lobbyists on pace for a record year

[bushwacked]

weak dodge

 

it's too bad ursa pulled the rug out from under you there.

 

Uh-huh.

[bpwallace49]

this is pretty simple, really. the more the environment is such that businesses feel they can gain market share by currying political favor, the more money they will shovel in that direction.

 

Isnt it actually the opposite? The more the environment is hostile to business special interests, they HAVE to spend MORE money to try and get their agendas passed?

 

If the environment is already pro-business and business is booming, why spend MORE when you dont have to?

 

ASIDE: When i worked for a congressman, the lobbyists were the hottest women you have ever seen. . . . with advanced degrees to boot. I loooooved every time a lobbyist walked in . . as it really brightened up my day.

[WaterMan]

How can the normal American get a lobbyist job?

[westvirginia]

They are - just like conservatives are heartless billionaires and evangelical rednecks.

 

Don't forget "neo-con" or "tea-bagger"

 

And BP, do you really believe what you're saying? Especially in light of the bald-faced vote buying that just went on for this health-care monstrosity? You're grasping at straws here dude.

[bpwallace49]

Don't forget "neo-con" or "tea-bagger"

 

And BP, do you really believe what you're saying? Especially in light of the bald-faced vote buying that just went on for this health-care monstrosity? You're grasping at straws here dude.

 

Oh . . i think all lobbyists and politicians are crooks . . .

 

But if company A is lobbying a political party that ALREADY supports its interests, and then the opposite party is elected . . . . isnt it logical to assume that they would need to spend MORE money lobbying to get their business-friendly legislation passed?

 

Here is a specific partisan example. The right tends to be very supportive of big business with deep pockets. The left purports itself to be the champion of social issues and the downtrodden. Which side has MORE money to spend to buy votes when "their" party isnt in control?

[westvirginia]

Oh . . i think all lobbyists and politicians are crooks . . .

 

But if company A is lobbying a political party that ALREADY supports its interests, and then the opposite party is elected . . . . isnt it logical to assume that they would need to spend MORE money lobbying to get their business-friendly legislation passed?

 

Here is a specific partisan example. The right tends to be very supportive of big business with deep pockets. The left purports itself to be the champion of social issues and the downtrodden. Which side has MORE money to spend to buy votes when "their" party isnt in control?

 

Sorry man, I ain't buyin'. Remember the big uproar about microsoft when slick willie was in office? Gates never gave money to ANY politicians of either party - until he was threatened with an anti-trust suit.

 

Let's say you're right. What does it prove? That the donkeys just cost more this time around since the heffalumps are out of power and they have the monopoly? Yeah, that's great, honest, transparent governance right there. Most open and transparent congress in history? Riiiiiiiiight...

[bpwallace49]

Sorry man, I ain't buyin'. Remember the big uproar about microsoft when slick willie was in office? Gates never gave money to ANY politicians of either party - until he was threatened with an anti-trust suit.

 

Let's say you're right. What does it prove? That the donkeys just cost more this time around since the heffalumps are out of power and they have the monopoly? Yeah, that's great, honest, transparent governance right there. Most open and transparent congress in history? Riiiiiiiiight...

 

You erroneously think that I am somehow supporting the left here. I firmly beleive ALL politicians are crooks. The left just isnt as obvious about it as the right is.

 

It is more an indictment on ALL politicians in general . . .

[bushwacked]

Yeah, that's great, honest, transparent governance right there. Most open and transparent congress in history? Riiiiiiiiight...

You're misplacing the slogan on the wrong branch of gubbment. My sources tell me the nearly 500 members of congress really didn't unanimously buy into that slogan.

[westvirginia]

You're misplacing the slogan on the wrong branch of gubbment. My sources tell me the nearly 500 members of congress really didn't unanimously buy into that slogan.

 

I was slightly off on the quote

 

"The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," Pelosi said.

 

How embarrassing for you, Corky.

[gbpfan1231]

I was slightly off on the quote

 

 

 

How embarrassing for you, Corky.

I don't know how to quote your quote by Pelosi but I am now pissed. I read that quote and spit my coffee all over my PC. I am not sure how this reform will all end up but I would have to say the way they went about it was a complete joke.

