I heard on the radio this morning that GB's innagural swearing in celebration is costing 40 million dollars and the security for it is costing 12 million.

I wonder if that amount of money would be better spent on schools or highways or military benefits or helping the poor.

Agreed in principle, but I'd like to see how the costs are being broken down. However, I do think the numbers look too high...

It sounded high to me also untill they started talking about firworks displays and chocolate fountains and ice sculptures and six different band/orchestras and an open bar.

The kind of party that most people will never see or enjoy. Very elite and high society.

Yeah, the chocolate fountains have got to go... :)

I'm pretty sure the costs of the inaugeration are covered by private donations. At least there have been a lot of stories in the local paper about who's donating money for it. Security costs are tax dollars, though.

The guy driving the truck to deliver the fireworks and the assemblers are probably middle to lower middle class workers. As long as the money is spent in this country, I have no problem with it.

Originally posted by Echo2
I heard on the radio this morning that GB's innagural swearing in celebration is costing 40 million dollars and the security for it is costing 12 million.

I wonder if that amount of money would be better spent on schools or highways or military benefits or helping the poor.

Yes, it would.....but this can't be laid at Bush's door alone.....BOTH Parties are guilty of this sort of insane extravagance.

Tommorrow they'll be in session arguing over some bill that might have some sort of benefit for the People and one of the same politicos who was lounging next to an ice sculpture in a thosand dollar tuxedo stuffing his face with champagne and caviar will stand up and tell Congress ---"We as a society cannot AFFORD this extra 40 million dollars in this bill!!....it's too much!!....we have to draw the line somewhere!!"

It is a sign of the diseased state of our society that we allow such unecessary and extravagant [and i would think anyone would agree that a chocolate fountain for government employees exemplifies over the top excess] spending to go on and on without calling for change.

Originally posted by Freethinker

Tommorrow they'll be in session arguing over some bill that might have some sort of benefit for the People and one of the same politicos who was lounging next to an ice sculpture in a thosand dollar tuxedo stuffing his face with champagne and caviar will stand up and tell Congress ---"We as a society cannot AFFORD this extra 40 million dollars in this bill!!....it's too much!!....we have to draw the line somewhere!!"


Someone got paid $1,500.00 to carve that ice and it wasn't another millionaire. Better to give the money away than to have someone earn it, I guess.

I wonder if Echo would be bitching about this if Kerry had won.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Yes, it would.....but this can't be laid at Bush's door alone.....BOTH Parties are guilty of this sort of insane extravagance.

Tommorrow they'll be in session arguing over some bill that might have some sort of benefit for the People and one of the same politicos who was lounging next to an ice sculpture in a thosand dollar tuxedo stuffing his face with champagne and caviar will stand up and tell Congress ---"We as a society cannot AFFORD this extra 40 million dollars in this bill!!....it's too much!!....we have to draw the line somewhere!!"

It is a sign of the diseased state of our society that we allow such unecessary and extravagant [and i would think anyone would agree that a chocolate fountain for government employees exemplifies over the top excess] spending to go on and on without calling for change.
Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with you here. It's pretty sad when OUR OWN employees have complete latitude when making such superfluous purchases.

I wonder if Echo would be bitching about this if Kerry had won.

Of course not.

the only time libs care about where any tax money goes is when it is going towards the military or a republican prez. if its military related, every penny must be accounted for! welfare and Social security? who cares! massive government waste that cound pay for the innaguration 10 times in one week! give them more money!!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if Echo would be bitching about this if Kerry had won.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Of course not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would bitch about this no matter who was doing it.


Apparantly you guys are so prejudiced against liberal people that when one of them points out a wrong (this innaugeration party, election fraud, etc) you naturaly jump to the comclusion that it is partison, excuse the wrong and jump all offer ther messenger. I get the feeling you don't care about this country. That your only concern is to support your candidate no matter what.

I do not blame gb for this party. I'm pretty sure it is sponsored by his wealthy oil and energy friends. And they have the right to throw it for him. However it shows poor judgement on someones part by allowing it to become so large and garish and expensive. It sends a very bad picture to the average working person.

