Time.com: Government for Sale: How Lobbyists Shaped the Financial Reform Bill

[GhostofSparta]

Blaming the buyer is a cop out.....as usual.

Well the only other logical option is blaming politicians for being weak and taking what are essentially bribes/payoffs. Surely nobody's naive enough to believe that they're above that.

[Destino]

I see you didn't make any effort to reply to anything else I said in that post.

Again -- conservatives have been pro-business, so what is your issue?

Did any of them care when Enron picked their own man to watch over them? Of course not. Did they care when Cheney had a secret group of industry insiders write US energy policy? Of course not. Did they have a problem with pushes to allow business "self regulation" (the business equivalent of leaving out a tray of candy with a sign instructing children to "just take one)? No.

But when finance reform is written by the same methods they've supported all along... now it's wrong. Now Obama and the dems have to pay! Pay how? By electing people that will OPENLY support this **** and allow more of it?

Great logic.

[twa]

But when finance reform is written by the same methods they've supported all along... now it's wrong. Now Obama and the dems have to pay! Pay how? By electing people that will OPENLY support this **** and allow more of it?

Great logic.

Change you can believe in

[Destino]

I have no issue other than apologists for those that supposedly sold out.

There is no one that can be bought that is not already for sale.

Blaming the buyer is a cop out.....as usual.

This is the same shallow view of things that created the steroid era in baseball and the financial meltdown in the first place. The idea that you can have tremendous financial incentive to do something illegal in easy reach, no systems in place to prevent or catch the people that do, and expect no one to do it.

There is a reason you don't leave your car doors unlocked with your life savings in plain view on the dash board. It's because even though you know anyone that takes it would be clearly in the wrong.... you also know that someone will absolutely take it.

[Hubbs]

That is, of course, assuming that a lot of what the people associated with the Tea Party stand for can be defined as Libertarianism. Somalia gets brought up to emphasize what the government does give us, which some Tea Party people seem to take for granted.

Every resident libertarian I know on this board has the same general view of the Tea Party movement:

1. Started out with a few refreshingly libertarian ideas.

2. Was very quickly co-opted by the GOP and turned into a political tool.

3. Is now regarded with a mixture of amusement and pity. Is also way too popular amongst people who learned about the word "libertarian" from other Tea Partiers, and who honestly believe that the word means things like "Take your hands off my Medicare" and "Bomb, bomb Iran".

[Larry]

But how much did that corporation spend to have their lobbyists present at all times and in front of everyone that mattered? That's the trick. They are always present when their issues come up. The rest of America is hearing about the next law to be discussed after these folks have already given every elected official a well thought out opinion on the subject. They offer to write legal language and create support for each bill.

Recall reading a book (Mike Royko?) about corruption in Chicago.

One of the things he mentioned was that the legislature would actually summon the lobbyists.

His example was that they'd introduce a bill that would require all railroads in the state to tear up all of their track, and re-lay it, with the rails three inches further apart. This monumentally stupid bill was the legislature's way of signaling that the railroad lobbyists haven't made any contributions, lately.

Edit:

Oh, and Des, and others,

Lobbying has existed a long time before the SC defined corporations as people. Trying to blame this on that decision is like the folks trying to blame the recession on the fact that well, when it began, the poll numbers indicated that it was likely that Obama was going to win.

[Baculus]

I have no issue other than apologists for those that supposedly sold out.

There is no one that can be bought that is not already for sale.

Blaming the buyer is a cop out.....as usual.

Ah, so you are just throwing stones. Gotcha. :-)

Progressives have been anti-lobbyist since the 19th century, when Robert "Fighting Bob" La Follette opposed patronage and lobbyists influence, and lobbying reform has always been a progressive ambition in an attempt to curb monied power interests and the plutocracy. If anyone should be unhappy with lobbyists influencing reform, it should be them. Ultimately, I suspect the Democrats were trying to find a soft middle ground to appease everyone, which really means no one will be happy.

This reform is a perfect example to why the Democrats are not a party of the "far Left."

I will say this -- I really don't know how far or how much lobbyists have influenced any such reform, and whether it is mild, moderate, or extreme. So, ultimately, I can't make a judgment until I hear more.

[Baculus]

. . . But when finance reform is written by the same methods they've supported all along... now it's wrong. Now Obama and the dems have to pay! Pay how? By electing people that will OPENLY support this **** and allow more of it?

Great logic.

It's enough to make your head spin, isn't it?

[twa]

It's enough to make your head spin, isn't it?

Yes excusing the same action now is quite a spin.

[Destino]

Lobbying has existed a long time before the SC defined corporations as people. Trying to blame this on that decision is like the folks trying to blame the recession on the fact that well, when it began, the poll numbers indicated that it was likely that Obama was going to win.

Lobbying predates the US entirely. Corporate personhood came into play in the late 1800's. Their power in Washington has been growing ever since. The reason to point this stuff out now is that we are moving ever more in the wrong direction not that a recent SC decision caused it. That's just the latest step down the wrong path.

[Baculus]

Yes excusing the same action now is quite a spin.

I haven't excused the action. As I said, "Ultimately, I suspect the Democrats were trying to find a soft middle ground to appease everyone, which really means no one will be happy."

It seems like you are just throwing stones just for the heck of it, since you really don't have any issues with lobbyists being involved . . . if you even support financial reform, period.

[twa]

It seems like you are just throwing stones just for the heck of it, since you really don't have any issues with lobbyists being involved . . . if you even support financial reform, period.

The lobbyists are simply doing what they do,and are allowed to do.

You don't blame a snake for being a snake,though ya might wanna zip up your tent if ya don't want them around;)

[Baculus]

The lobbyists are simply doing what they do,and are allowed to do.

You don't blame a snake for being a snake,though ya might wanna zip up your tent if ya don't want them around;)

We also try to avoid the fanged end of a snake -- with careful handling!

[TheLongshot]

Every resident libertarian I know on this board has the same general view of the Tea Party movement:

1. Started out with a few refreshingly libertarian ideas.

2. Was very quickly co-opted by the GOP and turned into a political tool.

3. Is now regarded with a mixture of amusement and pity. Is also way too popular amongst people who learned about the word "libertarian" from other Tea Partiers, and who honestly believe that the word means things like "Take your hands off my Medicare" and "Bomb, bomb Iran".

As for #2, I think some elements of the GOP tried to take advantage of it. Some of those who are on the outside looking in. Those who are dissatisfied with they current direction of the party. Course, that isn't always in the same direction of Libertarians either and certainly it has brought the loons out. I doubt the GOP itself wants much to do with it and knows that all it does is hurts the party's chances of wining seats, which is all the GOP seems to care about nowadays.