supporters basically on his way out the White House door.
And how many of those friends could have testified against him? And even with the much ballyhooed Marc Rich pardon, Rich had to pay a $100 million fine as a condition, and he was still left open to civil suits.
As a big Clinton supporter in the day, it broke my heart.
If you were a big Clinton supporter, maybe you shouldn't have bought into faux Republican hysterics.
Clinton was under investigation for PERJURING himself in a completely different sexual harassment suit brought against him, not for getting a BJ in the White House.
Republicans didn't investigate Clinton because they had probable cause, but because they wanted to investigate him and remove him from office by any means necessary. They couldn't find any actual crimes, so instead they went with a manufactured perjury charge. You can't even proved he lied, unless you can physically read minds. Secondly, even if he did lie, it's not perjury because the lie has to be RELEVANT. As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Monica and Bill was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was. not. perjury. Period.
"A Senator in the Fed Pen? he's going to come face to face with a whole new series of tubes!"
Club Fed? Big deal. He'll get three hots and a cot and live under military regimentation.
The only traffic his ass will get is a cavity search, and at his age that may be a thrill.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
So sad. Read up, sonny - it was the Carter administration.
Read up yourself. The grandparent post wasn't right either but neither are you. Mortgage backed securities have been with us at least since 1938 when Fannie Mae was created. First modern uses were in the early 1970s when Ginnie Mae was created - well before Carter or Bush were in office.
Sorry to burst your respective partisan dreamworlds.
> So the election looks like the popular mayor of the states largest city vs. an unspecified
> Republican to be named by Sarah Palin. Hard to think there won't be an enthusiasm gap there.
I dunno, if Stevens has the slightest hint of class left this could be a wonderful day for Republicans. Follow along with me for a minute. Bright and early tomorrow morning the Sen. holds a press conference and announces that if he wins reelection he will resign before the new Congress convenes and allow Gov. Palin to replace him. Remember that Palin has an 80%+ approval rating right now in her home state. So if she promises to to appoint a good solid reform minded Republican the odds are good the entire Republican ranks and a good percentage of the moderates who elected Palin herself on an anti-corruption reform platform would turn out.
Democrat delenda est
...if everyone is saving, nobody is consuming...
If everyone is saving, then someone is willing to pay interest/returns for that saving. Otherwise, "everyone" would have no place to invest their savings.
It is funny that you accuse me of being a republican, but you are the one making the assumption that bush made after 9/11 when he urged everyone to go spend.
Spending or consumption does not create wealth. Increasing productivity does.
The farmer who consumes all his seed corn may increase consumption, but he does not increase his wealth. The farmer who starves and saves to buy a new tractor is the one who increases wealth. And he does so by saving, not by consuming.
I was taught economics by the combined faculty of a top 20 undergrad institution and a business school ranked 6th in the world.
Standing in a garage does not make you a car. Maybe your teachers never heard of a man named Bastiat - he could've saved you all that money you spent on your education.
Personally, I think you're just a republican who is pissed at what I say.
I'm a citizen of India (a country in Asia in case they did not teach that in your prestigious school).
What would I gain by being a supporter of the republican party (or the democratic party for that matter)?
So, when did it become possible to sell mortgage-backed securities, and why did it go into overdrive around 2002, 2003?
Modern US incarnations started in 1938 with the creation of Fannie Mae.
There are a LOT of reasons why they went into overdrive lately. Low interest rates, hedge funds, deregulation, policies to encourage home ownership gone awry, big profits in securitization, lack of transparency into exotic securities, inadequate risk management policies at banks, and several other reasons come to mind.
It isn't a simple situation with a simple solution unfortunately. Any solution that does come however will need to come from regulation requiring disclosure of exotic security positions and limits on the ability to endlessly bundle and transfer risk through securitization. A better term for sub-prime is high risk. But everyone thought they could just transfer the risk to someone else and eventually there was so much high risk debt that it clogged up the credit markets.
Special interests are other interests.
There's official $$$ and unofficial $$$.
