A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.
A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs..
OK thanks for the Wiki definition of conflict of interest but you failed to provide any proof to the argument that having an exec or representative of an industry sitting in on a bill planning session as part of the procedures is anywhere a conflict of interest on either parties part?
To bring this to another level, the congress committee or group providing access to the bill creation process isn't causing what is considered a
recusal situation by providing that said access. It is pretty much not an ethical issue unless there is a clear and distinct issue of self-dealing on the side of congress, which in many cases appears to be but isn't under our campaign laws.
Furthermore the real issue here is to provide some sort of evidence instead of conjecture, which no one has. What I mean is you claim that there is a conflict of interest, Cheri claims it is the evil companies controlling things and both seem to be leading to Cheri's claim that the US is clearly a BIG business friendly country that craps on the little guy. Not one shred of evidence seems to exist to support all those claims, the problem I pointed out to Cheri is in order to make the claim, you have to compare US with THEM. The other part of that is until you and Cheri have a clear understanding that a company, no matter what size they are, has really no moral obligations to their workers other then treating them fairly while work for the company, the idea that layoffs or hiring is something that can be prevented or done on demand respectfully.
So at this point, it is a moot point you are making.
nope i was never in a 2 foot wide ditch while the track hoe was placeing a 20 ft concrete pipe . nope i never set guild rail post where the post ponder was a free falling 1500 lb steel . nope i never ran a pan on a single wide 3 story high loose fill pile because no room to go wider . nope i never set over head signs over a highway either .
and i guess when they drill for well water they use plastic pipe and a house hold drill too .
nope building houses or roads dont have to worry about time . yep tomorrow it looks like rain . oh well it is quiting time .
and i bet a lot of constrution companies wished it was just as easy as you said it is .and yep blacktop is a real cool temperature . it is never 300 F + yep they got all day to empty that truck load
and yep logging is a easy job too . oil is the hardest job ever . wake up
Well see here is the thing, I have a lot of family who work in the construction industry, from underground to general contracting to specialty stuff. Some of them worked in oil and in logging and they all said the same thing - it is easier in construction than in oil.
I also can't see what you are driving at with your experience, no matter what the work is, it can be dangerous, the difference is the level of danger that one sees during the times they work. You are not in danger cutting a ditch to lay the pipe in, unless you are in the trench with an operator who is clueless. You may run a pan up on a pile of loose dirt with only the width of the pan but you are not taking slopes out with a track machine at a 45 degree angle. You maybe hanging a sign but you don't do that from the time you get there to the time you leave.
ok you win the working people should just all bow down a say YES MASTER and act like the slaves they are to be .
But you didn't answer the question.
By the way, the workers in this country are not just those who do labor things, like put a nut on a bolt, they are actually everyone, including managers and professionals. I think using the Marxist definition of worker is getting pretty tiring, seeing that the middle class was not the workers but the professionals in our society until the unions decided to hijack the term.
Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention to keep it for one's self. Greed is inappropriate expectation. However, greed is applied to a very excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.
As a secular psychological concept, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
what is Extortion
Another Wiki definition, and another misplaced issue.
Greed comes in different forms, money, material things are just one aspect of greed. The power that money brings is part of the greed factor, the idea that you can laud things over the head of others to cause envy is also another part of it. Putting up a definition like that shows me you don't get what I'm saying and maybe reading again what I said will help you.
Neal Boortz has a little thing he says about the circle of political truth, I can't think what the name is that he calls it so I call it that - the circle of political truth. He says that a person gets into politics maybe with good intentions but they always seem to do the same thing - try to hold onto power no matter what. This means that they will bring to the people that elected them stuff to keep them happy while entrenching themselves in the seat they hold. The more money they bring back home, the more they can raise money to help them get reelected and the more they get reelected, the more power they gain to bring more stuff home to the people who elect them. I know I didn't say it right, he does a great job explaining it but the point is that greed is power, power is greed.
