More lies Oh Joy

[Charles_Main]

In Describing the new Financial Reform Bill to the American People. Obama claimed the bill makes sure we will never again pay for a bail out.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill Gives the Executive the Power to Shut down, and or TAKE OVER any bank or institution it deems to big to fail and in trouble. If they take them over they will take on any debt they have and you and I will be BAILING them out.

Not to mention this takes power away from the Congress as the Executive branch can make these decisions with out oversight or approval from congress. Don't get me wrong, there are some good parts to this bill, but that Part is a very bad one, and Obama is Lying to us all again when he says we will never face having to pay to bail out a bank again.

Remember people, Obama will not always be president, Even if you support him, it should trouble you he is grabbing up so much Un checked Executive power.

I count this as like the 11th Major Lie Obama has told us all.

1 Ill be the most transparent ---- LIE
2 I will eliminate ear marks. ----- HUGE ASS LIE (can you say stimulus loaded with pay off ear marks, and Omni Bus)
3 We have to pass this stimulus right now or the sky will fall ---- Lie (as proven by the fact that over half of it is yet unspent 1.5 years later.)
4 My health care plan will lower costs ---- LIE (According to his own CBO and experts he is and Was full of shit. Joe wilson WAS RIGHT.)
5 My health care plan will Lower the Deficit ---- LIE (According to his own CBO and experts he is and Was full of shit.
6 The reason BP is drilling so Deep is were running out of Oil closer to shore ---- Lie (federal Law bans drilling in many shallower places and Anwar. Our un proven oil reserves are estimated to be near or more than what is in the middle east.)
7 I was not aware of Rev wrights Black Liberation beliefs and Anti American Rants --- Lie (he sat in the pews for 20 years, wright regularly made those rants, HE KNEW)
8 Republicans Blocked the Unemployment extension Because they are Mean ---- Lie, (they simply Demanded, As you did in NOV MR president, That we PAY FOR THEM. Maybe with some of that stimulus money you are savings for a last min push in the run up to the mid terms. Republicans submitted no less than 5 Counter bills that extended the Benefits and used Stimulus money or Made other cuts to pay for them, and DEMOCRATS Killed them all.)
9 I wont Raise taxes on people making Under 250,000 ---- fucking LIE. BULL SHIT
10The penalty in the Health care plan for not getting insurance is NOT A TAX The Obama admin is now arguing in Court the the bill is not unconstitutional Based on the FACT THAT IS IS A TAX.
11 and now this latest one, This bill assures you will never have to bail anyone out again. ----- STRAIGHT UP LIE.

I am sure i missed some, He lies all the time, and uses fear, but I was just listing the ones I consider major lies.

 

[Charles_Main]

Cmon someone come try and tear my list apart

 

[Greenbeard]

1 Ill be the most transparent ---- LIE

How are you measuring that? In terms of data being made public? Or his approach to information release?

2 I will eliminate ear marks. ----- HUGE ASS LIE (can you say stimulus loaded with pay off ear marks, and Omni Bus)

I don't believe he promised to eliminate earmarks, he expressed a desire to reform the earmark process and reduce the more useless ones. And at the moment he's pursuing a modified line item veto to do exactly that.

3 We have to pass this stimulus right now or the sky will fall ---- Lie (as proven by the fact that over half of it is yet unspent 1.5 years later.)

This would be much more helpful if you'd actually quote the claims you're saying he made.

4 My health care plan will lower costs ---- LIE (According to his own CBO and experts he is and Was full of shit. Joe wilson WAS RIGHT.)

Joe Wilson's outburst was about illegal immigrants (Wilson was himself lying). As for cost control, the law is full of delivery system reforms. As for what the CBO has said about plan price changes due to the insurance market reforms (since they don't--and can't--score the potential savings of delivery system improvements), here's MIT's Jonathan Gruber laying it out:

In a letter to Senator Reid on November 20, the Congressional Budget Office (the official government scoring agency) reported that they estimated the cost of an individual low-cost plan in the exchange to be $5200 in 2016. This is a plan with an “actuarial value” (roughly, the share of expenses for a given population covered by insurance) of 70%. In their most recent communication with Congress, CBO also projected that, absent reform, the cost of an individual policy in the non-group market would be $5500 for a plan with an actuarial value of 60%. This implies that the same plan that cost $5500 without reform would cost $4460 with reform, or almost 20% less.

The CBO has not reported many of the details of their analysis, such as the age distribution of individuals in the non-group market or in the exchange. So these data do not provide a strictly apples to apples comparison of premiums for the same individual in the exchange and in the no-reform non-group market. And their conclusion may change as legislation moves forward. But the key point is that, as of now, the most authoritative objective voice in this debate suggests that reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.