Some corrupt guy could have a salary of zero but still make lots of money from "contributions".
So it's not so simple. If nobody jails corrupt officials then your problem is bigger than salary.
I don't think there is anything wrong with paying them a high bonus, IF at the end of the term they are doing a good job. If they are found to be corrupt (or criminally negligent), they should be jailed.
Fact is, the same people are getting voted in so that means they're doing a good enough job for the voters.
If people really disagree, they should either vote or get someone else to be a candidate.
If everyone is saving, then someone is willing to pay interest/returns for that saving.
This is not true. Savings does not have to equate to high returns, or even private companies snatching up the deposited money. Financial markets work the same way consumer markets do. When people save more money than is demanded, the interest rates plummet.
Otherwise, "everyone" would have no place to invest their savings.
Who says you have to invest your savings? Some paranoid depression-minded people still use a good old mattress, but there are also government bonds if no private enterprise will take your money.
It is funny that you accuse me of being a republican, but you are the one making the assumption that bush made after 9/11 when he urged everyone to go spend.
The assumption he made was that everyone would take his "suggestion" to go spend when it was obvious the market would be volatile and many industries would suffer in the citizens' paranoia, and therefore anyone who had money to spend on non-essentials decided to tighten up.
Spending or consumption does not create wealth. Increasing productivity does.
This is not true. Increasing productivity without insuring people have a disposable income with which to buy the goods results in inventory which cannot be moved. This means that businesses will not be keen on simply building more infrastructure just because the government says so. The extra subsidies/tax breaks will be treated like profits and distributed as bonuses to the upper ranks in a manner commensurate with profits.
Assuming they do decide to increase productivity, though, The potential lower prices from this situation simply will not compensate for the fact that consumers, faced with anti-labor policies (stemming from deregulation under the same philosophy as the subsidies to producers), will slowly lose real purchasing power, see this coming, and not feel as comfortable parting with their money.
Finally, in the long term, producers will slow down any expansion, or stop all together. As people reproduce, their kids face a rougher job market, and real wages go down further.
The farmer who consumes all his seed corn may increase consumption, but he does not increase his wealth.
The farmer who consumes all his seed is actually increasing his production. It's true, he doesn't increase his wealth because he now has a field full of crops which are worth less, and may not be bought at all. (this is one of the reasons why the government pays farmers NOT to plant every few years, and buys up surpluses.. planting all seeds results in greater taxes on everyone) And you've just contradicted your earlier statement about productivity creating wealth.
The farmer who starves and saves to buy a new tractor is the one who increases wealth. And he does so by saving, not by consuming.
No, he has not increased wealth, he's shifted wealth into another good with an entirely different set of expenses.
Here is my analysis:
Bottom up is preferable to top down in terms of economic and fiscal policy.
Subsidies given to the bottom are far more likely to be passed up the chain through spending than those given to people and companies who already have plenty of disposable income and available credit. The bottom actually NEED that money, and they will be compelled by their situation to utilize more of it constructively.
Additionally, subsidizing the bottom produces a better overall quality of life, and provides every potential entrepreneur with a hedge against risk, freeing them from some uncertainty and blessing their efforts with the promise they will at least retain their own shirts if things don't go well.
The increase in available income for discretionary spending will result in higher demand and higher sales for "the greedy rich", giving them a conside
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I got modded down for pointing out that Colin Powell made a 1 hour speech of known lies to the UN to make our case for going to war with Iraq? I guess now that he endorsed Obama he must be a great guy again!
That speech he gave was from a paper written by a post-graduate student in 1990. He and others knew it but he gave the speech anyway. Without that speech there would have been a lot more people against the war from the beginning.
It really is too bad I didn't make i to a +5 troll. that would have made my day :)
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
I want to add something to this, because I don't think I was particularly clear on the most underlying principle here.
