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

he 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

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.

What do you have to say about that, ARTLO?

What I say, INVICTUSV, is that nothing you note changes the fact that 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

The fact that there are Democrats who will occasionally collude with Republis is nothing new with the Democratic party. Max Bachus, Mary Landrieu et al.

The bill was a Republi bill, plain and simple. Perhaps, the disconnect lies in the fact that Republicans are used to, and more comfortable with an obedient, compliant and lock-step party where independence is considered treason. Democrats don't have that kind of structure.

What I say, INVICTUSV, is that nothing you note changes the fact that 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

The fact that there are Democrats who will occasionally collude with Republis is nothing new with the Democratic party. Max Bachus, Mary Landrieu et al.

The bill was a Republi bill, plain and simple. Perhaps, the disconnect lies in the fact that Republicans are used to, and more comfortable with an obedient, compliant and lock-step party where independence is considered treason. Democrats don't have that kind of structure.

You have to know the 5 "D"s of a democrats rebuttal when faced with facts. Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.

Ah, I see that Wikipedia has been edited since I last read it.

Of course, the CRA was in effect from 1977. It went through numerous changes in the 1990s. Shumer, Dodd and Clinton worked with the Republicans to pass the Republican bill while preserving protections in the CRA, which was promoted on steroids by the Bush Administration. It's not the only crime commited by Clinton, most notably the Telecommunications Act and NFTA, other Republican initiatives.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I admit it. However, nothing you note changes the fact that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a Republican bill.

That was the post I thought I made. I no doubt failed to push the "edit button."

Keep on laughing.

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.

I guess its fuzzy in the eyes of people that aren't good at math./quote]

You still haven't explained how any of this changes the fact that Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited.

The Independents that you wanted us all to know about don't even figure into that. Even a Math dunce like me can see that. I would think that a Math genius, like maybe an Engineer, could see that.

Just wondering because I am not understanding your meaning or where the facts or percentages came from never could bring it up....are you saying that 63% of the House members were cited or 63% of Republicans currently holding seats in the House were cited or 63% of the Republicans members holding seats over the years were cited.....I still haven't been able to bring up the site or be able to where these percentages are coming from...or who did the study....or what variables were used to come up with the statistics

Just wondering because I am not understanding your meaning or where the facts or percentages came from never could bring it up....are you saying that 63% of the House members were cited or 63% of Republicans currently holding seats in the House were cited or 63% of the Republicans members holding seats over the years were cited

CREW’s seventh report on congressional corruption names 19 members of Congress – 14 members whose actions violated the law or who otherwise engaged in serious misconduct, and five others whose lack of regard for the rules earned them a dishonorable mention. The 2010 midterm elections swept in a large freshman class, but certainly didn’t produce more ethical conduct. A startling 14 of the 19 members on CREW’s list are new to it this year, and six of those members are also new to Congress: Reps. Jeff Denham (R-CA), Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Michael Grimm (R-NY), Frank Guinta (R-NH), David Rivera (R-FL) and Joe Walsh (R-IL).
CREW’s definition of corruption goes beyond assessing whether someone technically violated a criminal law. It encompasses public officials who fail to act responsibly and ethically, and who instead place personal or special interests before those of the public. As always, members on this year’s list have abused their positions to benefit themselves, their families, and other associates. Ten violated campaign finance or personal financial disclosure rules, failing to reveal gifts, income, campaign contributions or debts. At least nine members are or have been under investigation either by the House or Senate ethics committees, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or law enforcement agencies.
One member, Rep. Rivera, is under investigation by at least five different law enforcement agencies for a range of violations, apparently including income tax evasion. Another, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), got a loan on very sweet terms and failed to disclose or repay it until the FBI started asking questions. In the latest revelation in Rep. Vern Buchanan’s (R-FL) ongoing scandal, he attempted to bribe a witness to sign a false affidavit. The conduct exhibited by each of the members on the list has contributed to the eroding public trust in government.
The report, of course, doesn’t reflect the misdeeds of those who have left Congress. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), a Most Corrupt alumnus, resigned hastily this year. He left just before a special counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics issued a scathing report concluding the evidence against him in connection with his attempted cover-up of an affair with a staffer “would have been substantial and sufficient to warrant the consideration of the sanction of expulsion.” Reps. Christopher Lee (R-NY), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and David Wu (D-OR), meanwhile, were quickly pushed out of Congress by House leadership after news broke of their salacious conduct. There seems to be no particular standard, however, regarding the sort of misconduct that induces party leaders to move decisively against unethical members given the relatively more egregious actions of some members who have been permitted to retain their seats.
Some Most Corrupt veterans are missing this year either because no new action was taken by any law enforcement agency or the House and Senate ethics committees, or because CREW discovered no new information. These members include: Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Pete Visclosky (D-IN), and Don Young (R-AK) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Five members are making return appearances: Reps. Buchanan, Laura Richardson (D-CA), Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Sen. Vitter and Rep. Richardson are included for conduct unrelated to that which led to their inclusion in previous years.

.....I still haven't been able to bring up the site or be able to where these percentages are coming from...

.or who did the study

or what variables were used to come up with the statistics

"Republis comprise 55% of the House" = "55% of the House members are Republicans.
" and 63% of the corrupt members cited." = 63% of the people listed are Republis.

The list only seems to be for people against whom action is currently ongoing. (I think).



The percentages came from me:
242 Republis in Congress/434 total in the House = 56%
12 Rupublis on the list/19 people on the list = 63%


Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington



# of Republis in the House (plus one Senator)
Total # in Congress
# of Republis on the list
Total # on the list










or who did the study....or what variables were used to come up with the statistics

Why are people arguing over which party is more corrupt? Corrupt is corrupt...........get em outta there if they are, NO MATTER THE POLITICAL AFFILIATION!!!! What's the matter with you people? Who cares if they use an elephant or donkey a D or an R to hide behind?

Corrupt is corrupt...........get em outta there if they are,

I'm afraid that you and I don't get to have a say about who people in other states or districts get to vote for. Charlie Rangal had quite an ethics kerfuffle, but the people of Harlem found him to be good for his constituents. that's how elections are supposed to work.

I guess its fuzzy in the eyes of people that aren't good at math./quote]

You still haven't explained how any of this changes the fact that Republis comprise 55% of the House and 63% of the corrupt members cited.

The Independents that you wanted us all to know about don't even figure into that. Even a Math dunce like me can see that. I would think that a Math genius, like maybe an Engineer, could see that.