Echo, while I see your point, I'd like to point out that you're not as nonpartisan as you like to think you are. Most of the statements you make are a direct bash against the Bush administration, conservatives, or Republicans, so it doesn't necessarily take a stretch of the imagination to infer that anything you say is related to bashing one of the aforementioned categories. I think you can ask most of the conservative posters here if they like Bush, and they'd surprisingly tell you that there are things about him that they very much dislike. It's not the type blind affection you'd like to portray it as...

Originally posted by Echo2
I do not blame gb for this party. I'm pretty sure it is sponsored by his wealthy oil and energy friends. And they have the right to throw it for him. However it shows poor judgement on someones part by allowing it to become so large and garish and expensive. It sends a very bad picture to the average working person.
This, however, I agree with...

When a Democrat cries about too much spending, it brings a disgusting feeling to the pit of my stomach.

Imagine if you were to hear a Republican cry that gays didn't have enough rights. Maybe then you would understand some of our reactions.

And if you would have bothered to research that hundreds of winners from both sides are throwing various parties at the expense of the tax payer for decades now, you would have some respect from me, and shown that you yourself have a hint of balance. But no, you want to paint a picture that Republicans alone throw parties, proving, once again, that you are a complete moron.

But Praetorian is right about one thing. Unlike the Democrats around here, most of the right wingers see some things they would like to change. The budget, for example, is outrageous, and everyone on both sides realizes that this is not a conservative ideal. There have been several other examples of how Bush is not an ideal conservative.

It's pretty rare that you can catch any liberals admitting any fault on their side. I think it's because the set of libs that we have here at all forums don't have enough sense to realize what's right and what's wrong with their own platforms.

Originally posted by Karankawa
When a Democrat cries about too much spending, it brings a
And if you would have bothered to research that hundreds of winners from both sides are throwing various parties at the expense of the tax payer for decades now, you would have some respect from me, and shown that you yourself have a hint of balance. But no, you want to paint a picture that Republicans alone throw parties, proving, once again, that you are a complete moron.

Once again you are jumping to the conclusion that this is partison. You are so stuck on the "them against us" idea of politics it is laughably funny to hear you try and defend it by stateing you don't like everything gb has done. Well duh! I don't like everything that democratics do either. That is not a new and unique concept to us, though it seams to be to you.

Yes, all the parties have been doing this for a long time. However, just because it has been done before is no excuse not to stop doing it. Unfortunately these type of parties are getting bigger and more garish every year. It needs to stop. Would you feel better if I waited untill Hillary gets elected in 4 years and then complain about her inaugeration? Or would you rather we start doing something about it now so that when the next president gets inaugerated they won't be able to continue with the waste.

Think about what is best for your country, not your candidate. Do not just accept something as being OK because "that is the way it has always been done". Hold your government accountable NO MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE.

Originally posted by Karankawa
When a Democrat cries about too much spending, it brings a disgusting feeling to the pit of my stomach.
The ironic thing is, a certain Mr. Bush has been spending an awful lot more than a certain Mr. Clinton did. George Bush's fiscal policy is anything but conservative.

If Hillary gets elected (and that WON'T happen), then I'm laying down 5 to 1 odds she gets picked off at a thousand yards with a BMG .50 caliber sniper rifle. Any takers?

I see you feel about Hilary like 49% of the country feels about george.

Most would not be sad if he was assasinated. Although his choice of VP's has made that rather improbable. The replacement would be as bad as the original. Nice way to secure his surviving through the term.

Originally posted by Echo2
Most would not be sad if he was assasinated. Although his choice of VP's has made that rather improbable. The replacement would be as bad as the original. Nice way to secure his surviving through the term.
"As bad"?! Cheney is about a zillion times worse than GWB! With Cheney in charge, we'd probably be at war with every country on Earth, including Canada! Agh! Anyone but Dick!

The ironic thing is, a certain Mr. Bush has been spending an awful lot more than a certain Mr. Clinton did. George Bush's fiscal policy is anything but conservative.

What did I say?

Originally posted by Travh20
the only time libs care about where any tax money goes is when it is going towards the military or a republican prez. if its military related, every penny must be accounted for! welfare and Social security? who cares!

http://www.whereisthemoney.org/numbers.html

Pursuant to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Financial Management Act of 1994, the Inspector General of each covered federal agency is required to audit and publish the financial statements of their agency.

