Will You Join The Revolution? Sign The Pledge!!!

[Foxfyre]

Once again you present this argument of restricting the federal government when it doesn't make any sense.

Congress' job is to pass legislation. People lobby congress to get the legislation that they want passed, passed.
So please explain HOW you are going to take away congress' ability to distribute the payola??

It makes sense to me. I personally favor a constitutional amendment that would prevent Congress from using the people's money to dispense ANY form of charity, benevolence, relief, or subsidy to any individual, group, business, entity, special interest, or whatever. If Congress authorizes it, it has to be equally available to all American citizens regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliations, socioeconomic status, or any other criteria. In other words a tax cut or government benefit will be available proportionately across the board and everybody, rich and poor alike who want it can benefit. A tax rebate will go to everybody, not just a targeted few.

That would not keep anybody, including lobbyists, from petitioning the government for whatever they wanted or for redress of any greviances, but they would be doing so on behalf of everybody and not just themselves. Our elected leaders would not be able to buy votes except by doing the will of the people, not just pet constituencies.

It would have to be understood that existing entitlements would not be abruptly ended, but nobody would add a dime to them, and the process to slowly and incrementally begin rolling them back until they were all in the hands of the states or local communities would begin immediately.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

You want to get rid of the lobbyists? Then limit the Federal Government like the founders wanted. There is no point to lobbying for unconstitutional things when the government shows an actual interest and resolve to follow the Constitution.

What would you consider "unconstitutional things"?? Define "unconstitutional" and then define "things" as the two are related. Their numbers and interests are staggering:

Click on "Ranked Sectors" to see the interest groups. Which categories would be "unconstitutional"??

Lobbying Database | OpenSecrets

 

[drsmith1072]

You want to get rid of the lobbyists? Then limit the Federal Government like the founders wanted. There is no point to lobbying for unconstitutional things when the government shows an actual interest and resolve to follow the Constitution.

WOW, another one trying to blame the federal government for everything.

BTW what are you talking about that is unconstitutional?? Care to explain what youare talking about in some specifics??

I'm still on he fence with Avatar's intentions. Sometimes this member seems lucid, honest and straight forward and then what appears to be pure stupidity and naivete takes over. There are a significant number of paid internet contributors to the top political messageboards to spread disinformation and dilute intelligent discourse. I'm not sayin Avatar is a mole...but if not...at the very least Bi-polar with a stong leaning towards bad thinking when in the Mr Hyde mode.

It just amazes me how some of these posters are so convinced that the answer to every problem is to blame the federal government.
The funny thing is that they seem to be trying to claim that it's the federal government's fault that lobbyists lobby congress and that if we limit the size, power and scope of the government (inserting campaign slogan here) then we can do away with corruption caused by lobbyists. LOL

Congress will still be called on to pass legislation. Congress will still be called on to fund the government and control the purse strings. Lobbyists will still lobby to get legislation passed. So HOW will doing what these posters want to do remove the corruption that, IMO, is inherent in the system??

 

[MaggieMae]

I do have to wonder how much of Obama's policies GWB would actually oppose. Several people who were once high profile in his administration have praised the political risk Obama took with the stimulus bill and counter-terror activities. I have heard Andy Card (Bush's chief of staff) and Fran Townsend (Homeland Security advisor) both say he (Obama) is on the right course.

 

[Foxfyre]

It just amazes me how some of these posters are so convinced that the answer to every problem is to blame the federal government.

The funny thing is that they seem to be trying to claim that it's the federal government's fault that lobbyists lobby congress and that if we limit the size, power and scope of the government (inserting campaign slogan here) then we can do away with corruption caused by lobbyists. LOL

Congress will still be called on to pass legislation. Congress will still be called on to fund the government and control the purse strings. Lobbyists will still lobby to get legislation passed. So HOW will doing what these posters want to do remove the corruption that, IMO, is inherent in the system??

Some have been blaming the federal government, but I have not. I have been blaming a system that not only invites, but begs for corruption.

I blame a system that allows any form of special interest group to buy benefits for itself.

Eliminate that ability, and of course it won't ensure good legislation. It won't keep citizens from lobbying Congress for good things and not so good things. But at least it will remove payola which is the most corrupting influence in government both to those with power to give it and to those receiving it.

 

[MaggieMae]

And my suggestion would be effective within the system that is set up.

Who is it that is not adhering to the system?

I think on the most basic level, we're all agreeing that "the system" is broken. But "the system" itself was set up to work, so I would argue that we need to get rid of the spoilers of "the system," the K-Street lobbyists, which we all agree upon (I think). It would take some research, but I'm wondering who first set up a system of REGISTERING lobbyists in the first place, which legitimized payola, and which seemed to open the door. (Ah, now it's legal for me to lobby Congress instead of just knocking on doors and hoping someone will listen to me...)

And i'm not proposing throwing out our system, im proposing working within the system to affect a change.

We need to get back to limiting the power and scope of the federal government and the only way to do that is to vote out the progressive republican and democrat congresspeople who continually grow and expand every aspect of the federal govt. Some of the good ones will have to go the first time around too just for the sake of proving a point as citizens of this great nation.

