Suppose You Are A Powerful Bureaucrat - How Would You React To This?

Let us say you are an all powerful bureaucrat like Nancy Pelosi.

You have a dilemma on your hands.

You have stolen 10 million dollars from the tax payers and now it is your job to allocate this 10 million dollars to politically favored institutions.

Institution A is a research institution that wants funding to do cancer research.
Institution B is a research institution that wants funding to do ALS research.

Institution A has only been a mild supporter of your campaign, giving you 20,000 dollars in total contributions.
Institution B has been a huge supporter, giving you 100,000 dollars in total contributions.

Should institution A actually find a cure, the political rewards would be huge.
Should institution B actually find a cure, the political rewards would be small.

You can allocate a cut of the 10 million in stolen booty to A or B in any ratio you deem appropriate.

How much would you allocate to each institution?




-----

As a side note, the 10 million stolen came from the profits of institution C that actually found a cure for staph infections and was planning on searching for a cure to heart disease before you stole the money from them.

Institution C didn't donate anything to your campaign.







Of course, the entire point of this post is to highlight how tax dollars are actually allocated and the unintended consequences of violent theft.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Its evident that institution C is of no concern, which I am guessing why it is only a side note.

Unfortunately, I cannot think in such a manner to even fathom what I would do. I can stab at it and I would return the money to where it belongs and I would work with my other clowns to bring about a culture so private institutions have incentives to freely go about its research in finding cures for all three ailments how ever they feel they must go about.

Alas, I am not a corrupt person....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Its evident that institution C is of no concern, which I am guessing why it is only a side note.

Unfortunately, I cannot think in such a manner to even fathom what I would do. I can stab at it and I would return the money to where it belongs and I would work with my other clowns to bring about a culture so private institutions have incentives to freely go about its research in finding cures for all three ailments how ever they feel they must go about.

Alas, I am not a corrupt person....

You would make a horrible politician.

Since I work for institution A, there's no way I would vote for you.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You are correct. I would make a better statesman. Just I have my own skeletons in my closet that I would never drag my friends and family through the mess of trying to be a positive force of representation.

reply to post by mnemeth1


i would call up some charity organizations and ask them to see if they could help institutions a and b and c

that way the burden could be spread around altho its not really a burden

then i would try to seek other charity organizations to help them further the saying drop in the bucket comes to mind.

institution a gets 30% they should have supported me more!
institution b gets 50% percent,since its both cure finding but atleast they supported me
and i get 20% into my swiss bank account couse im livin da life

Originally posted by Stillalive
institution a gets 30% they should have supported me more!
institution b gets 50% percent,since its both cure finding but atleast they supported me
and i get 20% into my swiss bank account couse im livin da life

Praise Mao.

As an employee of institution A, I feel somewhat disappointed, but I'll still vote for you since you gave us a nice cut of the booty.

Well, if I was this powerful bureaucrat (aka tyrant) I would give the money to company D. That company would be mine or owned by a family member. I would then institute legislation that would hurt companies A, B, and C and then have company D takeover companies A, B, and C.

While doing this, I would short the stocks of A, B and C. I would than blame my opponent in upcoming elections for taking foreign moneys.

You DID ask what I would do if I was a tyrant.

How did I do?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Well, if I was this powerful bureaucrat (aka tyrant) I would give the money to company D. That company would be mine or owned by a family member. I would then institute legislation that would hurt companies A, B, and C and then have company D takeover companies A, B, and C.

While doing this, I would short the stocks of A, B and C. I would than blame my opponent in upcoming elections for taking foreign moneys.

You DID ask what I would do if I was a tyrant.

How did I do?

Sir, why not just buy the stocks of A and B prior to giving them the funding?

This way you don't have to worry about political fallout from giving your own company money.

Also, this is about buying votes.

You get more votes by giving to A and B, assuming they are the same size as your own company.

As an employee of institution A, I wouldn't vote for you.

reply to post by mnemeth1


On more thought and contemplation, I would hold out on the money giving both companies the same promise of providing more funding if THEY give me more money and their vote.

Upon election, I would go back on the promise and 'lose' the 10 million dollars, provide lucrative Governmental contracts to both A and B giving them an uneven playing field so that they may operate without competition in their endeavors.

