Hillary Defends Special Interest Lobbyists

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

AARP for seniors, teachers union for teachers. The AFL-CIO have people as members. She is the only one with an ounce of brain.

Which is not saying much. As for the examples you cited, most of these special interest groups have taken on a life of their own, and are just another part of the political machina.

Our elected representatives are supposed to serve the needs of the people...instead, we have special interests who buy out the loyalty of politicians seeking to prolong their political careers.

So yes, Hillary is the only one with an ounce of brain towards leveraging the very system that continues to destroy our system of government.

How do your destroy something that is already DESTROYED ...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Topic Title: Hillary Defends Special Interest Lobbyists

Special Interests is what you get with career politicians.

Until the country wakes up and decides to either dump them or revolution we are stuck with this corrupt system.

Yes we badly need term limits. The President has one, why can't Congress?

I read a very disturbing article, if I wasn't so lazy I'd look for it online and post it for discussion.

The point of the article was earmarks. Now that there's disclosure an unintended effect is occurring. The Congresspersons are proud to have their names attached to the earmarks. They are viewing earmarks as a merit badge. The Dems seem to be doing a better job than Repubs ATM with the spending. But looks doubtful that will hold.

It seems our elected Senators and House members have turned Congress into nothing more than a giant ATM machine doling out taxpayer to special interests or their home district projects.

That's not the purpose of Congress.

Moreover, without term limits *smart* people are forced to vote for the incumbant. The longer you're Congress (senority) the more money you bring home. :thumbsdown:

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know why everyone makes a big deal out of lobbying groups.

Lobbying groups play advocates for groups in society.

FYI the largest lobbying group in the US is the AARP. Not big biz, not these "special interest groups" we keep hearing about...

Ummm.. AARP is nothing but a BIG business masqerading (sp?) as Senior Citizens non-profit org. It was started by insurance salesman who figured it out how much he could make off senior citizens.

Fern

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
Topic Title: Hillary Defends Special Interest Lobbyists

Special Interests is what you get with career politicians.

Until the country wakes up and decides to either dump them or revolution we are stuck with this corrupt system.

Yes we badly need term limits. The President has one, why can't Congress?

I read a very disturbing article, if I wasn't so lazy I'd look for it online and post it for discussion.

The point of the article was earmarks. Now that there's disclosure an unintended effect is occurring. The Congresspersons are proud to have their names attached to the earmarks. They are viewing earmarks as a merit badge. The Dems seem to be doing a better job than Repubs ATM with the spending. But looks doubtful that will hold.

It seems our elected Senators and House members have turned Congress into nothing more than a giant ATM machine doling out taxpayer to special interests or their home district projects.

That's not the purpose of Congress.

Moreover, without term limits *smart* people are forced to vote for the incumbant. The longer you're Congress (senority) the more money you bring home. :thumbsdown:

Fern

Yes, earmarks have gone up becuase everyone wants earmarks. The good thing about this is that people can see the bad earmarks, like the 200 million bridge to nowhere, see who put it in, and vote against it. Then, they can tar and feather the senator or rep.

 

[Fern]

Umm, HACP the people of Alaska aren't gonna tar & feather Stevens for that.

Maybe the rest of the country would, but hat does he care? We're not *his* voters.

That's one of the problems.

Another is how this Dem Congress is doing it. The Committee Chairman decides what earmarks to put in the bill. They are ALL then voted up or down. That way, all the earmarks are gauranteed to pass. There is no individual vote on each earmark.

All that can happen is Bush vetos the entire bill. The most that will happen is a few earmarks for any Repub districts will be eliminated. Maybe some for *junior* legislators. The senior people are gonna get their earmarks.

In a perverted (and unintended) way this gives the Congressional leadership a lot of power over individual Congresspersons. The power should rest with the people of their district.

If you don't do what the leadership says etc, or are unpopular like a reformer - No earmarks for you. Hence, you're not re-elected.

The Congressional system is FUBAR'd

Fern

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Fern
Umm, HACP the people of Alaska aren't gonna tar & feather Stevens for that.

