20 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jimmyawalker says:
vice,74, 75, 76 etc. 100% completed, consult nasa in connection with representative and indorsments in the rip.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ka2tsm says:
What happened to tar and feathering? No discrace anymore.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
maureenl12 says:
Could Pelosi have come across anymore guilty when she was "answering" Steve Kroft's questions. Ha! I love it! What a phony bologna she is.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
MikePolitico says:
"We hang the petty thieves, and appoint the great ones to public office" -Aesop
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
MikePolitico says:
These politicians disgust me. "We hang the petty thieves, and appoint the great ones to public office" -Aesop
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pughimag says:
I was outraged by what I saw. It dismays me. I ask myself how intelligent people, elected as representatives of ordinary, everyday people, think it's appropriate to behave this way. I believe I read that they vote for their own salary increases, get much better medical care and now this - insider trading.

As someone pointed out the majority of Americans are not millionaires but our politicians are mostly millionaire lawyers. Add to the mix the very powerful and wealthy corporations and a Supreme court who play politics rather than do what's best for the country and we have a recipe for disaster.

Nancy Pelosi and her husband disgust me. I believe that America has lost its way. We are paying to keep companies afloat, companies who took huge risks and now we have to pay. At every turn people have to spend money that has taken them a lifetime to save. A week in hospital can bankrupta person. Tuition loans take the best part of a lifetime to pay back, retirement funds are gone. People are losing their homes and living in their cars. Many people are out of work with no hope.

How can these wealthy politicians possibly understand the plight of ordinary citizens. They live in a different world and they seem to spend their time bickering and playiing oneupmanship instead of working out realistic proposals. They will not take a step if their big money supporters are not behind them.

My wife and I have considered leaving the country but our children and grandchildren are here and we can't bring ourselves to leave.

The needed change is huge and so I don't see it happening in my lifetime. America may collapse before it happens but I hope not.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
khourysam says:
why there is no charges was bout up against this saunters ar the above the law , if you take $5 that's not yours you will go jail
reply
AllisonHunt replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Do you speak English?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hdfatboy08 says:
This is an outrage. They not only deserved to be removed from office but prosecuted as well. This is the very essence of corruption and there should be ZERO tolerance for it regardless of who they are or what party they belong to.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
govtsux says:
The way I see it is there needs to be a second revolution to clean up our government. The current crop of "(s)elected" officials and assorted other influence mongers needs to be arrested and have examples (use your imagination) made of them. After that, we need to modify the Constitution to prohibit actions by government officials that are contrary to the public good -- the key word here being _public_, not corporate, not government, not any specific group.

Put restrictions on currying of influence by or for corporate or other specific entities and tighten down the election campaign process to disallow private war chests or campaign contributions by corporate or foreign entities. Any contributions should go into a common campaign pool, from which ALL nominees would have to draw.

Require the political parties to properly vet their nominees for legislative or executive office, to include a comprehensive background check to ferret out nominees with criminal backgrounds or financial irregularities -- in other words, nominate people who are less likely to be susceptible to bribery, blackmail, or other corruptive activities. Most of these people, if elected, have access to classified or other sensitive information -- why should they not have to go through the same process as anyone else who applies for a job that requires access to classified or sensitive information.

Put strict limits on the amount of lobbying that can be done and have that lobbying be subject to simple but (relatively) effective litmus test -- is the proposal of the lobbyist demonstrably beneficial to the general public, or will it benefit only a select few. If the latter, it needs to be rejected outright.

That's just the tip of the iceberg -- I have lots of other ideas.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Theflowmanager says:
Congrats to Steve and the rest on 60 Minutes for this change. It wouldn't be the case without you so thanks!
reply
1/2