House Republicans vote to rein in independent ethics office

[dank69]

I think he sent a message.

Removing Congressional oversight is not a priority nor is it sensible, but in calling it unfair, he also signalled a willingness to revisit it after and only after Congressional Republicans prioritize his agenda.

I am glad he put an end to such irresponsibility.

It isn't sensible to remove unfair oversight. I understand now.

 

[Vortex6700]

That's right, I don't know. That's why I have to take the word of 16 20 peer-reviewed papers that tell us how self-identified conservatives and liberals generally think.

No, you dont. Just like we didn't have to take the word of hundreds of studies saying lead was safe.

 

[Blackjack200]

No, you dont. Just like we didn't have to take the word of hundreds of studies saying lead was safe.

What?

 

[dank69]

What?

He's saying he doesn't possess the skills necessary to determine the difference between peer-reviewed studies and "studies" by "scientists" who were bankrolled by the industries their "research" happens to support.

 

[Vortex6700]

What?

Back when lead safety was in question, the guilty companies funded studies by acreddited institutions and notable scientists saying lead was safe. Turns out that scientists are people, too, and will find ways to support ideas that are popular or more likely to recieve more funding.

 

[Vortex6700]

He's saying he doesn't possess the skills necessary to determine the difference between peer-reviewed studies and "studies" by "scientists" who were bankrolled by the industries their "research" happens to support.

Or scientists that collect enough data points to find a correlation worthy of a buzzfeed article in order to get published.

 

[dank69]

Or scientists that collect enough data points to find a correlation worthy of a buzzfeed article in order to get published.

My friend, that is where the peer-review comes in.

 

[Blackjack200]

Back when lead safety was in question, the guilty companies funded studies by acreddited institutions and notable scientists saying lead was safe. Turns out that scientists are people, too, and will find ways to support ideas that are popular or more likely to recieve more funding.

I figured as much. What I don't understand is why you didn't provide a link like Dank did so I could decide for myself if the studies you're referring to are comparable in rigor to the studies he's referring to.

 

[Vortex6700]

My friend, that is where the peer-review comes in.

Plenty of p-hacked studies are peer reviewed and published. They make money.

 

[Vortex6700]

I figured as much. What I don't understand is why you didn't provide a link like Dank did so I could decide for myself if the studies you're referring to are comparable in rigor to the studies he's referring to.

I am sorry, but my resources are in print and at home. I'll get you their citations when I get home if you like.

 

[fskimospy]

Plenty of p-hacked studies are peer reviewed and published. They make money.

I think you might be overestimating the amount of funding people tend to get when they go mining for stars. Regardless, you're basically trying to discount all academic research because it has sometimes said wrong things though, which seems like a poor argument. It doesn't HAVE to be right, but it's certainly better than nothing.

 

[dank69]

Plenty of p-hacked studies are peer reviewed and published. They make money.

Good thing for me that procon.org is a non-profit

 

[kage69]

Plenty of p-hacked studies are peer reviewed and published. They make money.

This is correct. A good example would be the recent sugar study. Corporations have succeeded in corrupting science, particularly in America, for some time now. The issue of lead is a great example. While the rest of the world realized how horrible it was to people, especially kids, America decided 'humble' lead needed some government-backed PR efforts and enhanced use. While we eventually joined the rest of the developed world in believing the dangers, we also allowed the lead industry to drag that out for as long as possible, with the health of Americans paying the price the whole way.

 

[Vortex6700]

Good thing for me that procon.org is a non-profit

That's not how scientific papers work. The publisher is in the citations. Funding is not profit, but it is still money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nothing is productive with conservatives. Nothing. Short of a life-changing event, that is.

And when everyone is a Conservative because they don't agree with you and "all Conservatives think alike" then the left is pretty screwed up too. Well that's been the case.

As far as independent oversight we need more not less, and most importantly if impossible is to get the ideologues and political hacks out of it. Won't happen, but it needs to.

 

[dank69]

That's not how scientific papers work. The publisher is in the citations. Funding is not profit, but it is still money.

I'm saying why would procon risk its image as a reliable source by publishing garbage? Did they build up a reputation as a reliable source all these years just so it could trick people into believing these 20 studies?

 

[dank69]

And when everyone is a Conservative because they don't agree with you and "all Conservatives think alike" then the left is pretty screwed up too. Well that's been the case.

As far as independent oversight we need more not less, and most importantly if impossible is to get the ideologues and political hacks out of it. Won't happen, but it needs to.

Yes you got me. I run around claiming everyone is a conservative whenever they disagree with me. Your problem with me is that I don't think that just because you break with Republicans when it comes to war and some social issues, that it makes you an independent. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am pretty sure you are still a low-taxes, small-government guy at heart.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes you got me. I run around claiming everyone is a conservative whenever they disagree with me. Your problem with me is that I don't think that just because you break with Republicans when it comes to war and some social issues, that it makes you an independent. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am pretty sure you are still a low-taxes, small-government guy at heart.

You are wrong. I'm absolutely in favor of a government which acts to facilitate our society which is run prudently without partisan considerations. I would like one that represents and serves all of us and taxes put to good use are just fine with me. You make claims about "small government" and yet you could not find where I am explicitly for it, nor am I for something larger than it need to be. What is proper, prudent, and necessary including safety nets.