This conclusion is consistent with evidence from the state of Massachusetts. In their December 2007 report, AHIP reported that the average single premium at the end of 2006 for a non-group product in the U.S. was $2613. In their October 2009 report, AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985, or a 14% increase. That same report presents results for the non-group markets in a set of states. One of those states is Massachusetts, which passed a health care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level in mid-2006. The major aspects of this reform took place in 2007, notably the introduction of large subsidies for low income populations, a merged non-group and small group insurance market, and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of non-group insurance in the state: the average individual premium in the state fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40% reduction while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14% increase.​

5 My health care plan will Lower the Deficit ---- LIE (According to his own CBO and experts he is and Was full of shit.

The CBO has been extremely clear that revenues from the excise tax in the law are going to grow faster than expenditures under the law, meaning it's going to bring in more and more money as time goes on. In the first decade, CBO projected a $138 billion deficit reduction:

CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about $65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal—assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted—would be the difference between the estimate of the combined effect and the previous estimate for the Senate-passed bill, H.R. 3590. That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal deficits of $20 billion over the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget (see the bottom panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).
​

The calculation for the second decade is understandably far less precise but they put the deficit reduction at between .25 and .5 percent of GDP:

Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).​

6 The reason BP is drilling so Deep is were running out of Oil closer to shore ---- Lie (federal Law bans drilling in many shallower places and Anwar. Our un proven oil reserves are estimated to be near or more than what is in the middle east.)

Can you source this..."quote"?

7 I was not aware of Rev wrights Black Liberation beliefs and Anti American Rants --- Lie (he sat in the pews for 20 years, wright regularly made those rants, HE KNEW)

Not sure why you bothered to include this, as it doesn't really refute anything and is a personal, rather than policy, matter..

8 Republicans Blocked the Unemployment extension Because they are Mean ---- Lie,

What he said in his weekly address was:

Some Republican leaders actually treat this unemployment insurance as if it’s a form of welfare. They say it discourages folks from looking for work. . .

Now in the past, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is – an emergency expenditure. That’s because an economic disaster can devastate families and communities just as surely as a flood or tornado.

Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that. They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money.​

That's obviously spin but hardly a straight up lie.

9 I wont Raise taxes on people making over 250,000 ---- fucking LIE. BULL SHIT

He said that? Perhaps you've got it backwards.

10The penalty in the Health care plan for not getting insurance is NOT A TAX The Obama admin is now arguing in Court the the bill is not unconstitutional Based on the FACT THAT IS IS A TAX.

I recall Obama arguing with George Stephanopoulos that the mandate didn't constitute a tax increase. As I said in another post, a distinction needs to be made here between a tax and a tax increase. For example, a carbon tax that was designed to be revenue neutral by coupling it to a corresponding decrease in payroll taxes wouldn't constitute a tax increase, even as it constitutes a new tax.

In his famous interview with Stephanopoulos, Obama was clearly arguing (over and over) that the individual mandate doesn't constitute a tax increase. That has nothing to do with whether or not the mandate is structured as a tax, it's a question of whether it constitutes a net tax increase. And that it's not is actually something you can credibly argue.

Since it has no repercussions for those who already have insurance (~84% of the population) and the majority of those who are uninsured will either become eligible for Medicaid or receive a means tested tax credit that exceeds the value of the mandate penalty, that argument is largely correct. There may be a small number of individuals who are above four times the poverty line, below the arbitrary $250,000 mark, not receiving coverage through an employer, and who choose to go uninsured and pay the mandate penalty. Those are the only people for whom the mandate would constitute a tax increase and, frankly, they're a very small portion of the population.

11 and now this latest one, This bill assures you will never have to bail anyone out again. ----- STRAIGHT UP LIE.

Presumably he's referring to this bit (from the Congressional Research Service summary):

Subtitle G: Enhanced Dissolution Authority - Dissolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009 - (Sec. 1603) Sets forth circumstances under which: (1) the Federal Reserve Board or the appropriate regulatory agency (the FDIC, the SEC, or the applicable state insurance authority) is required or authorized to make a written recommendation regarding the systemic risk to U.S. economic stability posed by a financial company in default or in danger of default (covered financial company); and (2) the Secretary shall appoint the FDIC as receiver for such company for a one-year period to take certain discretionary actions to stabilize or dissolve it.