The largest agency, the Department of Defense, has failed to comply with the requirement for audited financial statements since the requirement went into effect in the mid-1990’s and has reported significant unsupported adjustments to balance its books. In fiscal 1999, DOD reported $2.3 trillion of undocumentable adjustments to balance its books. In fiscal 2000, DOD reported $1.1 trillion of undocumentable adjustments to balance its books. For fiscal 2001, DOD declined to report the amount of undocumentable adjustments used to balance its books.

The source of the $1.1 trillion undocumentable adjustments to balance DOD’s books in FY 2000 used for the $1.1 Trillion Missing Money calculator is from the Department of Defense Agency-Wide Financial Statements Audit Opinion – A Memorandum for Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), dated February 26, 2002 Re: Independent Auditor’s Report on the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2001 Agency-Wide Financial Statements .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your premise that "every penny must be accounted for" when it comes to military spending is fucking laughable .....or would be, if not for the fact that those despicable thieves are stealing TRILLIONS from the taxpayers.

I just wish the departments you are complaining about HAD a fraction of the trillions being stolen thru the charade of "Defense" spending.

Originally posted by Travh20

the only time libs care about where any tax money goes is when it is going towards the military or a republican prez. if its military related, every penny must be accounted for! welfare and Social security? who cares!

Though Defense has long been notorious for waste, recent government reports suggest the Pentagon's money management woes have reached astronomical proportions. A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

Originally posted by The Praetorian
If Hillary gets elected (and that WON'T happen), then I'm laying down 5 to 1 odds she gets picked off at a thousand yards with a BMG .50 caliber sniper rifle. Any takers?

That quote made me laugh....i dont know why lol.

All i have to say to echo about her rebuttal....what do EXPECT us to think??? You are ALWAYS on the liberal side, you ALWAYS say negative things about W...and then you are so quick to claim that you're not partisan....save it.

you know, i wish bush would've allowed even that much money for autism research. at least then the money would've been well spent on those who may one day be able to contribute to society, not wasted on a dumb ass that cannot!

Echo, I dont see why you take so much offense at being called partisan when you try so hard to be that way. When you say that you are a liberal, you are being partisan! No ones opinions are completely non partisan.

That said, I would like to inform the right wingers around here that not all of us liberals "only critisize Bush" and "never critisize Democrats". I use myself as an example. None of you can deny that my opinions are some of the most balanced on this entire site. (This is not bragging. It is often a curse to see both sides of the argument!)

PS- Before you point out that my punctuation is quite as dilligent as usual, this is a Spanish keyboard and I dont know how to make an apostrophe...

Originally posted by Echo2
I see you feel about Hilary like 49% of the country feels about george.

Most would not be sad if he was assasinated. Although his choice of VP's has made that rather improbable. The replacement would be as bad as the original. Nice way to secure his surviving through the term.
Echo, you mean to tell me that you honestly believe that the majority of Americans wouldn't care if the president was assasinated?

Originally posted by Karankawa
What did I say?
:@@:
The point is it does't matter; what you said; that is; because you and several others continue to spew the same partisan crap that continues to polarise this country.
Your responses distract the topic..seems to serve no real purpose other that to apply another label.
Don't get me wrong there are several folks that make an observation along w/their assesment of the topic w/o making it seem like an attack.
After all it would be hard to talk politics w/o appearing partisan to some degree.
So if you or any of the others feel that it's pertinent to apply the label rather than your own polished perspective(right or wrong doesn't matter) then have at it.
Just don't be surprised if others like myself get annoyed or confused to your point.
I admit that I still don't get all the mumbo jumbo that it takes to digest politics..
I really don't get why there is still democrats and republicans and all the partisan grandstanding that goes with..seems like an out of date non-productive separation of causes and an expensive one at that.
It is difficult enough to understand why people continue to defend Dubya.

excuse me..I'll shut and be quiet now

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Echo, you mean to tell me that you honestly believe that the majority of Americans wouldn't care if the president was assasinated?

i guess echo thinks if you voted for kerry you WANT to see W dead....talk about an extremist.