I am not a fan of incompetence, and the constant problems with bureaucracy as we've seen with the VA. I'm for healthcare reform, real healthcare reform, not a political construct, but radical changes. Those charged with such changes should be experts in all aspects of care, selected on recognized merit to create a unified system based on needs, and well tested and understood with patient care being the priority. Improved outcomes reduces costs and the program of withholding payment for performance is outright stupidity and it failed as expected. No reform, just a stick, but it looks good come election time.

Nope.

Put those who know in charge. Won't happen because it might not be the Democrats political solution nor the Republican's either. Just what works for the nation and the patient. If some politician or party can't claim ownership, that will be THE point which strangles any such approach. People here shouted down this approach, the liberals to be specific, when I suggested this comprehensive approach over Obamacare. You would have thought I was burning Obama at the stake, and being quote "A corporate shill". Now would you back it or does it have to fit your political agenda? Is a liberal one who insists a Senator who has precious little time and zero understanding run things with "experts" based on political outcomes and ideology? Can a different approach be had or must a liberal be as inflexible as a conservative and the "free market" approach?

What are the limits you place to prevent the best government possible for the sake of party, ideology and the old way of doing things?

 

[Phynaz]

It isn't sensible to remove unfair oversight. I understand now.

How do you feel about Democrats that don't like the OCE? Obama's Housing Secretary said "the OCE is “unfair and sometimes abusive” to lawmakers." He introduced an amendment to cut OCE funding by 40%.

How about Charles Rangel - "There’s absolutely no need for this group"?

I'm betting you don't even know what the OCE is, you're just doing a typical Republican=bad knee jerk response.

 

[fskimospy]

How do you feel about Democrats that don't like the OCE? Obama's Housing Secretary said "the OCE is “unfair and sometimes abusive” to lawmakers." He introduced an amendment to cut OCE funding by 40%.

How about Charles Rangel - "There’s absolutely no need for this group"?

I'm betting you don't even know what the OCE is, you're just doing a typical Republican=bad knee jerk response.

Uhmm, Charlie Rangel is a great example of why there IS a need for OCE.

I'm sure plenty of lawmakers from both parties have come out against OCE after being investigated by it. I mean... duh. That doesn't change the fact that only one party has voted to effectively abolish it.

 

[Phynaz]

That doesn't change the fact that only one party has voted to effectively abolish it.

So what? Are you saying that it's OK for Democrats to abolish things but not Republicans?

 

[fskimospy]

So what? Are you saying that it's OK for Democrats to abolish things but not Republicans?

No, I'm saying only one party tried to abolish it - the Republicans.

You're trying to conflate individual lawmakers saying they don't like OCE with an entire party not only proposing to effectively eliminate it but passing that proposal with a strong majority vote that they only rescinded after a massive public outcry. One shows individuals that are likely corrupt, the other shows an ENTIRE PARTY that is likely corrupt.

 

[Puffnstuff]

We need to develop a dirty word list for this administration so let me start: ethics, oversight, regulation, enforcement, judicial prudence, obligatory consideration and legal governance. Sheesh, I feel dirty already.

 

[dank69]

How do you feel about Democrats that don't like the OCE? Obama's Housing Secretary said "the OCE is “unfair and sometimes abusive” to lawmakers." He introduced an amendment to cut OCE funding by 40%.

How about Charles Rangel - "There’s absolutely no need for this group"?

I'm betting you don't even know what the OCE is, you're just doing a typical Republican=bad knee jerk response.

From what little I know about Rangel he is a scumbag.

I could see the possibility that people could abuse the OCE but that doesn't mean cut their funding or power. I am sure there are better ways to prevent frivolous abuse.

 

[dank69]

You are wrong. I'm absolutely in favor of a government which acts to facilitate our society which is run prudently without partisan considerations. I would like one that represents and serves all of us and taxes put to good use are just fine with me. You make claims about "small government" and yet you could not find where I am explicitly for it, nor am I for something larger than it need to be. What is proper, prudent, and necessary including safety nets.

I am not a fan of incompetence, and the constant problems with bureaucracy as we've seen with the VA. I'm for healthcare reform, real healthcare reform, not a political construct, but radical changes. Those charged with such changes should be experts in all aspects of care, selected on recognized merit to create a unified system based on needs, and well tested and understood with patient care being the priority. Improved outcomes reduces costs and the program of withholding payment for performance is outright stupidity and it failed as expected. No reform, just a stick, but it looks good come election time.

Nope.

Put those who know in charge. Won't happen because it might not be the Democrats political solution nor the Republican's either. Just what works for the nation and the patient. If some politician or party can't claim ownership, that will be THE point which strangles any such approach. People here shouted down this approach, the liberals to be specific, when I suggested this comprehensive approach over Obamacare. You would have thought I was burning Obama at the stake, and being quote "A corporate shill". Now would you back it or does it have to fit your political agenda? Is a liberal one who insists a Senator who has precious little time and zero understanding run things with "experts" based on political outcomes and ideology? Can a different approach be had or must a liberal be as inflexible as a conservative and the "free market" approach?

What are the limits you place to prevent the best government possible for the sake of party, ideology and the old way of doing things?

I don't work in the medical field so how could I form a strong opinion about what should be done? Seems like universal healthcare would be the way to go followed closely by single payer. Maybe you could tell me why neither of these systems would be the ideal solution.