Establishes the Systemic Dissolution Fund to: (1) provide for the dissolution of any failed covered financial company (or companies) posing a systemic threat to either the financial markets or to the economy; and (2) ensure that taxpayer funds used to facilitate such liquidations are fully repaid from assessments levied on financial companies with assets of $50 billion or more.​

 

[ConHog]

yes , you missed one.

I will change the way washington does business. Huge lie, he's the same old , same old, just a different agenda.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I loved the one where he claimed he would rid HIS White House of lobbyist and then hired them anyway, claiming that he made them sign a form saying they would not be lobbyists while in his Administration.

 

[fyrenza]

And we KNOW how ethical all of his appointees are, eh?

 

[Sarah G]

1 Ill be the most transparent ---- LIE

How are you measuring that? In terms of data being made public? Or his approach to information release?

2 I will eliminate ear marks. ----- HUGE ASS LIE (can you say stimulus loaded with pay off ear marks, and Omni Bus)

Nice responses and a bit of work. His reaction? The equivilent of Nuh Uhhh.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good thing we're not bailing out Freddie and Fannie, amiright?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good thing we're not bailing out Freddie and Fannie, amiright?

The queen of D.C. SPEAKS
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPniqGxY-xk]YouTube - Obama and Democrats want to raise taxes[/ame]

 

[Charles_Main]

LOL no I am not going to source my quotes. Nothing I said is untrue, It is all pulled from real life facts, speeches Obama gave, and promises Obama made. If you did not for instance here his address to the nation where he claimed the Reason BP was drilling so deep was because we are running out of Oil closer to shore, I am not going to dig it up for you. You do it.

If you did not see the MULTIPLE times that Obama said we needed to pass his stimulus or face economic Collapse I can not help you, and am not going to waste one second digging up the link to prove it.

If you have to ask what I am basing my Opinion that he has not been transparent on, You are either not paying any attention, or are completely Partisan and choose to ignore the Ample Evidence of Him Being anything but transparent.

Frankly I think you are being disingenuous asking for a link of Something that was repeated over and over by Obama and all the supporters of his Stimulus bill.

I have very little patience or Time to waste with Partisans who will never back down from their support of Obama, Who will dismiss my list out right, and use Spin and Propaganda to try and disprove them.

IMO you do not have an open mind on the subject and are a waste of effort to try and convince of anything.

In short if you can not see Obama for what he is by now, you are either stupid, or Partisan.

 

[B. Kidd]

Charles-M, I can't tear it apart.
But Wayne Rogers did an adequate job of supporting your OP on the financial show 'Cashin' In' this a.m..

 

[Greenbeard]

LOL no I am not going to source my quotes.

And that, folks, is what we call credibility. Kudos, sir. I look forward to the next batch of bullshit, inaccurately paraphrased, unsourced quotes that confirm all of your political beliefs!

 

[Charles_Main]

LOL no I am not going to source my quotes.

And that, folks, is what we call credibility. Kudos, sir. I look forward to the next batch of bullshit, inaccurately paraphrased, unsourced quotes that confirm all of your political beliefs!

LOL, and I will look forward to your continued ignoring of easily proven facts in Blind Partisan Support of Obama.

 

[Greenbeard]

...continued ignoring of easily proven facts..

That's kind of funny. You say I dismissed your list outright, though the length of my post should indicate to you I did significantly more than that. For example, you made claims about various CBO reports so what I did was actually quote from them (and link to them) showing that you were simply lying. Those were indeed easily checkable facts. You were just on the wrong side of them. You also very clearly mischaracterized several of the "quotes" on your list but since they're not actually quotes, it was pretty obvious that would be the case from the start.

You didn't present any facts. Re-read my post, you'll see what it looks like when someone actually presents evidence for what they're arguing.

 

[Charles_Main]

...continued ignoring of easily proven facts..

That's kind of funny. You say I dismissed your list outright, though the length of my post should indicate to you I did significantly more than that. For example, you made claims about various CBO reports so what I did was actually quote from them (and link to them) showing that you were simply lying. Those were indeed easily checkable facts. You were just on the wrong side of them. You also very clearly mischaracterized several of the "quotes" on your list but since they're not actually quotes, it was pretty obvious that would be the case from the start.

You didn't present any facts. Re-read my post, you'll see what it looks like when someone actually presents evidence for what they're arguing.

Dude Both Quotes you want were Delivered BY obama in Prime time speeches, Why the hell should I have to go look them up for you.

Like I said you are being disingenuous even asking from them.

