100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Most Corrupt Members of Congress | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Thu 09/22/11 05:17 PM
|
|
didn't bush have a democratic led congress? No he didn't. Not until 2008. Then, it was too late. it was clinton to blame for the housing crisis, not the repubs. This myth just won't go away. All the documentation and all the proof and we still have the Faux News version. It is hopeless. The policies were all Republi, all the way. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has come out with its list of the most corrupt members of Congress for this year. Not surprisingly, 12 of the19 mentioned (63%) have Rs after their names. The new members who came in in 2010 did nothing to improve the tally. http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/Most%20Corrupt%20Reports/CREW-Most-Corrupt-Report-2011.pdf?nocdn=1 Probably because there are a lot more R in the current congress than D. 242 compared to 192 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has come out with its list of the most corrupt members of Congress for this year. Not surprisingly, 12 of the19 mentioned (63%) have Rs after their names. The new members who came in in 2010 did nothing to improve the tally. http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/Most%20Corrupt%20Reports/CREW-Most-Corrupt-Report-2011.pdf?nocdn=1 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 09/22/11 07:37 PM
|
|
Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong, it was 1999 and Clinton signed the "Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited. 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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 09/23/11 12:49 AM
|
|
Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited. 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seakolony
on
Fri 09/23/11 08:03 AM
|
|
Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited. 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. 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. true I rounded the figures lol, but it is still subjective to the variables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited. 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. 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) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
