Obama puts leash on lobbyists for transition

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
When I said downsizing I pretty much meant cutting the corruption and other lobbyists that are lobbying for their own wealth and nothing more.

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It is that speculation which is leading people to believe that he is back peddling on promises and not the man's actions.

So should we issue a discussion freeze in P&N for the remainder of the year? All we have to talk about is speculative right now.

Obviously not but how one words such a thing is very important and I believe it is everyone's responsibility since such things do effect the country and we all live under the same roof. If what one is talking about is speculation then make it very clear that it is nothing more than speculation. A lot of people talk "speculation" as if it were a very likely fact and that is not good imo. They also word things in such a way that is designed to purposely distract others like calling Obama's "change" as nothing but "the same" when the truth is not a single ounce of change has even occurred yet because the man has no power to do so right now. What good does that do anyone? I see as only being potentially counter productive.

Well put. :thumbsup: We'll see what happens 1 year from now.

 

[trenchfoot]

The other side of the equation is the legislators and admin staff that are in cahoots with or are susceptible to the lobbyist's intent to corrupt for the purpose of acquiring leverage and favor. These crooks who hold public office also have to be reigned in too.

Stevens is just the tip of the iceburg as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RightIsWrong]

While I like the fact that the rules are stricter and I really like the fact that you cannot work in a capacity that would have benefited a recent industry that you lobbied for, Obama should have made his campaign talking points about lobbyist reform and not lobbyist banishment if that was the true intent.

+1 for the new rules
-1 for the campaign lip service

Overall, a wash that leans more positive but was certainly misleading.

 

[retrospooty]

I am torn on this... Making the strictest rules ever against lobbyists is a great thing (not allowed to work in any related field)... props to Obama... But I thought the whole thing was going to be no lobbyists at all-ever. Bummer.

I would like it to be more strict, but the good thing is he has "also refused to take money from federal lobbyists, and lobbyists will also be banned from giving to the transition"

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I am torn on this... Making the strictest rules ever against lobbyists is a great thing (not allowed to work in any related field)... props to Obama... But I thought the whole thing was going to be no lobbyists at all-ever. Bummer.

I would like it to be more strict, but the good thing is he has "also refused to take money from federal lobbyists, and lobbyists will also be banned from giving to the transition"

Without lobbyists politicians would have no clue as to what is going on in the country. It's not like CNN/Fox ect report daily on the advantages of a resevoir in bum fuck middle of no where. Lobbyists obviously have some issues, but you cannot get "rid" of them, they are a fundamental part of politics and have existed since politics was established. Hell, they even existed in the Middle ages during our Theocracy/Divine right days.

All you can hope to do is lessen the possible corruption they can have, which is what Obama is doing.

 

[bamacre]

Lobbyists aren't the problem. Congress is the problem.

And if you want to get rid of lobbyists, get government out of the market. It is the only reason they are there.

 

[alien42]

my neighbor is a newly elected state Representative and his wife is a lawyer with a firm in DC. she sent the Obama campaign a $10 check before the election and they sent it back saying they could not accept lobbyist money (because of her firm).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alien42
my neighbor is a newly elected state Representative and his wife is a lawyer with a firm in DC. she sent the Obama campaign a $10 check before the election and they sent it back saying they could not accept lobbyist money (because of her firm).

So she just donated online with her credit card and put a fake name on it?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: alien42
my neighbor is a newly elected state Representative and his wife is a lawyer with a firm in DC. she sent the Obama campaign a $10 check before the election and they sent it back saying they could not accept lobbyist money (because of her firm).

Thats really cool. Sounds like he ran a really strict campaign.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Lobbyists aren't the problem. Congress is the problem.

And if you want to get rid of lobbyists, get government out of the market. It is the only reason they are there.

Whatever. You keep on pretending that a whole big different set of problems doesn't exist when all of the power is given to the market. The answer is proper balance and adaptation of that balance over time. Not giving all power to one side or the other.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Obviously Obama is not going to be able to deliver on ALL of his promises.

But I'd rather have a President that aimed for the moon than one who just didn't want to try.

There is a difference between talking about going to the moon, and actually trying to go to the moon.

Thats why Obama is trying to go to the moon!!

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: alien42
my neighbor is a newly elected state Representative and his wife is a lawyer with a firm in DC. she sent the Obama campaign a $10 check before the election and they sent it back saying they could not accept lobbyist money (because of her firm).

So she just donated online with her credit card and put a fake name on it?