Maybe the rest of the country would, but hat does he care? We're not *his* voters.

That's one of the problems.

Another is how this Dem Congress is doing it. The Committee Chairman decides what earmarks to put in the bill. They are ALL then voted up or down. That way, all the earmarks are gauranteed to pass. There is no individual vote on each earmark.

All that can happen is Bush vetos the entire bill. The most that will happen is a few earmarks for any Repub districts will be eliminated. Maybe some for *junior* legislators. The senior people are gonna get their earmarks.

In a perverted (and unintended) way this gives the Congressional leadership a lot of power over individual Congresspersons. The power should rest with the people of their district.

If you don't do what the leadership says etc, or are unpopular like a reformer - No earmarks for you. Hence, you're not re-elected.

The Congressional system is FUBAR'd

Fern

I'm pretty sure you can vote for or against a particular earmark.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Hacp
www.opensecrets.org, they show you which industries contribute. Obama might not be taking Washington Lobbyist money, but he sure isn't raising the bulk of his funds from average joe.

There's also a story on Politico.

This is not what I have heard.

I'm not finding the story pertinent to Obama and lobbyist money on opensecrets.org, however, I did find this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...nordems.asp?cycle=2008

Among the top three candidates from each party, here is how much each got from donors of $200 or less by percentage of total:

8% Clinton
10% Romney
21% Giuliani
22% Edwards
23% McCain
27% Obama

Here's those same candidates with percentage of total donors who gave less than $2300, exclusive:

29% Clinton
47% Giuliani
50% Romney
55% McCain
56% Obama
57% Edwards

So, assuming the "average joe" gives less than big industry, Obama is certainly getting a good amount of his from normal people when compared among those top six.

Obama counts every tshirt and sticker that he sells as in individual donation of less than 200.

your point???

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Fern

--snip-

Fern

I'm pretty sure you can vote for or against a particular earmark.

Nope, the Dem Committe Chairman has decided on the system I described above.

But even in the past, the full Congress only got to vote on an all or nothing - but I think the Committee members ( and possibly some sub-committees) had more input.

If I remember, I'll see if I can link you with up something. I think I may have read about in the paper, as opposed to seeing him on TV.

Fern

Edit: My apologies to Hacp. I've found that whole *earmark* process is still unsettled and won't be resolved until after recess, if the article I read is accurate

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Hacp
www.opensecrets.org, they show you which industries contribute. Obama might not be taking Washington Lobbyist money, but he sure isn't raising the bulk of his funds from average joe.

There's also a story on Politico.

This is not what I have heard.

I'm not finding the story pertinent to Obama and lobbyist money on opensecrets.org, however, I did find this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...nordems.asp?cycle=2008

Among the top three candidates from each party, here is how much each got from donors of $200 or less by percentage of total:

8% Clinton
10% Romney
21% Giuliani
22% Edwards
23% McCain
27% Obama

Here's those same candidates with percentage of total donors who gave less than $2300, exclusive:

29% Clinton
47% Giuliani
50% Romney
55% McCain
56% Obama
57% Edwards

So, assuming the "average joe" gives less than big industry, Obama is certainly getting a good amount of his from normal people when compared among those top six.

Obama counts every tshirt and sticker that he sells as in individual donation of less than 200.

your point???

My point is that the numbers lie. If you're buying a Tshirt, it isn't really a "donation".

 

[piasabird]

We need a Lobbyist Tax!

Political Spending Tax!

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

your point???

My point is that the numbers lie. If you're buying a Tshirt, it isn't really a "donation".

A quick check of the website shows the shirts sell for as much as $25. (Do people really pay $25 for a t-shirt? )

It may not be a $25 donation, but at least $5 of that is pure donation, and that buyer, thus a "donor" The $31 million total donations may not be as real as it seems, but the 250,000 total donors sure is...

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: piasabird
We need a Lobbyist Tax!

Political Spending Tax!

Assuming people received the money they're contributing through income and because they're not tax deductible, their political contributions are already taxed