In the supply and demand function, demand will always move before supply. Firms have no logical reason to simply provide something without demonstrated demand. 99.999% of those who do go out of business (the other 0.001% is apple's IPOD/Iphone divison : P)
Because of this, subsidizing producers (who don't need money, and can easily gain credit to expand) results in any extra money being calculated as profits, specifically as profits via cost reduction rather than employee contribution, and therefore distributed as bonuses among senior management.
Subsidizing consumers, however, will provide money they actually need, result in increased spending, and drive demand higher, which will prompt increases in supply. The rich get taxed, the poor get a better standard of living, the sales go up, and the rich get their money back through sales.
Trickle up > trickle down.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
My textbooks were written by Stiglitz, who, along with every other world economist, has debunked bastiat's theories through research and real world examples, this latest crash being one of them.
'Short, easy' war, 'greeted as liberators' - granted*. I remember those remarks as well.
I believe you're contrasting Sen. McCain's initial remarks with Sen. Obama being against the war from the beginning, correct?
Regardless of how the was has been handled (hindsight is 20/20, more or less), you wouldn't have supported action against S. Hussein?
Even knowing his feelings & actions taken against the Kurds and Shia in his own country?
I'm not solely defending the war in Iraq; I think something should also be done about Darfur and any other places in the world where anyone is oppressed so blatantly.
Yes, I'm idealistic and naïve.
*(Although (1) the war against S. Hussein was short & easy, unlike this subsequent war with Al-Qaeda/militias in Iraq and (2) the Kurds sure appreciated us arriving, although they're likely just ecstatic that w/o S. Hussein they're one step closer to separating from Iraq and taking the oil reserves/$$ with them.)
While international resolutions would obviously be most preferable, in Iraq (before the war) the Food for Oil & French business connections obviously prove that international relationships & politics don't always prioritize human lives.
Money pleases the eye far more than dead bodies in someone else's country, especially if they're of a different skin color.
I guess we can't blame the UN; shame on us (US) for going at it alone when necessary (not to say that we're innocent by any means- see Halliburton, Blackwater, et al.)
(Thank you to all of the troops- US, British, Australian, and our other allies. Regardless of your personal political views, your sacrifice is greatly appreciated.)
>But he gambled on the surge, so we're supposed to focus on that part and ignore what he said at the start of the war...
And Sen. Obama was against the surge, but we're supposed to focus on the initial decision and ignore anything he's said since the start of the war.
Look, let's not mince words- Neither presidential candidate is perfect, even in the narrow scope of this single issue.
We could argue for days over which part of the past is more relevant, the political/military decision to remove S. Hussein or the military/political tactic of adding troops to quell sectarian violence.
(Forgive me, I realize that I'm assuming you feel that the additional troops have been more beneficial than remaining at previous levels would have been. As it's a subjective matter whether or not any given Sailor/Soldier/Marine/Airman's life offsets a minute/hour/day/month/year of peace,
I'll simply admit that I gladly & wholeheartedly accept your viewpoint if you disagree with me on this.)
The bottom line is that-
If Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain today said "I said/believed/associated with/voted [x]. I made a mistake, but I've learned since then. Here is my new viewpoint/record [y] and my reasoning is [z]," I'm sure it would have a negative impact, subjecting either to ridicule & a loss of credibility, or a political dead end had either been a lesser-known figure.
I'm not sure who is to be blamed- the media, the American electorate, or both- but this is a major hindrance in modern American politics(/politics in general).
Yes, now I'm pessimistic & blunt.
*(Or two, yours & mine; or a few dozen-hundred,
The Real Deal on the Current Economic Crisis
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working home owners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
The reason they get these cushy jobs is because of the connections they have to the inner sanctum. What if using these connections after they left office was determined to be a conflict of interest, and made illegal? Asking us to pay for these guys for fear that they might resort to other ways of enhancing their income almost smack of a protection racket.
your clock is a little off...
more like 5,000 years and counting
would this be considered tubegate?
Hey, I got modded down to "offtopic" for making the first post mentioning Colin Powell's endorsement of Stevens. Maybe people don't realize he testified on Steven's behalf? Regardless, sometimes the moderation just comes out wrong. Them's the breaks.