If they come at me with claims I promised them money, I would wash my hands clean by proclaiming that I can not be bought and will, at the same time be telling them if they wish to enjoy the privileges they have gained by my election they will continue to fund my campaign. If they do not wish to play the game, I will begin FEC hearings into the company on how they tried to blackmail me into giving them 10 million dollars that was earmarked for 'science'.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well, that would not make me an all powerful bureaucrat. But that way works too.

Question, do you remember the Declared National Medical Emergency on the swine flu?

Guess who had large quantities of stock in pharmaceuticals at the time?

Look at all the bureaucrats and the way they do exactly this kind of thing. They are pretty much committing insider trading. But being that the founders screwed up and did not allow prosecution of the Congress but by Congress itself, it just goes on and on and on and on.

The Constitution was a great government set up, but it does have it's flaws.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well, that would not make me an all powerful bureaucrat. But that way works too.

Question, do you remember the Declared National Medical Emergency on the swine flu?

Guess who had large quantities of stock in pharmaceuticals at the time?

Look at all the bureaucrats and the way they do exactly this kind of thing. They are pretty much committing insider trading. But being that the founders screwed up and did not allow prosecution of the Congress but by Congress itself, it just goes on and on and on and on.

The Constitution was a great government set up, but it does have it's flaws.

Government is evil.

All of it.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


The Congress does have a way to prosecute themselves in a manner. Impeachment is not left solely for the Executive. That was the main reason they separated the duties of impeachment between the two houses. Where it was majorly convoluted was the ratification of the 17th Amendment, thus taking the States out of any power at the Federal level. Leaving both houses to pure democratic rule and only aligned to their legislative creations.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Thou knows not politics, I see.

New, this is not.

Raping you for decades, both parties have done you.

To your offspring we shall do worst.

Our fat Elephant has embarrassed your jackass in this arena by much greater standards.

In front of your eyes has it passed; no resistance; no fight.

Gutless, tame, and obedient you shall all remain.

Your Masters shall do as we please upon your heads.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


What I was referencing was the acts they commit as legislators cannot be held against them. They can only be prosecuted by the Congress itself.

We have what, about 10 legislators up on charges for the past 3 years. Nothing going forward. With the increase in size of the federal government, there is less and less chance of their crimes making it to the light of day. They got ol Traficant though.

From here-Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...

Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon. Read more: Impeachment History

Wow, huge number.

I think also the restriction of treason to only acts of war, was a mistake.
What about attempting to create a Global Governance through the banking cartel? Or the future carbon credits scam?

Oh well, back on track.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


So boys and girls, we have learned that since the 1800s, there have only been 16 corrupt bureaucrats in all of congress, the judiciary, and the presidency.



We should be having an impeachment every day hahha.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Agree with you and Salt...the impeachment process has not been used enough. But...as I have just went into lengthy words in a new thread, the 17th Amendment all but makes that process nothing.

But this is what also happens when the People allow the State to overstep its bounds and then not put them into check for doing so. I blame the People for lack of participation.

reply to post by mnemeth1


what we have learned from the 1800s that there are 500 corrupt bureaucratic congressman who havent been impeached and they have been there for decades and made lifetime commitments to use "viloence" to stay in power.

impeachment a day yeah but whose going to foot the bill for it.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I would give the money for ALS research..

We can't cure cancer, but we can treat it, sometimes very effectively.

I don't think there is any effective treatment for ALS yet, there's probably something.. But it seems like most of the current abilities of the medical community is to make the person live just a bit longer.

reply to post by neo96

In a strictly academic exercise, lacking any moral or legal boundaries, elimination of the "funnelers of money" that feed the congressional beast would be a good starting place. Not necessarily congresspersons or their staffers, but the lobbyists, attorneys, and other purveyers of government favor(s). If these folks just started disappearing, by whatever means, our elected and appointed officials just might get the point. Those that do right by the taxpayers should, in theory, be unaffected or fearful of repercussions.

Consider it "checks and balances" of an extreme nature. Of course, those in line for elimination are to be chosen by whom? You? Me? A Blue-Ribbon Commission like Senator Kerry is so fond of? There's the rub, who gets to decide.