More duhhversion + strawman tactics

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: alien42
my neighbor is a newly elected state Representative and his wife is a lawyer with a firm in DC. she sent the Obama campaign a $10 check before the election and they sent it back saying they could not accept lobbyist money (because of her firm).

So she just donated online with her credit card and put a fake name on it?

More duhhversion + strawman tactics

Off-topic a tad but definately not a strawman. It is a FACT that you could do just as I stated and if people did get donations returned - they could easily just do it online to bypass the "lobbyist" rejection.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre
Lobbyists aren't the problem. Congress is the problem.

And if you want to get rid of lobbyists, get government out of the market. It is the only reason they are there.

Whatever. You keep on pretending that a whole big different set of problems doesn't exist when all of the power is given to the market. The answer is proper balance and adaptation of that balance over time. Not giving all power to one side or the other.

And you keep pretending we get something even resembling "balance" with government.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre
Lobbyists aren't the problem. Congress is the problem.

And if you want to get rid of lobbyists, get government out of the market. It is the only reason they are there.

Whatever. You keep on pretending that a whole big different set of problems doesn't exist when all of the power is given to the market. The answer is proper balance and adaptation of that balance over time. Not giving all power to one side or the other.

And you keep pretending we get something even resembling "balance" with government.

I don't pretend that we do currently. I just vote and push for it to happen now.

Remember, radical capitalism is just as evil as radical socialism...just in a different way with different problems. Moving heavily towards one or the other is equally as destructive.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: alien42
my neighbor is a newly elected state Representative and his wife is a lawyer with a firm in DC. she sent the Obama campaign a $10 check before the election and they sent it back saying they could not accept lobbyist money (because of her firm).

So she just donated online with her credit card and put a fake name on it?

More duhhversion + strawman tactics

Off-topic a tad but definately not a strawman. It is a FACT that you could do just as I stated and if people did get donations returned - they could easily just do it online to bypass the "lobbyist" rejection.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, but just for shits and giggles let us assume that it can. Just because something can happen doesn't mean we condemn or accuse anyone of it actually happening. It also doesn't mean that it is likely to happen. You are grasping at straws.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, radical capitalism is just as evil as radical socialism

Oh? Example of "radical capitalism?"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Lobbyists aren't the problem. Congress is the problem.

And if you want to get rid of lobbyists, get government out of the market. It is the only reason they are there.

The lobbyists don't want that. Sorry, no dice. Next wing-nut idea please.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
Lobbyists aren't the problem. Congress is the problem.

And if you want to get rid of lobbyists, get government out of the market. It is the only reason they are there.

The lobbyists don't want that. Sorry, no dice. Next wing-nut idea please.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, radical capitalism is just as evil as radical socialism

Oh? Example of "radical capitalism?"

What's the point? Even if I give an example you will never believe me and you will only counter it with bullshit about how market competition prevents all problems. That or you will tie in some minor form of government involvement and blame it all on that instead despite any kind of reality. You and I have talked about such things before.

Besides, it is completely off topic to this thread. It is also a waste of time to talk about because quite frankly what you and your failed party want will never happen for many reasons and one of those reasons is simple representation or should I say lack there of? How many votes did Ron Paul the Cultist get this election?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: alien42
my neighbor is a newly elected state Representative and his wife is a lawyer with a firm in DC. she sent the Obama campaign a $10 check before the election and they sent it back saying they could not accept lobbyist money (because of her firm).

So she just donated online with her credit card and put a fake name on it?

More duhhversion + strawman tactics

Off-topic a tad but definately not a strawman. It is a FACT that you could do just as I stated and if people did get donations returned - they could easily just do it online to bypass the "lobbyist" rejection.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, but just for shits and giggles let us assume that it can. Just because something can happen doesn't mean we condemn or accuse anyone of it actually happening. It also doesn't mean that it is likely to happen. You are grasping at straws.

:roll: sure - "prove" the unprovable since BHO won't release the records of campaign donations under $200. But the FACT is - it could be done EASILY since they didn't implement(conscious choice) normal address verification checks on their online donation collections.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: RichardE
The problem with "downsizing" them is the little man always gets shafted. Say I work as a lobbyist for the health care industry, and my firm can afford 30 lobbyists for a cause of say... lower perscriptions for people in poverty. We get a pharmaceutical company that can afford 300 lobbyists plus think tanks that publish papers in WSJ, Atlantic, ect ect ect saying that they need all the money possible for R&D. Obama passes legislation that effectively cuts in half the amount of lobbyists each firm can have on the hill (this would never happen and is impossible to implement but we're disccusing hypotheticals). Who would that affect more?