Separate temptation from politicians and you will see fewer troubles. It would be far cheaper to grant politicians in key positions generous allowances for the rest of their lives and to clear all expenses over certain through some sort of oversight board forbidden to have any contact with the people they are overseeing.
It is interesting to hear this suggested here on Slashdot where it is more frequently fashionable to decry the "overpaid" CEOs of corporate America who receive tens of millions of dollars even if they fail when the purpose is exactly as the parent has described above, to prevent outside interests, including the personal interests of the CEO (which the large salaries and severance packages serve to ameliorate), from corrupting dispassionate and considered judgments on matters concerning hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. People demand lower pay for CEOs without realizing that a large portion of lobbyist and special interest power in the United States Government is derived from providing perks, gifts, and other benefits to politicians that are well beyond the means of any similarly paid Americans. The US Congress is a wonderful example of what happens when you place people earning less than 200K per year in charge of billions of dollars with billion dollar corporations all competing for a piece of the largesse. The President of the United States is paid 400k and many of the rest earn less than 100k and the vast majority of federal employees, including those working at regulatory agencies, earn substantially less than that. Compared to the resources of a billion dollar corporation, a Congressman earning 170K per year (including benefits) can be bought for relatively cheap and they are every day. If you want to shield your government from the corrupting power of the special interests then you have to pay your politicians enough to move them beyond any serious consideration for bribes and other special interest incentives.
You make some good points and obviously a lot of thought (and the time to link to all this stuff) went into it. Thank you for sharing that with us.
You know what I think could have played a BIG role in preventing this mess from taking place? It might seem bizarre to suggest this (and other than being someone interested to see this become reality, I am not "part" of this), but if you're familiar with the proposed so-called FairTax plan, I believe it would do a lot to help the current situation, housing crisis included. Whoa! I just brought up the site linked in the previous sentence to make sure I got the URL right and boom! That site claims the FairTax could help the housing crisis! I swear I did not know that was the case. Ok, I'll go on to say what I was originally going to say:
Briefly this is how the FairTax would work, and skip to the next paragraph if you already know this. The FairTax is a proposed bill, called HR25 in the House of Representatives, is a 133-page bill that replaces the 67,000 pages of our current IRS tax code, shuts down the IRS, and gets rid of all the IRS taxes: income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, death tax, etc. It replaces them all with a single nationwide consumption tax on the FINAL sale of ALL new products and services (not intermediate sales like a VAT, and not sales on used products), taxing everything at the same rate, with no exception for any type of product or service (not even food). It is a "Fair" Tax because of this fact: Rich people tend to buy more stuff, so they'll pay more in taxes when they buy all of this stuff. Poor people buy very little, so they'll pay very little. In-between people buy some amount in between, so they'll pay some amount in between. Wait a minute - poor people? They'll pay NOTHING because of a monthly "prebate" sent to all families that want it, reimbursing them, in advance, for any taxation up to poverty level spending. Yup. Poor people pay NOTHING in taxes. This is an improvement over their current situation because the income taxes that corporations pay get factored into the prices of goods. So when a poor person buys a loaf of bread or a light bulb or something, that poor person is paying the corporation's income tax. By getting rid of this retarded tax and setting up a sales tax, for which the poor person is reimbursed up to poverty level spending, you're helping the poor. The tax rate would admittedly be high at 23% if computed inclusive to the price ($23 of $100 is 23% inclusive) which many claim is really 30% (because $77 plus 30% of $77 ($23) is $100). Yes this is steep but remember that this is what our government currently costs us - only the method of collection changes and makes the amount visible for the first time. The idea is that you keep ALL of your paycheck, ALL of your income, and so long as you don't spend money, the government "takes" nothing. You only pay when you're at the cash register and you're spending money anyway. Moreover, the tax base will be broadened since instead of 160 million current taxpayers, there will be 350 million or more consumers, including: People who make money illegally (like drug dealers) who currently pay nothing in taxes but will pay when they buy a new Mercedes with that ill-gotten money. Illegal aliens, who may or may not currently be paying jack. Tourists to this country, who stay at hotels, eat at restaurant, go to Disney Land, etc. So the burden on each individual is reduced. No returns to file unless you're a business. No audits unless you're a business. Instead of dealing with 160 million taxpayers, the government will deal with 25 million businesses. The government will receive the same revenue from this sales tax as from the income tax, but it will be more stable because income fluctuates with the economy but spending tends to be pretty stable (when you don't have income, you spend from your savings - but you still spend). With the U.S. thus becoming the biggest income tax haven in the world, lots of people will bring their money to the Un
Problem was they added the GST, but didn't remove all the other taxes, so it became essentially just one more tax. Implementation is everything, don't let it go ahead unless and until all those other taxes go away in the same bill.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
The oil company that did the work got something for their efforts. Whatever that was, it should be removed.
