Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared
into the
companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money was
spent to
give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't get so
much as a
usable RIB out of it.

Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make
their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to
think of how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking
huge risks for someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.

Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do
it for themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.

Let's try again. The popular contention is that all these politicians
are making decisions so that their *friends* can profit, not
themselves. As we all know, high profile politicians like presidents
and vice-presidents have their finances highly scrutinized until the
day they die. Any large influx of money would shortly be obvious to
the entire world, so we all know they can't get any significant
kickbacks or profit of any sort remotely related to any companies who
profited while the politician was in office.

So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their
contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the
politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever
has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard
of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he
succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that
reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been.

You're either very naive, or you think the readers are.

The entire business and political world works on favors given without
an explicit promise of the favor returned. Most of us only see this
on a small scale: the vendor gives an extra portion, knowing that it
will create goodwill that will come back eventually. But if you give
a sizable contribution to one politician, that will guarantee a
favorable hearing not just with that politician, but with all others
of his party. And when a businessman gets favorable treatment from
politicians, essentially stealing from the common folk, is he called a
thief? Nope, he's called a "conservative." (OK, a few are called
Democrats)

Think about what you're saying. Cheney, who was selected by Bush as his
running mate, so badly wanted to be *vice-president* that he
surreptitiously promised to sacrifice the well being of the country so
these companies could make billions and billions of dollars in profits.

No. He did it out of habit. It's the system he knows, the people he
trusts. It just turns out that his friends, relatives, associates etc.
are the ones who make money.

Does that really make sense to you?

Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well
(after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The
"moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but that
a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare.

The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is
controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going
to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years. Periodically,
people join the "club," while others fall out. The group is mostly
Republican, but there are some Democrats, and some with mixed
allegiance. They do business between themselves, bending or adjusting
the rules as suits their needs. The political parties haggle over minor
issues, pushing the tax rates a few percent one way or the other. When
the Republicans control the rich get a bit richer until they screw
things totally with their greed; then the Democrats get control and the
social programs and ecology get a boost until they screw things up with
their blundering and greed and the cycle continues.


Usually the contention is that they are "friends" or "chums." You're
saying they may or may not be friends, but they were instrumental in get
him to be vice-president and he was so grateful and cares so little
about the country?

It has nothing to do with what he "cares about the country." Its the
game he knows how to play. I'm sure he believes everything is "for the
good of the country," its just that he believes that what's good for
those in power is good for everyone.