The point is it does't matter; what you said; that is; because you and several others continue to spew the same partisan crap that continues to polarise this country.

And you don't see that from the liberals? Talk about partisan crap. Wipe the mud from your eyes, friend.

Your responses distract the topic..seems to serve no real purpose other that to apply another label.

My god man, I simply agreed that Bush's budget sucks. And when the moderator and yourself fail to recognize that, I'm inclined to post another "What did I say?" Do you just read the first sentence and move on or what?

I guess you're another illogical poster. One minute you're crying because I'm "partisan" and the next sentence, my "responses confuse the subject" when I am clearly showing you that I don't always agree with Bush.

And wouldn't that be a sign that I am not so partisan? After all, Bush is the leader of the Republican party atm, right? So if I was a strict partisan, I would agree with everything he did.....correct?

Maybe you and Echo are the strict partisans, and you want to see that in everyone else. So you jump to conclusions.

I have some advice for you: read and try to think before you post. You'll make a lot more sense....maybe.

Originally posted by Karankawa
My god man, I simply agreed that Bush's budget sucks. And when the moderator and yourself fail to recognize that, I'm inclined to post another "What did I say?" Do you just read the first sentence and move on or what?
Well, I think that that post of yours contradicts itself. In the beginning, you say how disgusting it is that Democrats are whining about Bush's budget...then you whine about Bush's budget. You AGREE with the Democrats in this case! You think Bush's budget is bad, and you say so, but Democrats aren't allowed? It seems like an outrageous double standard to me.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
If Hillary gets elected (and that WON'T happen), then I'm laying down 5 to 1 odds she gets picked off at a thousand yards with a BMG .50 caliber sniper rifle.

Originally posted by Decka
That quote made me laugh....i dont know why lol.

I believe I know *why* you are moved to laughter.

It is because you ---like every other religionist personality I have ever known--- are comforted by thinking that anyone who opposes you or who disagrees with you and your rock-ribbed conservative worldview is **"evil"**, and you are filled with glee with the thought that they should be made to suffer humiliation, pain, torture or death.

Well, I think that that post of yours contradicts itself. In the beginning, you say how disgusting it is that Democrats are whining about Bush's budget...then you whine about Bush's budget.
I think this is because he sees Democrats who whine about budgets as being hypocrites.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
I think this is because he sees Democrats who whine about budgets as being hypocrites.
Since when were ALL Democrats big spenders? Clinton was quite frugal.

Yeah, so frugal that he and his manwife had to steal shit from the white house when they departed.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I believe I know *why* you are moved to laughter.

It is because you ---like every other religionist personality I have ever known--- are comforted by thinking that anyone who opposes you or who disagrees with you and your rock-ribbed conservative worldview is **"evil"**, and you are filled with glee with the thought that they should be made to suffer humiliation, pain, torture or death.
Well, Sigmund...
I'm impressed, however, I couldn't help but notice...from one professional to another: you seem to suffer from acute anxiety coupled with a mild mood disorder due to a general medical condition which may be compounded with depressive features, manic features, and mixed features. I would suggest 10cc’s of thorzine to be administered twice a day and would reasonably expect the severe somatoform disorder to regress while treating it with cognitive behavioral approaches and group therapy.

Good day,
Dr. Prae

Originally posted by Decka
All i have to say to echo about her rebuttal....what do EXPECT us to think??? You are ALWAYS on the liberal side, you ALWAYS say negative things about W...and then you are so quick to claim that you're not partisan....save it.

Maybe my mistake WAS expecting you to think. Just because someone is liberal or consrvative does not mean that everytime they bring up a political issue it is partison. Right now we have a republican administration. So anything negative said about our political process is going to be "pasrtison" to you. Even if it wasn't meant that way.

If a democrat was in office and used that much money to throw a party I would have said the same thing. It is wrong, no matter who does it.

The attitude that it is partison anytime a liberal says anything against this administration is stupid. It makes you sound whiney and immature.

The idea that only democrats can do wrong and that republicans never do wrong is about as partison as one can get. Because I lambast a politician for extravagant spending does not necesarily make the statement partison. Grow up.

