General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs the Obama administration the LEAST corrupt/scandalous administration of the past 40 years?
Reagan-138 indictments (MOST corrupt) http://jesusnorepublican.org/about/Reagan.html
Bush2- 43(?) indictments including Bush and Cheney. (Hard to find actual number, could be higher) http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004951.php
Obama-???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You need those to get indictments. Come to think of it, nobody in any real position of authority -- even on Wall Street -- has been indicted during this Administration. That's part of the corruption and the silent scandal.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Sort of like when Nixon tried to get an AG who wouldn't prosecute Watergate. Except it is the whole government now.
One hand washes the other....
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's not just one hand washes the other, it appears to be a complete whitewash of the institution, seemingly forever.
They justify it in there own minds that the nation is in crisis . . . well, when isn't it? The lack of accountability assures it will continue to be.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Any group that acts with utter impunity and unchecked power becomes corrupt, eventually destroying the rest of society. That's history's lesson about despots and oligarchies going back to antiquity.
Ancient Rome is an excellent example of how a civilization rots from the head down when there is no accountability for those at the top. This is why the democratic philosophers of the 18th Century and the Framers tried so hard to create a system with checks and balances.
Now, that system of "laws, not men" is broken. Like Imperial Rome, and other tyrannies since, we know where this is going.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)now_zad
(44 posts)Things like Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Indiana primary fraud, Executive overreach, a politicized DOJ, my health insurance going up 24% the first of the year, 5 TRILLION dollars spent in less than 4 years, etc. etc. etc.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)And please don't tell me you're blaming the Govt for your private healthcare costs going up. Please elaborate on the rest.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)really?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)If there IS corruption within the administration it would be picked apart by now. Not saying there ISN'T corruption in DC, just not in Obama's cabinet. As of yet.
doc03
(36,959 posts)memorised.
karynnj
(60,013 posts)1) Solyndra is a green energy company that received a grant and failed. Congress passed legislation that called for grants for green energy as part of the stimulus. It is not the least surprising that a company, even with a grant, could fail in what everyone knows is the toughest economy in recent times. As to top people in the company being Obama donators - I would bet they contributed to Kerry and Gore as well. It is hard to imagine that, having a passion for environmentally clean energy, they did not see that the Democrats were much more in line with their values.
2) Fast & Furious is an idiotic, immoral program, started when Bush was President in ATF. The Republicans blocked not just Obama's choice to head ATF , BUT Bush's choice to head the ATF. ( http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-atf-director-20110907 ) This because the NRA has been against everyone nominated. Though Senator Grassley says that not having a confirmed head would have not made a difference, that is speculation. Note that the acting head was also only part time. It would seem that a confirmed, full time head of the organization would have more authority to set the agenda. The problem here is that ATF is a troubled organization - and it was so in the 1990s. The NRA's actions precluded the possibility that a good, strong head could have reset the organization's goals. The real problem is that the NRA, not wanting any regulation of guns, used its power to make the organization dysfunctional.
3) Indiana primary fraud is the dumbest Fox claim I have heard - and there's a lot of competition there. The fact is that they found TWO invalid signatures in a 150 signature sample. Then they declared this meant Obama should not have been on the ballot. The fact is that there always are some invalid signatures - which is why all candidates gather more than are needed and eliminate the obvious ones. Here, using the fraud rate identified, it is well outside the 95% confidence interval that Obama had insufficient signatures. (Here is what I wrote then - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=828461&mesg_id=828499 ) Beyond that, it was incumbent on his opponents or the state to challenge the petition and none did.
4) Executive overreach - Uhmm, it is hard to out do the Bush administration on this. Not to mention, the right pushed Alito onto the Supreme Court even though he was a proponent of the unitary executive. Senator Kerry and others passionately and eloquently spoke of the danger of moving in that direction.
5) Politicized DOJ - You mean pushing federal DA's to open investigations and make indictments - that did not have merit to hurt candidates in the opposing party in the mid terms? That did happen and they were caught at it, but that was the Bush administration in 2006, not Obama. (Small side fact, it was Chris Christie's office that investigated Senator Menendez, who was running in 2006 - the case dropped as having no merit after Menendez was elected.
6) Health insurance costs have risen fast for years. The fact is your costs would not have remained constant if there were no law passed.
7) 5 Trillion spent? The President does not have the power to spend money that Congress does not legislate. Not to mention, a large part of what was spent was for the two wars that started in the Bush era, including one that was not necessary. It is entirely likely that had Bush not diverted troops and resources to Iraq, that Afghanistan would have ended in his first term. He also might not have outsourced the capture of Osama Bin Laden and his key people to warlords that weeks before were allied with the Taliban. Not to mention, the Bush tax cuts, which were rammed through the Senate under reconciliation, were unaffordable. (This also led to the passage of the Byrd rule that bills passed under reconciliation must lower the deficit. ) The United States has never fought a war while cutting taxes. Yet Bush refused to even reduce the tax cuts to pay for the war - he threatened to veto the $87 billion supplemental if Congress paid for it that way. (So, like Kerry, he also had two positions on the $87 billion. Our financial standing now would have been better if Bush and the Congress would have taken the position Kerry voted for. )
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Regulatory, & over sight bodies.
I.e nothing illegal on wall street was done, bush war crimes, etc.
There must be some gray areas there alone.
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)Seems to me a lot of folks from the Bush Administration who should be enjoying three hots and a cot on the Federal dime were never indicted. Also, being "least corrupt" may be like being "least pregnant".
joshcryer
(62,507 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)When people admit to war crimes by bragging about it on national television and everyone whistles and looks the other way, the system is irrevocably broken.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
GoCubsGo
(33,160 posts)
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)From Watergate to Iran-Contra to Abramoff...the worst scandals (which happened under rushpublican regimes...surprise, surprise) came during the second terms. Some of them were based on abuses during the first term but even Watergate didn't became a major issue/story until after Nixon's second inaugural.
So far we haven't been plagued with any major scandals in this administration despite the efforts of the corporate media to create them...but it's usually the second term that bogs down administrations in scandals...real or imagined. I'm very leery about what lies ahead should President Obama be re-elected and face a rushpublican controlled House and Senate. The gridlock we're seeing now will look like "the good 'ole days"...
treestar
(82,383 posts)But I do think Obama quite free from scandal, going by the best the Republicans can do being things like the birth certificate, Solyndra, Rev. Wright, going to school in Indonesia, etc.
If they had something better, they'd use it.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)And it is the most open administration too.
Mr Dixon
(1,185 posts)So far so good IMO
mopinko
(71,964 posts)if the thugs and/or fox can't scare up anything better than solyndra, i think we have to agree with you.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It may be decades before this question can have a definitive answer.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Your answer is pointless.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)or which administration was the most corrupt? IMHO, it's likely NOT the same answer. In EITHER case, if your comparing less than 3 years of Obama to presidents who completed their full term(s) years ago and we have the benefit of after the fact whistle-blowers and insider "tell-all" books, it's still too early to tell.
Unless of course this wasn't really a question seeing anyone's opinion but just an attempt to direct people to a predetermined conclusion without any discussion... in which case your question in pointless.
T S Justly
(884 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)higher now.