[bushwacked]

I was slightly off on the quote

 

 

 

How embarrassing for you, Corky.

 

I'm so embarrassed and stuff....

[Azazello1313]

Isnt it actually the opposite? The more the environment is hostile to business special interests, they HAVE to spend MORE money to try and get their agendas passed?

 

If the environment is already pro-business and business is booming, why spend MORE when you dont have to?

 

so you're saying all the lobbyist and special interest money is pouring into washington in record amounts because government has suddenly become so squeaky clean and incorruptible?

 

the issue here is the more power under washington's thumb, the more the politicians rather than the marketplace are picking the winners and losers, the more advantage there is system-wide to trying to curry favor with the political power-brokers. if the government is taking a more hands-off approach (which is what I want), then that money going to lobbyists would be far better spent on R&D, advertising, etc. -- because the payoff will be there, rather than in legislative loopholes and regulation and corporate welfare. and no, I'm not saying republicans have been good on this issue, because it has been growing like crazy the last decade. it just seems to be getting worse, rather than better, under obama. and that's because government is just wrapping its tentacles around more and more.

[Perchoutofwater]

so you're saying all the lobbyist and special interest money is pouring into washington in record amounts because government has suddenly become so squeaky clean and incorruptible?

 

the issue here is the more power under washington's thumb, the more the politicians rather than the marketplace are picking the winners and losers, the more advantage there is system-wide to trying to curry favor with the political power-brokers. if the government is taking a more hands-off approach (which is what I want), then that money going to lobbyists would be far better spent on R&D, advertising, etc. -- because the payoff will be there, rather than in legislative loopholes and regulation and corporate welfare.

 

+1

[bpwallace49]

so you're saying all the lobbyist and special interest money is pouring into washington in record amounts because government has suddenly become so squeaky clean and incorruptible?

 

the issue here is the more power under washington's thumb, the more the politicians rather than the marketplace are picking the winners and losers, the more advantage there is system-wide to trying to curry favor with the political power-brokers. if the government is taking a more hands-off approach (which is what I want), then that money going to lobbyists would be far better spent on R&D, advertising, etc. -- because the payoff will be there, rather than in legislative loopholes and regulation and corporate welfare. and no, I'm not saying republicans have been good on this issue, because it has been growing like crazy the last decade. it just seems to be getting worse, rather than better, under obama. and that's because government is just wrapping its tentacles around more and more.

 

You idea has SOME merit . . but dont you see the obvious correllation between parties here?

 

When the right was in office, lobbyist didnt have to spend as much because the politicians were already bought and paid for.

 

Now when the left is in power, the businesses that have traditionally been coddled by business-friendly repubs now have to spend MORE to get their agendas passed. (and they WILL get passed, as the the left is BY NO MEANS speaky clean and incorruptable). The left is just trying to figure out ways to be as slick as possible to not offend theor voters.

 

Az, if you and perch REALLY think that the right hasnt been bought and paid for by big business for years, then you are blind as a bat. They really arent too subtle about it . . . It requires more money to buy the left because they need to GET RE ELECTED and figure out more under the counter ways to "launder" the lobbyist money.

 

Same result, but it just takes more to buy the Democrats than the Republicans because the right ALREADY has been working for corporate America . . . see the difference?

[bushwacked]

You idea has SOME merit . . but dont you see the obvious correllation between parties here?

 

When the right was in office, lobbyist didnt have to spend as much because the politicians were already bought and paid for.

 

Now when the left is in power, the businesses that have traditionally been coddled by business-friendly repubs now have to spend MORE to get their agendas passed. (and they WILL get passed, as the the left is BY NO MEANS speaky clean and incorruptable). The left is just trying to figure out ways to be as slick as possible to not offend theor voters.

 

Which is pretty much echoed in one of the opening paragraphs:

 

Plenty of sectors have scaled back their K Street spending, including traditional big spenders like real estate and telecommunications. But Obama’s push for legislation on health reform, financial reform and climate change has compensated for the grim economic times.

[bpwallace49]

Which is pretty much echoed in one of the opening paragraphs:

 

Agreed!

