Nancy Pelosi is recommending that members of Congress convicted of felonies while in office lose their congressional pensions.
That's swell. But isn't it kinda' troubling that this isn't already the case?
As Good a Place to Start as Any, I Guess
Comments to "As Good a Place to Start as Any, I Guess":
Guy Montag | January 3, 2007, 7:52pm | #
Won't more of her own party be at risk than the others?madpad | January 3, 2007, 8:01pm | #
Won't more of her own party be at risk than the others?Takes a lot of nerve to be that pithy after the excesses of said "others" over the past 6 years.
Besides, her party is still way behind the others for convicted pedophiles, sexual harrasers and basic deviants.
Grant Gould | January 3, 2007, 8:19pm | #
I dunno, I hear that the Connecticut For Lieberman dudes can really party hard, if you know what I mean...thoreau | January 3, 2007, 8:25pm | #
Won't more of her own party be at risk than the others?Her party is better at not getting caught.
Thoreau, you're a cynical airhead, typical of libertarians who prefer the party of religious nutbars to any party that does not conform to the dogmas of your business-worshiping cult. Here's a news flash for you: Republicans are never going to abolish taxes. You have a better chance of experiencing libertopia with a crack pipe. In the meantime, why not support a party that maintains some semblance of the secularism that is at the heart of our great democracy? Oh, I forgot. Libetarians don't give a flying fuck about democracy. You want a country run Wal-Mart (in competition with other big box stores, of course).
madpad | January 3, 2007, 8:42pm | #
Her party is better at not getting caught.I don't think that's accurate but just for giggles, which would you rather have...a competently corrupt politician...or an incompetently corrupt one.
Points if you figured out that there's no correct answer.
lunchstealer | January 3, 2007, 8:44pm | #
Awww, cute! And he's picking on the the most vocal of the liberaltarians!It's like JMJ is here all over again. Next he'll be calling joe a right wing schill.
:P
I dunno, I can't help but think this will just lead to further cover-ups and "legislative immunity".
Ted | January 3, 2007, 8:52pm | #
MadpadThere's no correct answer in the same way that you can't argue with a fundamentalist. Once you've demonized the (shudder!) state, then all politicians become evil. But even a casual observer of our species knows that the evils of the state are just one manifestation of the sort of stuff our species does. This may be a novel idea to you, but think about it: we just can't come up with a society that is free of oppression. We've come close in America, but not by buying into dogmatic political fanaticism. We've done it by a pragmatic disdain for communism, socialism, anachism, libertarianism, and all the other -isms that small minds need to feel self-important.
Crusader Rabbit | January 3, 2007, 8:58pm | #
Ted, Ted ... Calm down, man. It's only a blog.Alan Vanneman | January 3, 2007, 8:59pm | #
Reason has complained loudly about the current federal policy that denies student aid to individuals convicted of drug offenses. Adding penalties for criminal behavior in addition to those inflicted by the court strikes me as petty and vindictive. Should all felons be denied pensions, SS benefits, Food Stamps, whatever?thoreau | January 3, 2007, 8:59pm | #
I don't think that's accurate but just for giggles, which would you rather have...a competently corrupt politician...or an incompetently corrupt one.I'll have whichever Ted prefers, just for giggles.
isildur | January 3, 2007, 9:19pm | #
Alan: Come on, you've gotta try harder. Repeat after me: 'Drug offenses should not be felonies. In fact, they should not be crimes.'Ted: Whoa, did Ayn Rand piss in your Cheerios this morning?
(oh christ, the mental image...)
Ted | January 3, 2007, 9:20pm | #
ThoreauI prefer an honest, hardworking politcian. There are plenty of them. Little girls and airhead libertarians giggle. Real men laugh.
madpad | January 3, 2007, 9:22pm | #
I'll have whichever Ted prefers, just for giggles.Which, by the way, did he prefer...I couldn't really tell. He kind of made a pseudopoint after inferring that I was some sort of anarchist.
Ted, I think you took my post way too seriously.
Cab | January 3, 2007, 9:28pm | #
Alan, I think the distinction is these are felonies perpetrated while the congressperson is in office. An office in which they took an oath to uphold the laws enacted by said Congress. If they break that oath, theoretically they didn't do their job. If they didn't do their job, they didn't earn a pension to begin with.yeah, it’s a stretch. whatever.
Also, real men know who the fuck they are talking to before they call him an airhead.
Alan, that last sentence wasn't towards you. Sorry for the confusion, if there was any.
Ted | January 3, 2007, 9:32pm | #
MadpadYou're probably right. I'm just trying to start an argument. Nothing is more boring than general agreement about the banal and obvious, which seem to be the specialties of this blog. I should move on to something more stimulating. Any suggestions? Of other blogs, I mean.
Downward | January 3, 2007, 9:41pm | #
wow, someone that writes like you implying others are predictable, commonplace, and unstimulating. thats rich.You asked for suggestions. Here's one. Go back to democraticunderground and let some vapid sixteen year old tell you what to think about a subject. A few years from know, when he figures out he is wrong (and therefore you do to), come back.