Remove the incentive to bribe and you remove the bribes.
to do with one party being corrupt.
Did the AC say that Clinton's party didn't do it? No. So what the fuck is the point of brining it up? It doesn't make this shower of shit any less corrupt.
Okay, if we need to start producing, then I guess the first thing we'd better do is pull all those jobs from India, yes?
Personally I think current 'economics' is a big heaping pile of shit. Debt-based currency, BAH.
If you ain't got the goods, you ain't got shit. THAT'S *PURE* economics. It's the ONLY kind that should even be allowed. It's stable in prisons, it's stable in the black market, it's stable in the world of drugs, it's stable in the trading of raw materials.
What you people study apparently isn't working, so I'd suggest you give it up.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I've always thought that being a lifetime public servant, if your constituents allow it, is far better than being another revolving door politician heading from a law degree into a cushy PR position at a company paying for the laws you gave them.
Great in principle, lousy in practice.
Those people who are lifetime public servants? In the UK they are called the Civil Service. And they make their "political masters" look like amateurs, as anyone familiar with 'Yes Minister' can attest.
I'm outta mod points, but I wanted to praise one of the most complete and thoughtful posts I've seen on /. I see you don't post much these days; please do.
Dean
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
Maybe now he'll find himself inside a 'series of tubes' called a prison cell.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
A while back, she's been confirmed to have supported Stevens...
Now, however, she's talking quite a bit of talk against him, implicitly, by her status as a "Maverick" (yeah, right).
Proud to be posting this from my home in Anchorage.
Omeg La. Rofl Leh.
Okay, if we need to start producing, then I guess the first thing we'd better do is pull all those jobs from India, yes?
We should also block out the Sun and ban computers - then everyone will be employed and producing.
Don't confuse productivity with production.
Is that a sled dog with lipstick?
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Financial markets work the same way consumer markets do. When people save more money than is demanded, the interest rates plummet.
Which leads to people saving less. Which leads to people spending more. Which will lead to a rise in interest rates offered for investments (except in places like the USA where the all-knowing Fed plays around with interest rates).
Increasing productivity without insuring (sic) people have a disposable income with which to buy the goods results in inventory which cannot be moved.
Do you honestly think that companies would just build goods and offer services without estimating the demand for such goods and services? Some businesses do and they go out of business. And the magic of the price system lets even very small businesses, who might not have the resources to conduct extensive market research, build the right product for the right price.
Even if we assume a society where everyone saves all the money they don't spend on essentials and a society that does not trade with anyone else, the saved money would still be used to bring down the price of essentials - by better fertilizer, a better tractor, better storage facilities, supply chain management, etc.
If we take your view and discourage savings (whether that was the intent or not), people may have more to spend, but the better fertilizer or tractor will not be invented. So, the society as a whole is poorer for not having the new tools.
The farmer who consumes all his seed is actually increasing his production.
I was not clear in my earlier post about what I meant - I meant the farmer who eats all the seed corn which he is supposed to plant the next year.
He will still get plenty of votes and could even win. He may be bad for the Nation, but Uncle Ted is *very* good for Alaska.