Originally posted by Echo2
Maybe my mistake WAS expecting you to think. Just because someone is liberal or consrvative does not mean that everytime they bring up a political issue it is partison. Right now we have a republican administration. So anything negative said about our political process is going to be "pasrtison" to you. Even if it wasn't meant that way.

If a democrat was in office and used that much money to throw a party I would have said the same thing. It is wrong, no matter who does it.

The attitude that it is partison anytime a liberal says anything against this administration is stupid. It makes you sound whiney and immature.

The idea that only democrats can do wrong and that republicans never do wrong is about as partison as one can get. Because I lambast a politician for extravagant spending does not necesarily make the statement partison. Grow up.

first off, you must be reading someone else's posts...because i KNOW republicans can do wrong....i know ALL politicians are corrupt, and its the system that is at fault here, not the players.

The reason the party is so big is because of all the independent donations. Your title to this thread is wrong. Just imagine if Kerry had won, they'd be celebrating like it was new years...opening champagne and confetti falling. If I were bush i wouldn't make it a big deal but hey....why blast bush when you KNOW the other side would've done the same thing?

I would blast Kerry if he spent $40,000 on a party. It is bad form and sends a bad message to the American public.

It has to stop somewhere. Lets look at it now instead of just saying...

"it's been happening forever and you wouldn't say that if it was your candidate doing it."

Basically you are saying we know it's broken but it has always been broken and we don't want it addressed on our candidates watch.

Making the fixing of a wrong into a partison issue is grasping at straws. If it is wrong, it is wrong no matter who did it, does it or will do it. Lets fix it now so it wont happen in the future.

Can anyone tell me the harm if some busboys, waitresses, truck drivers, table cloth launderers, limo drivers, waiters, bartenders, etc... get an extra party thrown their way. Where should the money go instead?

Originally posted by Brooks
Can anyone tell me the harm if some busboys, waitresses, truck drivers, table cloth launderers, limo drivers, waiters, bartenders, etc... get an extra party thrown their way.

I would say the *harm* is in our governmental leaders throwing away 40 million dollars on an ostentatious display of braggadocio posing as a "party"; a gathering that serves no useful purpose......all while these same people stand up in Congress telling the America People that we have to "tighten our belts" in the hard times ahead.

Originally posted by Brooks
Where should the money go instead?

40 million might give an AIDS researcher or a cancer researcher the added means to find a breakthru cure, or it might be spent on better inspections of cargo coming into our ports......there are a thousand legitimate uses the money could be put to that would benefit the people instead of buying another pretty bauble for the spoiled political classes.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I would say the *harm* is in our governmental leaders throwing away 40 million dollars on an ostentatious display of braggadocio posing as a "party"; a gathering that serves no useful purpose......all while these same people stand up in Congress telling the America People that we have to "tighten our belts" in the hard times ahead.
40 million might give an AIDS researcher or a cancer researcher the added means to find a breakthru cure, or it might be spent on better inspections of cargo coming into our ports......there are a thousand legitimate uses the money could be put to that would benefit the people instead of buying another pretty bauble for the spoiled political classes.

And the "Hit the Nail on the Head" award goes to you today..
..nicely put..

I've said it before and I'll say it again..
These guys spend money like they can print it..:@@:

hey i agree with him....im just trying to make sure this isn't a partisan issue like people are trying to make it. Don't say Bush is an asshole for doing it, Say the gov't is wrong, because the other side would be boogying down with balloons, music, and drinks if they won. I disagree with alot of things the government does, but don't blame the guy in office at the time for things that happen year after year after year. Like the wrestler booker T says.....

dont hate the playa....hate the game!!!!

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yeah, so frugal that he and his manwife had to steal shit from the white house when they departed.
Just tow that party line, Prae, maybe one day it'll become true...

