Wrong, it was 1999 and Clinton signed the "Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act" That untied the hands of banks and how they use depositors money and what they could get away with that was put in place in 1932. The fall of our economy is not soley on Clinton's shoulders as it was the republicans who passed the bill and sent it to his desk which he signed with unadulterated glee.

Probably because there are a lot more R in the current congress than D. 242 compared to 192

So that would be 5% of the Republicans and 4% of the democrats, of which the percentages could change dependent on the number they found corrupt, if the number were lower or higher.....but based on the numbers it show a 1% difference btwn the two parties at this time......say a few months down the road the numbers changed it would change the percentages and percentage differences.....not a huge difference btwn the two parties actually.........like I said earlier they are both corrupt.....and in cahoots together....

Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited.

What? That makes no sense....maybe you could write out what you are trying to say.....who are the corrupt members?

242/434=56%. 12/19=63%

the corrupt members listed are cited at http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/Most%2520Corrupt%2520Reports/CREW-Most-Corrupt-Report-2011.pdf?nocdn=1

wont come up for me

Thats because you are ignoring independents. The other 45% are not dems. Thus you are ignoring the actual numbers. Seakolony didn't and she discovered only a 1% difference.

It wouldnt matter what the other 45 percent is if the comparison is the population of REPUBLICANS in the house compared to their portion in the subgroup mentioned.

In fact, the detail about not all the rest being democrats, would just mean DEMOCRATS would be LESS corrupt in this particular study than might otherwise be assumed.

Senators Gramm, Leach and Bliley, all Republis, got their bill passed in the last days of the Clinton Administration in return for support for the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Democrats wanted passed, and which would have no chance with the incoming administration. The Banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Stiegel since the 80's. Gramm, as the bought-and-paid-for Senator, finally got his deal done. Why he didn't just wait until the fully Republican-controlled Government that oversaw the housing bubble is a mystery to me.

but the 1% difference is actually subjective since there are more repubs than democrats and in theory if there were more democrats than the percentage difference may be higher for the dems than the repubs.....like I said ealier the percent difference isnt huge because of the numbers difference....therfore subjective and would be subject if the reverse were true as well

no it doesnt. Look at the numbers as corrupt per number of that particular group.

repubs 12/242 *100 =4.9%
dems 7/192 = 3.6%

So there is slightly more than a 1% difference when looking at percentages. Of course this is just based on the "most corrupt" and I am not sure what they used to qualify that.

To show this more assume you had the 2 groups. Group A had 10 people and grou B had 10,000.
If group A had 1 corrupt person and group b had 1000 they would each have 10% of their people corrupt but someone could say 99% of the corrupt people were from group B.

You have to look at their relative population.

lets look deeper 242/434 is 55 percent
192/434 is 44 percent

so, if all was EQUAL and they both had, lets say ten percent of their group that was corrupt the numbers would look like this

24(roughly) corrupt in one group
19(roughly corrupt in the other

total of 43 corrupt and

24/43 or roughly 55 percent of total corrupt would be from the first group(which likewise made up 55 percent of total population)

19/43 or roughly 44 percent of the CORRUPT would be from group B(who likewise made up 44 percent of the total population)

IF a group makes up more of the corrupt population than they do the general population, we call that a numerical inconsistency that would imply they are either more or less likely than EXPECTED(if we look at their proportions fairly)


that 1 percent difference may be minor, but it still is enough to at least argue that its not necessarily true that one party is more corrupt than the other(Because the difference is so small)

OR

that it cant be argued that the democrats are more corrupt(since even a difference of 1 is enough to mean LESS and not more)

Most corruption is under the table and not known till years later ... if ever.

lol, so whats the point of discussing it as if it is known to be the problem of only one party?

true I rounded the figures lol, but it is still subjective to the variables

After reading this I actually think we might be arguing the same thing. The point of my post was to explain there is little difference in their corruption level when you get down to the relative percentages. I think you are in agreement on this based on this last post.

Some pretty fuzzy math going on here. one of it changes the fact that Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited.

There is no correlation between your response and my comment. My point was that all the statistics are flawed. It had nothing to do with one party.

the point was that percentages and math can be scoped to look the way the person doing the math wants it to look and it can be subjective the variable used to process the math......the person doing the math or testing can make it look the way they want....just like polls math