They had on NPR this morning that Palin cannot appoint a successor to Stevens. It has to go to special election in Alaska.
yawn
Palin is already using this to pat herself on the back.
"The verdict shines a light on the corrupting influence of the big oil service company up there in Alaska that was allowed to control too much of our state. And that control was part of the culture of corruption that I was elected to fight, and that fight must always move forward regardless of party affiliation or seniority or even past service". -Sarah Palin
There is a war going on for your mind.
And yes, every President does this just prior to leaving office. I'm sure you all remember when the Republicans raised a big stink about all the guys Clinton pardoned prior to leaving. I'm sure Bill would have pardoned Stephens, too, had he been in office when this happened. I'm a bit curious to see who gets a pardon when Bush leaves office.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Whatever autoformatting you are using, turn it OFF.
My brain is still out of kilter for attempting to re-arrange that smorgasbord back to normal while reading it...
We should be making it harder for politicians to hide this sort of thing. If we could look at bank statements of every politician, we could see that congressman X didn't pay a dime when their garage was put in, or apparently went on vacation for free. If these things were easily traceable, politicians might think twice about accepting these types of gifts.
Politics is about power. It's far easier to get rich as a broker or real estate agent than it is as a public servant. People who love money and want to get rich do not move to Washington. They move to New York or LA or Chicago. People come to Washington because they want to be powerful, and nothing is more powerful than the federal government of the United States. The amounts of money involved in DC are large but by no means tremendous. The financial giants of New York control at least ten times as much wealth as the entire federal government does. But financial firms don't have legislative, police, or military powers.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If he ends up going to prison, the real dirty trick would be to *block* his expulsion, as he wouldn't be able to be present to vote on any issues.
The cake is a pie
I don't see how that would work.
A) They can't block his resignation.
B) Not being able to vote is equivalent to voting 'no' on everything, which only helps the opposition.
A Senator incapable of voting has actually been intentionally elected to the Senate (Charles Sumner of Massachusetts in 1856). They couldn't expel him, so his seat sat empty. The motives in that case are a bit more noble than this one, of course.
They took that into account. The bill both repeals the IRS code as of some date and puts into effect the FairTax. Unfortunately, repealing the Constitutional Amendment that made income taxes possible must be done in a separate step and will require a supermajority of the states to ratify it.
I am guessing that he will be a bit craigy about this. As it is, the media will be foleying over themselves to get to this story.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Look, I'm the epitome of a swing voter. I think they're all idiots. But to blame the Bush administration (alone) for de-regulation shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Clinton Repealed Glass-Steagall which was the single greatest de-regulation of banks since I don't know when.
All politicians are corrupt. As soon as everyone realizes this and doesn't think that their chosen team is exempt, the better off we'll be.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Since it's quite obvious you don't understand, I'm not going to bother pointing it out to you. You're already blinded by your 'economics' of bullshit.
I'll just say it simply, the USA cannot increase production, NOR PRODUCTIVITY, as long as WE LOSE OUR JOBS TO ANOTHER COUNTRY.
Maybe your pea-sized money-befuddled brain can understand that.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I was thinking, seriously, on the benefits of simply shooting legislators when their term was up. Corruption is inevitable, but how would it manifest itself in that circumstance?
Anon 'cause I'm moderating :/
Didn't Frank Murkowski appoint his Daughter (over Will Stevens) to the remainder of his term once he became Governer? Or did Alaska recently change its law to prevent just this sort of thing?
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
So the election looks like the popular mayor of the states largest city vs. an unspecified Republican to be named by Sarah Palin. Hard to think there won't be an enthusiasm gap there.
I think it's worth pointing out that the import of being mayor of the largest city in Alaska can be appropriately thought of in comparison to the largest city in New York State. While NYC is around 30 times larger than the next largest city in NY, Buffalo, and Anchorage is only 9 times larger than Fairbanks, both represent roughly the same fraction of the population of their respective states at around 40%. So the mayor of Anchorage is going to be rather better known than say, to pick an example at random, Wasilla.