[Perchoutofwater]

Az, if you and perch REALLY think that the right hasnt been bought and paid for by big business for years, then you are blind as a bat.

 

Which is why I didn't quote what AZ said concerning Obama with my +1. I think AZ has it right though. The right is usually for less government intervention, and that is really what most businesses want anyway, and why most business owners are conservative. It stands to reason that businesses would spend more in lobbying to keep governments tenticles out of their industry, or limit the impact of the government impact on their industry.

 

You wouldn't see any lobbying if the government hadn't been bastardized into what it is today, playing favorite through tax policy, subsidies, welfare, etc...If we could some how get back to what is written in the constituion it would do away with most of the graft in the government. Unfortunately that is probably a pipe dream, and we will continue this nightmare of graft, greed, and big government until there is nobody left to pay for it.

[bpwallace49]

The right is usually for less government intervention, and that is really what most businesses want anyway, and why most business owners are conservative. It stands to reason that businesses would spend more in lobbying to keep governments tenticles out of their industry, or limit the impact of the government impact on their industry.

 

mainly through getting out of paying taxes and favorable regulations that either skirt laws or circumvent them entirely?

 

Damn gubmnet tentacles . . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

mainly through getting out of paying taxes and favorable regulations that either skirt laws or circumvent them entirely?

 

Damn gubmnet tentacles . . . .

 

How many Lobbyist were there in 1929? Once government expanded and politicians started playing favorites to get re-elected lobbyist started appearing. BTW, there are plenty of laws that need to repealed. Just because it is law doesn't mean it is in the public's best interest.

[Ursa Majoris]

How many Lobbyist were there in 1929? Once government expanded and politicians started playing favorites to get re-elected lobbyist started appearing. BTW, there are plenty of laws that need to repealed. Just because it is law doesn't mean it is in the public's best interest.

Government corruption pre-1929 largely exceeded today. Lobbyists weren't necessary for the titans of the Gilded Age.

[Perchoutofwater]

Government corruption pre-1929 largely exceeded today. Lobbyists weren't necessary for the titans of the Gilded Age.

 

I thought you told me Cheney and Halliburton was the pinnacle of corruption just a few years ago. But you are right, Lincoln and his ties to the railroads and northern industialists was much worse than anything we see today. But back then it was a different era, He didn't try to hide what he was doing, if you disagreed with him, he just took your paper and put you in jail right beside a supreme court justice. I wasn't talking about out right in your face curruption, but the more subtle version we see today.

[Ursa Majoris]

I thought you told me Cheney and Halliburton was the pinnacle of corruption just a few years ago. But you are right, Lincoln and his ties to the railroads and northern industialists was much worse than anything we see today. But back then it was a different era, He didn't try to hide what he was doing, if you disagreed with him, he just took your paper and put you in jail right beside a supreme court justice. I wasn't talking about out right in your face curruption, but the more subtle version we see today.

It's corrupt whichever way you look at it but the obvious answer - publicly financed elections - isn't acceptable to you folks for some reason.

[Perchoutofwater]

It's corrupt whichever way you look at it but the obvious answer - publicly financed elections - isn't acceptable to you folks for some reason.

 

I'd be all for publicly financed elections if we limit voters to those that are net tax payers. Heck in the last election cycle there was on candidate that was publicly fiananced and one that said he was going the public fianance route but decided not to at the last minute. Which one did you vote for?

[Ursa Majoris]

I'd be all for publicly financed elections if we limit voters to those that are net tax payers.

You cannot be serious. Why not issue votes based on how much money you've got?

[Perchoutofwater]

You cannot be serious. Why not issue votes based on how much money you've got?

 

No, I'm very serious. Why should someone that doesn't conttribute to the government coffers have any say in how my money is spent? If the crack ho had something at stake she might be a little less likely to spend my money for me as she would be spending hers as well. Unfortunately Ben Franklin was right, when he said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic", unfortunatley it seems as though we have finally reached that point.

 

BTW, you didn't answer, did you vote for the publicly funded candidate or ther privately funded candidate in the last presidential election?

Edited January 5, 2010 by Perchoutofwater