How corrupt is the U.S?

[liquidfire666]

How bad would you say the united states goverment is corrupt
none?
a little?
alot?
all of it?

[Der-Lowe]

Not much.
There are corruption rankings like this one.

[Gateau]

The United States isn't corrupt per-say, it just has a current government that the majority of the people don't agree with. Since the US is a Democratic region, the people have say on most of the desisions that take place - along with a Capitolistic government which spite it's flaws, gives everyone a chance to have a good life.

If we are talking corrupt, lets thing communist russia, where all the decisions are administered for them.

Maybe we should try a Socialist government?

[Imperator]

At 12/3/07 07:45 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Not much.
There are corruption rankings like this one.

wow.

General question for anyone who knows:

What type of government does Finland have? Is it a Republic or a Direct Democracy? Multi-party or two-party like ours? #1 democratic nation, #1 in corruption........actually that somehow makes perfect sense to me......

*shrug*

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 12/3/07 10:41 PM, LongliveACDC wrote: The United States isn't corrupt per-say, it just has a current government that the majority of the people don't agree with.

Per se.

And I disagree with that statement. We have a President with whom many people disagree. Our government is composed of much more than George W. Bush. And our government does not substantially change with the swearing-in of a new President. If people disagree with the government now, they will in no way agree with it more if Hillary or Obama get elected, because the President does not have the power to fundamentally alter our government. So we have an administration with which many people disagree, not a government.

[AniMetal]

At 12/3/07 07:45 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: There are corruption rankings like this one.

Is it the closer the number to 1 the more corrupt it is or the higher numbers like 100 the more corrupt it is?

[Imperator]

And I disagree with that statement. We have a President with whom many people disagree.

I love you just for using the word "whom".

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 12/4/07 12:49 AM, smc316 wrote:

At 12/3/07 07:45 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: There are corruption rankings like this one.

Is it the closer the number to 1 the more corrupt it is or the higher numbers like 100 the more corrupt it is?

Unless Myanmar has suddenly become a bastion of democracy then I think the higher up the table you are, as in closer to 1, equates to being less corrupt. Though that website REALLY needs to explain that.

[fli]

At 12/4/07 12:31 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: ... because the President does not have the power to fundamentally alter our government.

I have to disagree--
Bush has expanded his Executive Powers really far that most people didn't think they could go that far. And to me, it seems these powers were always in the vain of "give an inch, and he'll take a mile."

People agreed to expand his powers a little-- but I think many people realize that he's gone a bit too far sometimes.

Certainly-- he's not Chavez in trying to expand it till it's ridicules, but what would people say 8 years ago if they knew how much power he alloted himself for his branch?

[TommyGun]

I'd say more incompetent than corrupt.

The country has been in mediocrity ever since the 60's with the only glodry years in the 80's during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

[Slizor]

Not that I would encourage anyone to use Freedom house's ranking system, but if you are going to look at the website above then you have to look at the methodology section.

[RyanTime2]

I'd say a little..

[Idiot-Finder]

At 12/4/07 02:48 AM, n64kid wrote: oy I think umerica is corrupt country #1 I dun lik theyre politics and bush is devel I meen he lik is not likd by peoples so hee is corrupt.

Sarcasm?

[Gateau]

At 12/4/07 12:31 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Per se.

And I disagree with that statement. We have a President with whom many people disagree. Our government is composed of much more than George W. Bush. And our government does not substantially change with the swearing-in of a new President. If people disagree with the government now, they will in no way agree with it more if Hillary or Obama get elected, because the President does not have the power to fundamentally alter our government. So we have an administration with which many people disagree, not a government.

You have a good point there. Maybe I didn't say my statement clear enough and I apologize. I didn't mean government. I meant the administration and the president (whom as a 30-something approval rating?). Thanks for the correction

[TWO-GUN-KACEY]

I'd say it's pretty corrupt.
All the government cares about is money, and power, and making it off of other people.

They put addictive drugs in over-the-counter medication so you'll come running back to buy more.
tis gay.

[K-RadPie]

At 12/5/07 07:21 PM, TWO-GUN-KACEY wrote: They put addictive drugs in over-the-counter medication so you'll come running back to buy more.
tis gay.

I want you to give me PROOF that the government puts addictive drugs in OTC medications for the sole purpose of getting you to buy more.

[Christopherr]

At 12/3/07 11:35 PM, Imperator wrote: What type of government does Finland have? Is it a Republic or a Direct Democracy? Multi-party or two-party like ours? #1 democratic nation, #1 in corruption........actually that somehow makes perfect sense to me......

I think 1 on the corruption is the least corrupted government, and 1 on democracy is the most democratic. Myanmar is at the bottom, which is obvious, as they are immensely corrupt.

[Christopherr]

At 12/4/07 01:27 AM, Imperator wrote: I love you just for using the word "whom".

Yes, correct grammar is easier on the eyes.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/3/07 11:35 PM, Imperator wrote: wow.

General question for anyone who knows:

What type of government does Finland have? Is it a Republic or a Direct Democracy? Multi-party or two-party like ours? #1 democratic nation, #1 in corruption........actually that somehow makes perfect sense to me......

*shrug*

I know, I know! *jumps and raises his hand*
Well, actually I knew after going there.