However here is just one of them. If you really do not believe the other, learn to google

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 15, 2010
Remarks by the President to the Nation on the BP Oil Spill

So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

Remarks by the President to the Nation on the BP Oil Spill | The White House

That is actually 2 Lies. We are not running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water, We are running out of places to drill where the government will allow us to. Lie one. Lie number 2 is the claim we only have 2% of the words oil. Again that refers to only proven reserves and ignores industry and government estimates that say our unproven Reserves are close to or even more than all the oil available in the Middle east. If the Government would just allow exploration in Areas that are now off limits.

The only reason I did not provide a link for each entry on my list, is because I assumed all the promises and comments I was referring to were well known by anyone who has been actually listening to what Obama says.

 

[Charles_Main]

Oh and number 9 was a typo, Of course I meant he said he would not raise taxes on those who made under 250,000. My apologies for a typo.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill Gives the Executive the Power to Shut down, and or TAKE OVER any bank or institution it deems to big to fail and in trouble. If they take them over they will take on any debt they have and you and I will be BAILING them out.

Not even close.

According to Section 113 of the law, the Financial Stability Oversight Council -- made up of financial experts -- "may determine that a U.S. nonbank financial company shall be supervised by the Board of Governors and shall be subject to prudential standards, in accordance with this title, if the Council determines that material financial distress at the U.S. nonbank financial company would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States." The law further states that before determining whether to supervise a nonbank financial company, the council must consider:

(A) the degree of leverage of the company;

(B) the amount and nature of the financial assets of the company;

(C) the amount and types of the liabilities of the company, including the degree of reliance on short-term funding;

(D) the extent and types of the off-balance-sheet exposures of the company;

(E) the extent and types of the transactions and relationships of the company with other significant nonbank financial companies and significant bank holding companies;

(F) the importance of the company as a source of credit for households, businesses, and State and local governments and as a source of liquidity for the United States financial system.

Decision to regulate nonbank financial institutions must be re-evaluated annually, and the company may contest being subject to regulation. The law also requires the council to re-evaluate, "not less frequently than annually," each determination made "with respect to each nonbank financial company" and rescind the authority to regulate that company if the council determines the organization "no longer meets the standards" for regulation. Further, a company "may request, in writing, an opportunity for a written or oral hearing before the Council to contest the proposed determination" that it is subject to regulation. After a final determination, the institution may "bring an action in the United States District Court ... for an order requiring that the final determination be rescinded, and the court shall, upon review, dismiss such action or direct the final determination to be rescinded," if the determination made was "arbitrary and capricious."

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/FinancialReformSummary231510FINAL.pdf

 

[MaggieMae]

Cmon someone come try and tear my list apart

When you take shit out of context, no, and especially when your litany has already been discussed ad nauseam at the time of occurrence. You'll be getting comments from your choir, period.

 

[MaggieMae]

1 Ill be the most transparent ---- LIE

How are you measuring that? In terms of data being made public? Or his approach to information release?

2 I will eliminate ear marks. ----- HUGE ASS LIE (can you say stimulus loaded with pay off ear marks, and Omni Bus)

I don't believe he promised to eliminate earmarks, he expressed a desire to reform the earmark process and reduce the more useless ones. And at the moment he's pursuing a modified line item veto to do exactly that.



This would be much more helpful if you'd actually quote the claims you're saying he made.



Joe Wilson's outburst was about illegal immigrants (Wilson was himself lying). As for cost control, the law is full of delivery system reforms. As for what the CBO has said about plan price changes due to the insurance market reforms (since they don't--and can't--score the potential savings of delivery system improvements), here's MIT's Jonathan Gruber laying it out:

In a letter to Senator Reid on November 20, the Congressional Budget Office (the official government scoring agency) reported that they estimated the cost of an individual low-cost plan in the exchange to be $5200 in 2016. This is a plan with an “actuarial value” (roughly, the share of expenses for a given population covered by insurance) of 70%. In their most recent communication with Congress, CBO also projected that, absent reform, the cost of an individual policy in the non-group market would be $5500 for a plan with an actuarial value of 60%. This implies that the same plan that cost $5500 without reform would cost $4460 with reform, or almost 20% less.

The CBO has not reported many of the details of their analysis, such as the age distribution of individuals in the non-group market or in the exchange. So these data do not provide a strictly apples to apples comparison of premiums for the same individual in the exchange and in the no-reform non-group market. And their conclusion may change as legislation moves forward. But the key point is that, as of now, the most authoritative objective voice in this debate suggests that reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.