What in the hell are you talking about, Borg? That's not only true - it's an immutable fact. Not only did those slobs vandalize governmental property, they left with furniture and expensive china that didn't belong to them.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/29/172139.shtml

Originally posted by The Praetorian
What in the hell are you talking about, Borg? That's not only true - it's an immutable fact. Not only did those slobs vandalize governmental property, they left with furniture and expensive china that didn't belong to them.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/29/172139.shtml
Even if Newsmax even approached being a legitimate news source (it ranks somewhere far below Drudge), that article says NOTHING about what Clinton or his wife personally did. The GAO does say that there was some vandalism done in the Eisenhower Execuitve Office Building next door to the White House, but your claim that Clinton and his wife vandalized the White House is absurd, and not based in fact at all.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
What in the hell are you talking about, Borg? That's (the claim that the Clintons trashed the White House and stole shit) not only true - it's an immutable fact.

I did not like Clinton [far too proficient at pushing Republican political initiatives for me] , but from everything I can gather, the whole -- **Bill and Hillary trashed the White House when they left*** canard has been thoroughly debunked.

My point wasn't even really about vandalism, Borg...it was thrown in because evidence of vandalism surfaced after they left. Did I call them vandals directly? Well, if you took it that way, then please realize, I certainly didn't mean to, however, state property mysteriously disappeared when they left, and that was my original point.

They've made reparations as far as I understand, but the fact that they took things in the first place is sickening.

Inaugural-day parades have been a part of the inaugural culture since 1889, and balls have been part almost as long. The first official ball was given in 1809, though none were held between 1913 and 1929 or during World War II. There were six balls in 1969, nine bills for the 1985 and 1989 inaugurations, and 11 balls for Bill Clinton's first inauguration in 1993.

Such festivities have turned the inauguration into both an important public event that costs upwards of $20-30 million each time as well as a major fund-raising effort for the party taking or renewing its power in Washington. Jimmy Carter's inauguration in 1977 cost a reported $3.5 million, Ronald Reagan's first inauguration in 1981 cost about $16 million and his second about $20 million, and George H.W. Bush's in 1989 cost about $30 million. Bill Clinton's 1993 inauguration cost about $25 million and featured 11 balls; he reportedly raised $33 million in funds that year, and another $23.7 million when inaugurated for a second time in 1997. George W. Bush reportedly raised more than $35 million for his inauguration in 2001.

http://www.newsaic.com/ftvww79s.html


Now my question is where the hell were you asshats when Clinton had 11 balls for his inauguration?

Since when were ALL Democrats big spenders? Clinton was quite frugal.

During the Clinton years, a strong economy persisted, and part of the the tax on the rich that existed before Reagan was resumed. These things caused tax revenue to increase slightly faster than spending. One pundit observed that the gridlock created by having a Republican congress with a Democratic president prevented spending from increasing any faster.

In other words, Clinton was forced to be frugal. Don't fool yourself into thinking that was how he wanted it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
What in the hell are you talking about, Borg? That's not only true - it's an immutable fact. Not only did those slobs vandalize governmental property, they left with furniture and expensive china that didn't belong to them.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/29/172139.shtml

This is an interesting site for debunking such rumors.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm

I would note the GAO found that the damage was normal for the vacating of offices that were occupied for several years. The total damages were around $20,000. The allegations of theft by the Clintons were not true.

Back to the subject of this thread. It is interesting that the considerable costs of the inauguration are largely being picked up by large corporations that have interests in legislation and regulatory actions by government. Here is an interesting story on who is sponsoring and attending the events.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Inauguration/story?id=426152

This could be said to be legalized bribery. The peddling of influence is an old established practice. It is practiced by both major political parties. That is what blocks real reform. The Quid pro quos are well established, and the revolving doors function smoothly.

Speaking of clinton....every year he was in office the cut-off for when Social Security would run out got closer and closer...now that bush is in office its back up to around the year 2045....in 1998 it was at 2029.

Originally posted by Imagineer
It is interesting that the considerable costs of the inauguration are largely being picked up by large corporations that have interests in legislation and regulatory actions by government.......
This could be said to be legalized bribery.

Not just *can be said*......it is legalized bribery.

And that form of legalized bribery by the Corporations, who control the political system in this country, is the very cornerstone of the world's largest con game............the facilitation by the parliment of whores in Washington of the tranfer of hundreds of billions of taxdollars each year out of the pockets of the easily duped citizenry and into the pockets of the operators of the military/Industrial complex.