The enemies of Democracy are
The only traffic his ass will get is a cavity search, and at his age that may be a thrill.
Or his routine prostate exam.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
I argue that if it weren't for the creation of the illegal federal reserve, none of these things would have occurred. So yes, simply put, one thing can be blamed for the recent meltdown.
Thanks for the well-thought out reply. I have a few more questions; perhaps you can help me out with them.
What precipitated these NINJA ( No Job, No Asset ) loans?
I have a hard time putting this on the backs work working- and middle-class people who bought homes "they couldn't afford". If there's a foreclosure, and the loan officer and Joe Sixpack are staring at each other, saying, "we got both got each in trouble, we didn't know any better" I would blame the banker more. It's the banker's job to know good risks. He's been making loans for years. How many times does a person buy a home in their lifetime? 2 or 3, max? I expect more out of the banker than Joe Sixpack.
It's the job of banks and loan officers to sit around all day and decide who can't and can't pay off a 30-year-loan, and how much a house is worth. Joe Sixpack has a fulltime job and kids to take care of. Yes, he should know whether or not he can afford X amount a month, but if a loan officer is approved, why would Joe thinks he knows more than a loan officer? We don't expect a mortgage bank to act like a shady car dealership. So if he gets approved for a loan, that has to figure into his conception of whether he can afford it. "I'm not sure about this, but if the bank says I can afford it, they must know what they're talking about, since they have all those actuarial tables and mathematicians working on things."
So Joe Sixpack works for a company that doesn't have a retirement fund, he lost a bunch of money in the tech bubble burst and post 9/11. Social Security doesn't look good. His last job got shipped overseas, now he has less benefits. His wife works two jobs. He has kids who needs food, clothing, and college. He can't rely on things that his parents did -- retirement, stock market, social security, etc. What's the last, best thing he can do to prepare for his future? Well, buy a house of course. Why should he throw away money on rent, and have nothing to show for it after 30 years? Buying a house has always been seen as a mature, smart financial move. He's got nothing else as far as retirement, and now a loan officer is telling him he can buy a house. What would a financially prudent person do? Of course you buy that house. And since we were in a bubble, the only house he can buy is an overpriced one.
So, it seems to me that if banks never made NINJA loans, we wouldn't be in this mess this badly. We probably would be in a crappy market, but Lehman Brother's and other banks failing? Government bailouts? I blame the banks. It's their job to know this stuff. Collective Delusion? Joe Sixpack might not know better, but the bank sure had better know, and therefore not make risky loans.
FWIW, I talked several people out of buying homes since 2003. They thought there was no other safe place for their money. Others I talked to still bought houses. They thought I was some end-of-the-world conspiracy nut. Why should they believe the crazy blogs I referenced when a loan officer is ready to loan, and everyone knows a house is a good asset anyway?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Because it's only a matter of how much they're tempted, right? It doesn't matter that they are willfully corrupt. We can't really expect them to... I dunno... behave like good citizens and not take bribes?
I tried to walk into Target, but I missed. --Mitch Hedburg
What precipitated these NINJA ( No Job, No Asset ) loans?
I have a hard time putting this on the backs work working- and middle-class people who bought homes "they couldn't afford". If there's a foreclosure, and the loan officer and Joe Sixpack are staring at each other, saying, "we got both got each in trouble, we didn't know any better" I would blame the banker more. It's the banker's job to know good risks. He's been making loans for years. How many times does a person buy a home in their lifetime? 2 or 3, max? I expect more out of the banker than Joe Sixpack.
The short answer is that the banks thought they were covered by insurance if the borrower defaulted, and since so much money was being made through securitization of loans, they were just making as many as they could, knowing that they were just going to sell them off to someone else. They've racked up massive profits from doing just that for years now. I posted earlier about this. You'll have to excuse the somewhat flame-ish tone of the post :) The NPR link is to an audio interview that explains why the insurance didn't pan out and the banks started failing. Couple other links in there to wikipedia for more info too.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Do you honestly think that companies would just build goods and offer services without estimating the demand for such goods and services? Some businesses do and they go out of business. And the magic of the price system lets even very small businesses, who might not have the resources to conduct extensive market research, build the right product for the right price.
the problem is models are imperfect, and changing production based on demand demonstrated (and quantifiable) by rising prices or inventory changes is much more accurate than trying to predict demand based on projected consumer spending. There is no reliable uniform model for household budgets, spending, and how severe the effect of anti-labor policy will be on their spending.