This conclusion is consistent with evidence from the state of Massachusetts. In their December 2007 report, AHIP reported that the average single premium at the end of 2006 for a non-group product in the U.S. was $2613. In their October 2009 report, AHIP found that the average single premium in mid-2009 was $2985, or a 14% increase. That same report presents results for the non-group markets in a set of states. One of those states is Massachusetts, which passed a health care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level in mid-2006. The major aspects of this reform took place in 2007, notably the introduction of large subsidies for low income populations, a merged non-group and small group insurance market, and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of non-group insurance in the state: the average individual premium in the state fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40% reduction while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14% increase.​

The CBO has been extremely clear that revenues from the excise tax in the law are going to grow faster than expenditures under the law, meaning it's going to bring in more and more money as time goes on. In the first decade, CBO projected a $138 billion deficit reduction:

CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about $65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal—assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted—would be the difference between the estimate of the combined effect and the previous estimate for the Senate-passed bill, H.R. 3590. That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal deficits of $20 billion over the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget (see the bottom panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).
​

The calculation for the second decade is understandably far less precise but they put the deficit reduction at between .25 and .5 percent of GDP:

Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).​

Can you source this..."quote"?



Not sure why you bothered to include this, as it doesn't really refute anything and is a personal, rather than policy, matter..



What he said in his weekly address was:

Some Republican leaders actually treat this unemployment insurance as if it’s a form of welfare. They say it discourages folks from looking for work. . .

Now in the past, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is – an emergency expenditure. That’s because an economic disaster can devastate families and communities just as surely as a flood or tornado.

Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that. They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money.​

That's obviously spin but hardly a straight up lie.



He said that? Perhaps you've got it backwards.

10The penalty in the Health care plan for not getting insurance is NOT A TAX The Obama admin is now arguing in Court the the bill is not unconstitutional Based on the FACT THAT IS IS A TAX.

I recall Obama arguing with George Stephanopoulos that the mandate didn't constitute a tax increase. As I said in another post, a distinction needs to be made here between a tax and a tax increase. For example, a carbon tax that was designed to be revenue neutral by coupling it to a corresponding decrease in payroll taxes wouldn't constitute a tax increase, even as it constitutes a new tax.

In his famous interview with Stephanopoulos, Obama was clearly arguing (over and over) that the individual mandate doesn't constitute a tax increase. That has nothing to do with whether or not the mandate is structured as a tax, it's a question of whether it constitutes a net tax increase. And that it's not is actually something you can credibly argue.

Since it has no repercussions for those who already have insurance (~84% of the population) and the majority of those who are uninsured will either become eligible for Medicaid or receive a means tested tax credit that exceeds the value of the mandate penalty, that argument is largely correct. There may be a small number of individuals who are above four times the poverty line, below the arbitrary $250,000 mark, not receiving coverage through an employer, and who choose to go uninsured and pay the mandate penalty. Those are the only people for whom the mandate would constitute a tax increase and, frankly, they're a very small portion of the population.

11 and now this latest one, This bill assures you will never have to bail anyone out again. ----- STRAIGHT UP LIE.

Presumably he's referring to this bit (from the Congressional Research Service summary):

Subtitle G: Enhanced Dissolution Authority - Dissolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009 - (Sec. 1603) Sets forth circumstances under which: (1) the Federal Reserve Board or the appropriate regulatory agency (the FDIC, the SEC, or the applicable state insurance authority) is required or authorized to make a written recommendation regarding the systemic risk to U.S. economic stability posed by a financial company in default or in danger of default (covered financial company); and (2) the Secretary shall appoint the FDIC as receiver for such company for a one-year period to take certain discretionary actions to stabilize or dissolve it.

Establishes the Systemic Dissolution Fund to: (1) provide for the dissolution of any failed covered financial company (or companies) posing a systemic threat to either the financial markets or to the economy; and (2) ensure that taxpayer funds used to facilitate such liquidations are fully repaid from assessments levied on financial companies with assets of $50 billion or more.​

Nice try, but it's already a given that those who so vehemently oppose Obama rely on snippets or screeds of disinformation by Beck at al. But I do appreciate that someone else bothers to actually follow all the stories (and background) before coming to conclusions. It seems there are so few of us left (remaining) because the voices of the uninformed right have become the loudest.

 

[MaggieMae]

yes , you missed one.

I will change the way washington does business. Huge lie, he's the same old , same old, just a different agenda.

It's a campaign promise made by every single candidate for president. Obama was no exception, and for those of us who have lived through many presidential cycles, we just chuckled. Once they get there, they realize it's a lot easier said than done. Same goes for the inevitable promise to control the power of lobbyists, who simply can rely on the Bill of Rights and poof! they have access, and after all the initial friendly back-slapping, start opening their wallets to the esteemed lawmakers who are in campaign reelection mode 95% of the time.