Do I still win a cookie? =D

At 12/4/07 03:33 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Though that website REALLY needs to explain that.

It was pretty clear to me... Although an explanation would've made it more professional.

At 12/4/07 01:27 AM, Imperator wrote:

And I disagree with that statement. We have a President with whom many people disagree.

I love you just for using the word "whom".

She's good with words. She's the American version of Belisa Crepusculario.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 12/5/07 06:58 PM, LongliveACDC wrote: I meant the administration and the president (whom as a 30-something approval rating?).

Still higher than Congress, which is in the low 20s. :)

At 12/5/07 07:21 PM, TWO-GUN-KACEY wrote: I'd say it's pretty corrupt.
All the government cares about is money, and power, and making it off of other people.

Most of the government's money goes to paying the salaries of federal employees, funding public programs, and international aid. If we stopped sending money to all the bleeding-heart third-world causes that squander it anyway, our taxes would be a hell of a lot lower.

And the federal government only gets more power because people are too lazy to do shit for themselves, and whine and complain that the government should do it for them. Nanny state.

Come back when you're old enough to pay big boy taxes.

They put addictive drugs in over-the-counter medication so you'll come running back to buy more.
tis gay.

Why are all teenagers conspiracy theorists these days?

At 12/5/07 08:49 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: She's good with words. She's the American version of Belisa Crepusculario.

Isabel Allende totally based that character off of me. *nodnod*

[tony4moroney]

At 12/3/07 07:45 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Not much.
There are corruption rankings like this one.

I don't like their criteria and it doesn't go into much detail.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/5/07 10:56 PM, tony4moroney wrote: I don't like their criteria and it doesn't go into much detail.

I gave an example, you're free to add your own =)

At 12/5/07 10:31 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 12/5/07 08:49 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: She's good with words. She's the American version of Belisa Crepusculario.

Isabel Allende totally based that character off of me. *nodnod*

And I thought nobody would've got what I said.
happiness= happiness + 5

[Empanado]

At 12/3/07 07:45 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: corruption ranking

Hooray for Argentina! Maybe one day they'll be less corupt than Burkina Faso.
*snicker*

[TheMason]

At 12/4/07 12:31 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: And I disagree with that statement. We have a President with whom many people disagree. Our government is composed of much more than George W. Bush. And our government does not substantially change with the swearing-in of a new President. If people disagree with the government now, they will in no way agree with it more if Hillary or Obama get elected, because the President does not have the power to fundamentally alter our government. So we have an administration with which many people disagree, not a government.

Damnit Skunky! You've left me with nothing to say!

Now all I can do is write random stuff so that I can post this. I found out that one of my advisors is a gamer and SciFi nerd like me today. That's awesome...we can have my dissertation meetings over XBox Live as we kick each other's ass in Halo3. Is this enough drivel? Can I post yet? Let me see...

[TheMason]

At 12/5/07 07:10 PM, supertoria12 wrote: lets see, bush is an idiot who brought us into a war against the most merciless and ruthless countries, and that new US official judge of something is obsessed with torture. I'm gonna move to Canada if things start to get out of control. well, maybe when my brother is of age to go to war.

1) If a country is so merciless and ruthless...isn't that justification to go in on humanitarian grounds? Or are you saying that the plight of the Iraqi & Afghani ppl don't matter, that they are somewhat less important than us?

2) "US official judge of something" Are you referring to the US Attorney General? From the clarity and sureity of knowledge indicated in this statement I can tell you have a firm basis of knowing what the hell you're talking about...and that you most definately immune to any kindof political manipulation from either side.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/6/07 12:17 PM, Empanado wrote: Hooray for Argentina! Maybe one day they'll be less corupt than Burkina Faso.
*snicker*

And Chile may one day distribute wealth better than Burkina Faso as well! ^_^

[Empanado]

At 12/6/07 01:51 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: And Chile may one day distribute wealth better than Burkina Faso as well! ^_^

LIES AND LIBEL

[Elfer]

I'm going to say four.

[TWO-GUN-KACEY]

At 12/5/07 10:31 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 12/5/07 07:21 PM, TWO-GUN-KACEY wrote: I'd say it's pretty corrupt.
All the government cares about is money, and power, and making it off of other people.

Most of the government's money goes to paying the salaries of federal employees, funding public programs, and international aid. If we stopped sending money to all the bleeding-heart third-world causes that squander it anyway, our taxes would be a hell of a lot lower.

And the federal government only gets more power because people are too lazy to do shit for themselves, and whine and complain that the government should do it for them. Nanny state.

Come back when you're old enough to pay big boy taxes.

They put addictive drugs in over-the-counter medication so you'll come running back to buy more.
tis gay.

Why are all teenagers conspiracy theorists these days?

Yeah shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.
Come back when you work for the government.

& more adults are conspiracy theorists than "teenagers".

[reviewer-general]

At 12/6/07 08:49 PM, TWO-GUN-KACEY wrote: Yeah shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.

Oooh, bad move.

Also, on the basis of that statement alone, I knew you were a teenage girl. ^_^

Come back when you work for the government.

You're saying that you do?

*snicker*

& more adults are conspiracy theorists than "teenagers".

Ehh, sez hoo?

=D

;