Startups and new divisions usually start their operations based on predicted demand, but this practice is incredibly uncertain, and there are as many hits as misses. Take the nintendo wii for example. They vastly underestimated initial demand, resulting in massive shortages. The zune is another example in which they vastly overestimated initial demand.
After initial launch though, there is quantifiable sales data from which to gage actual demand, and adjust production accordingly.
Pushing subsidies consumer side rather than producer side provides producers with much more certainty in this regard.
As for the seed example, obviously production is necessary for wealth because nobody can consume what is not there, but pushing a production first model is not the way to increase prosperity, because the demand side always moves first, with the supply side reacting to it. Trying to subsidize the supply side without demonstrated demand will simply result in the subsidy being considered profits and treated as such.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I also would like to add that consumer side subsidies do not necessarily discourage savings.
most families have a savings to spending ratio, and increasing the money going in increases both.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Looks like the moderators on this discussion forum disagree with everyone but you, homer.
You lose. We know far better than you and plasmacutter's economics of bullshit.
It's just that simple. If we could, we'd kill every banker and go back to a "If you ain't got it, you can't have this" attitude in economics.
Because seriously, your FAKE MONEY BASED ON WHAT'S OWED IS BULLSHIT.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So, if I know of a new tool that will increase crop yield by 200%, what should I do? There is no demand for this now so I can only estimate demand. And, I'll need $X to implement this.
If investment is easily available I can borrow the $X and implement my project. If it is a bust, well everyone took a chance and lost, but it was all voluntary. If it succeeds, I make a lot of money, the cost of food comes down for everyone and everyone has more money now (because they are spending less for food). This is the only way wealth is created in this world - by productivity gains.
Now, with your idea, the govt. takes money from investors and gives it to consumers. The $X would be spent on food and stuff from China. As a result, I don't have the $X now to make my miracle tool.
What am I missing?
Actually, the $X would be spent on food from the US, because government subsidies and trade barriers (yes they're still there) assure the vast bulk of sales go to the US.. that and the US is the bread basket of the world)
Venture capitalists are the place to go for that invention. The likelihood a single person will have the hundreds of millions necessary to roll that out on a commercial scale is very small.
Additionally, doubling the production per acre would also work under the current system in which the government limits production. You would spend less time and resources monitoring, cultivating, and irrigating half the land.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You have now idea what a troll is obviously
~ Ron Fitzgerald
A clear and excellent example of why abortion is necessary and needed to rid the population of vermin.
On that note, Sarah Palin should have never been born either. What a problem now; the GOP is more than 150 k$ in the hole with no end in sight. On the bright side, she has fullfilled history as McCain's Manchurian candidate (doing the deed to McCain himself ... McCain will always be beloved by his Hotel Hanoi handlers who he loves more than life itself).
Look at her; she breeds like a rat, giving birth to retarded human beings ... calling her brood and husband, human being, is technically wrong.
That's just prone to fail. Were I to enter politics, it would be the end of my engineering career. After falling behind on my skills for four or six years, how many companies would want to hire me to do development work? What if they though I might decided to leave again to run for another office? My engineering career would be over.
So my options would be to find a career that I got based on my time in office, or to stay in office forever (if possible). Under your plan only the super rich (who never need work again) or the self-employed (who can afford to stop their business and pick it up again) would ever be able to run for office. And, to be honest, that's 70% of what's wrong with elected officials today.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I don't think it was EVER the founders' intent that people would consider becoming a lifetime politician. It was a matter of service. Get in, serve, get out. Besides, they are faced with the same circumstances if they are voted out of office.