I don't think very many people actually understand what a lobbyist is and what the term is used to describe. MLK was a lobbyist, he lobbies politicians on behalf of blacks for changes and equality. Is that a bad lobbyist or a good lobbyist? Logging companies seeking protection from Canadas wood lobby the government asking for that protection to protect American jobs, is that good or bad lobbying?

As I said before, people have no idea really what a lobbyist is, or the fact that the term lobbyist means so much, its like me saying "health care workers are bad" Well, do I mean doctors? Nurses? Secretaries? What excatly is bad? The billing practices? The services? ect ect". Obama was smart to use this term for some votes of change, and the moves he makes so far are pretty significant as far as lessening the ability of lobbyist to directly influences the markets they work for.

Its significant in the fact his changes lower corruption in the government, as before the lobbyist for a health care company could work on health care related inititives which is obviously a conflict of interests, now they can't. This was the change that should have been made and he did, asking for a change of removing lobbyist shows a great ignoance of the role they actually play in politics.

nice post. I agree with this 100%.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I wouldn't be so sure about that, but just for shits and giggles let us assume that it can. Just because something can happen doesn't mean we condemn or accuse anyone of it actually happening. It also doesn't mean that it is likely to happen. You are grasping at straws.

:roll: sure - "prove" the unprovable since BHO won't release the records of campaign donations under $200. But the FACT is - it could be done EASILY since they didn't implement(conscious choice) normal address verification checks on their online donation collections.

And then what? You got a shit load of crappy data regarding donations. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of why crooked lobbyists choose to invest? Don't they want Obama to know that they are donating crap loads of money to him?

Look, in the end you can speculate all the way to the National Enquirer if you want but the fact of the matter is that nothing you say can even remotely be proved and nor is there anything extra fishy going on here. All we can do is wait and see what happens. The answer for this country is not to damn a man based on speculation and weak evidence to satisfy some theory that originates from a guy who already hates him before he has even had the chance to do a single thing as president.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, radical capitalism is just as evil as radical socialism

Oh? Example of "radical capitalism?"

What's the point? Even if I give an example...

Can you even give me an example?

...how market competition prevents all problems.

Oh, I would never say that. It prevents a whole hell of a lot less problems.

Besides, it is completely off topic to this thread. It is also a waste of time to talk about because quite frankly what you and your failed party want will never happen for many reasons and one of those reasons is simple representation or should I say lack there of? How many votes did Ron Paul the Cultist get this election?

And I sure won't deny the lack of electability of those in favor of free markets and social liberalism. Why would I expect a bunch of bigoted republicans and gimme gimme Democrats to vote for them? I don't have faith in these constituents you put on a pedestal.

If 10 trillion dollar debts and trillion dollar bailouts won't wake you or anyone else up, I can only assume the country will have to completely fall apart economically before you open your eyes. Maybe.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Can you even give me an example?

Fine. There technically is no good example because there is no other country out there that is really comparable to the US when it comes to arguing about this matter, but let's take Denmark since you are so insistent. Denmark rejected radical capitalism and embraced a level of socialism that I would NEVER recommend for this country because I don't think it will work for us but it works really well for them and they didn't do it because everyone was so incredibly happy with capitalism. I'll leave the rest of the research on Denmark up to you because I don't have time to write a book.

Originally posted by: bamacre
Oh, I would never say that. It prevents a whole hell of a lot less problems.

I disagree. I just think that the problems it causes are different and I am also venturing to guess that some of the things that I view as problems are not actually problems in your mind. Hence, why you believe there are a lot less. Thankfully, enough agree with me and that is why we will never go that route.

Originally posted by: bamacre
And I sure won't deny the lack of electability of those in favor of free markets and social liberalism. Why would I expect a bunch of bigoted republicans and gimme gimme Democrats to vote for them? I don't have faith in these constituents you put on a pedestal.

If 10 trillion dollar debts and trillion dollar bailouts won't wake you or anyone else up, I can only assume the country will have to completely fall apart economically before you open your eyes. Maybe.

Complain and point out all the problems you want. The bottom line is that it makes no sense to ditch one form of government because the people hate the state that it is in for another form that is radically different and they have already declared that that do not want it anyways. There are MANY ways to skin this cat and I am not denying that your way can work in a manner of speaking. All I am claiming is that hardly anyone wants your way and if you believe in democracy and representation then that means you should understand and accept why you and your party will never get what they want in this country.

Love it or hate it. Take it or leave it. If I were you, I would leave it out of endless projections of dissatisfaction. You know you will never get what you want and that no one wants what you want anyways. Why stay when you have a higher chance of getting it elsewhere? Or is there no place for you to go?