Downward | January 3, 2007, 9:55pm | #
Pedantic much?(hint: look it up the same place you looked up banal)
Ted | January 3, 2007, 10:01pm | #
DownwardWhat? I was just pointing out a typo. This really is getting banal. C'mon, let's argue. I think taxation is a good thing, part of a social contract from which we all benefit. What do you think? Oops, did I hit a sore point( about thinking, I mean)?
lunchstealer | January 3, 2007, 10:05pm | #
Yup. JMJ lives. Anybody wanna take bets on how long before Ted and Guy Montag make out?Sorry, that was off thread. I think most politicians are honest and most CEOs are overpaid. Political corruption is overblown, at least in the U.S. Unregulated markets will sow the seeds of their own destruction. FDR saved capitalism. Nancy Pelosi will be a great speaker. Reagan was very dim.
Ted | January 3, 2007, 10:32pm | #
DownwardAnd it's a damned good thing we don't have unregulated markets. Do you agree?
Jennifer | January 3, 2007, 10:39pm | #
Should all felons be denied pensions, SS benefits, Food Stamps, whatever?That's a good question. I'd say no, but I DO think pensions should be denied to those people who committed felonies while holding positions of legal authority over others--politicians, cops and judges.
Downward | January 3, 2007, 10:44pm | #
it's a damned good thing we don't have unregulated markets. Do you agree?Yeah, pretty much. I'm not a "no regulation" type of libertarian, I'm a "no regulation unless it is absolutely necessary, epecially if that regulation purports on its face to usurp the rights of an individual" type of libertarian. You?
Not sure if I'm being sarcastic | January 3, 2007, 10:48pm | #
But if felony convictions are based on unjust statutes? Oh, yeah -- that'll incentivize legislators to repeal those statutes. The market does sort it all out!I said I wasn't sure | January 3, 2007, 11:03pm | #
Ted, please explain.Pluto | January 3, 2007, 11:47pm | #
Oh, then I guess I was being sarcastic. Glad you cleared things up.Rick Barton | January 4, 2007, 12:05am | #
Do you think FDR saved capitalism?Yeah, in the way that a lobotomy saves sanity.
Accepting that FDR saved capitalism means believing that sans FDR, limitations of economic liberty that are some combination of more sever and/or longer lived would have been the alternative-quite unlikely. Especially since FDR's policies prolonged the depression.
Rick Barton | January 4, 2007, 12:13am | #
Pluto,You've already been defrocked of your designation as a planet. Watch it or we'll kick you out of the solar system altogether!
Pollux | January 4, 2007, 1:17am | #
H&R has a very poor track record for kicking out undesirables... who describe, it may be pointed out, more deviant orbits than mine (with some, or at least one, drawn to my levitational pull). But my task is finished here, and I have other fruit to fly.Castor | January 4, 2007, 1:18am | #
)Ted's Uranus | January 4, 2007, 1:40am | #
*Bob's Uruncle | January 4, 2007, 2:00am | #
That's a backhanded response to being )'d?citizengnat | January 4, 2007, 3:17am | #
TedI hope you stick around. Shut up for awhile and above the noise you might learn something.
Nate
Lowdog | January 4, 2007, 3:51am | #
"How about CEOs, factory formen, and office managers?"If they commit a felony that is somehow related to their job, I don't see why not, and that would also include politicians.
My thinking is along the lines of what Cab already said, but I haven't thought much about it before.
I mean, it could be a part of a contract that you sign that says if you are convicted of X, Y, and/or Z you lose your pension because it affects the bottom line somehow, or something along those lines. For politicians who somehow abuse their authority, as Jennifer mentions, I could probably get behind that, too, although again, I haven't given it much thought.
Crap, I forgot to close italics...everything that is after the quoted sentence should not be italicised - as if no one could figure that out...
madpad | January 4, 2007, 7:47am | #
H&R has a very poor track record for kicking out undesirablesTownhall, by contrast, has a great track record. And they suck. Mightily.
Eric | January 4, 2007, 7:49am | #
CEOs, Factory Foremen and Office Managers don't have authority in the same way that legislators, presidents, cops and judges do. The former only have recourse to deny raises, dismissals, or at the very most, breach of contract suits (which are civil matters).The latter have the authority to impose their wills through physical force.
Therefore, if people commit felonies while in positions of legal authority (not before or after taking office), I think it's entirely reasonable to deny them pensions and jobs.
+ | January 4, 2007, 8:28am | #
Whew, who cut the cheese?Worse...thread...ever.
I agree with Eric. That's why I specified denying pensions to those who abuse their legal authority over others.
I, giggle, welcome our Wal-Mart overlords. Now excuse me, they have a 2-for-1 sale for shaving cream.
VM | January 4, 2007, 10:52am | #
Rick!Peter Schilling will escort Pluto away...
:)
(Troy: excellent! Now Ted's mom can shave her back again!)
PJ Doland | January 4, 2007, 12:54pm | #
I don't know about this. I can imagine instances of legitimate Civil Disobedience that might result in felony convictions.When you've sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, should violating an unconstitutional law put your pension in jeopardy?