A good way to start cleaning house is to eliminate some of the overlapping committees, each with majority and minority members and each in proverbial vulnerable positions to effect policy change based on which lobbyist can offer the most. On C-Span this morning I was listening to some expert on homeland security who served during Bush's term and is now a professor somewhere and he was talking about the DHS budget. He said it's not as easy as just coming up with projections for each agency under the DHS umbrella, but each of those agencies has its own "committee" that gets together to discuss their piece of the budget, PLUS the overall spending, once those committees get through their conferences, the House and Senate Finance Committees get involved. And then off to the Senate for floor debate. It's beyond comprehension. And you guys want all that TELEVISED? Good grief, if they were also grandstanding during all of it, mugging for the cameras, the entire department would be operating on stop-gap funding for years.

 

[MaggieMae]

Furthermore, how does repeating what has already been said support your previous argument on how applying a restriction to the federal government will remove the payola from the system when your idea does nothing to limit or restrcit lobbying?

I didn't say applying a restriction to the federal government will remove the payola from the system. I said that forbidding the federal government from distributing payola will remove any necessity to limit or restrict lobbying or making ones wants, wishes, hopes, desires known by any other means, such restriction which the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional to do.

Uh??? forbiding the federal government from doing something is applying a restriction to the federal government. LOL

Furthermore, you continue to make basically the same statement (with a new twist every now and then) and continune to provide no substantive way to accomplish the goal of your statement.

Your argument is kind of like the underpants gnomes from southpark.

Step 1: Steal underpants

Step 2: <looks around and then shrugs sholders>

Step 3: make profit.

You have presented an idea and a result but you leave out the important intermediate step of describing a realistic way of how you will actually reach the result.

How about some specifics as to how you can realistically accomplish your goal?

Because that's always the tough part.

 

[MaggieMae]

Once again you present this argument of restricting the federal government when it doesn't make any sense.

Congress' job is to pass legislation. People lobby congress to get the legislation that they want passed, passed.
So please explain HOW you are going to take away congress' ability to distribute the payola??

It makes sense to me. I personally favor a constitutional amendment that would prevent Congress from using the people's money to dispense ANY form of charity, benevolence, relief, or subsidy to any individual, group, business, entity, special interest, or whatever. If Congress authorizes it, it has to be equally available to all American citizens regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliations, socioeconomic status, or any other criteria. In other words a tax cut or government benefit will be available proportionately across the board and everybody, rich and poor alike who want it can benefit. A tax rebate will go to everybody, not just a targeted few.
So in other words, some kind of escrow tax for welfare which anyone could apply for, even a billionnaire, just because he can? That's nuts.

That would not keep anybody, including lobbyists, from petitioning the government for whatever they wanted or for redress of any greviances, but they would be doing so on behalf of everybody and not just themselves. Our elected leaders would not be able to buy votes except by doing the will of the people, not just pet constituencies.

It would have to be understood that existing entitlements would not be abruptly ended, but nobody would add a dime to them, and the process to slowly and incrementally begin rolling them back until they were all in the hands of the states or local communities would begin immediately.

So you would end Social Security contributions but at some point grandfather those already collecting? I can just imagine the outrage of those not yet retired who have already contributed but who, by your logic, would no longer be able to collect on their Social Security. Also, I'm always mystified when I hear people say that federal social programs should all be left up to the states, because there are so many states that either already waste more grant money than they allocate or mismanage their own domestic areas like schools and roads that they resemble third world countries. Plus you would simply have citizens jumping states to get where the best run programs are.

 

[drsmith1072]

Once again you present this argument of restricting the federal government when it doesn't make any sense.

Congress' job is to pass legislation. People lobby congress to get the legislation that they want passed, passed.
So please explain HOW you are going to take away congress' ability to distribute the payola??

It makes sense to me. I personally favor a constitutional amendment that would prevent Congress from using the people's money to dispense ANY form of charity, benevolence, relief, or subsidy to any individual, group, business, entity, special interest, or whatever. If Congress authorizes it, it has to be equally available to all American citizens regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliations, socioeconomic status, or any other criteria. In other words a tax cut or government benefit will be available proportionately across the board and everybody, rich and poor alike who want it can benefit. A tax rebate will go to everybody, not just a targeted few.

That would not keep anybody, including lobbyists, from petitioning the government for whatever they wanted or for redress of any greviances, but they would be doing so on behalf of everybody and not just themselves. Our elected leaders would not be able to buy votes except by doing the will of the people, not just pet constituencies.

It would have to be understood that existing entitlements would not be abruptly ended, but nobody would add a dime to them, and the process to slowly and incrementally begin rolling them back until they were all in the hands of the states or local communities would begin immediately.

LOL it makes sense to you because you want it to make sense to you. LOL

Based on your constitutional amendment you are against fema, medicare, social security etc. And based on your current spin anything afforded to one group should be afforded to all no matter what so when does everyone start getting the same healthcare that the military gets?? After all that is spending of the people's money and currently only applies to those who served and is not equally available to ALL Americans.
Furthermore, if one state needs to have a highway repaired you want every state to get a highway repaired at equal cost whether they need it or not. LOL

Oh and you still don't explain HOW the continued flow of money into the congress through lobbyists won't have a continued affect. You just keep claiming that it will while providing no REAL justification.

In addition you seem to be arguing that ALL consituencies are the same and want the same things. A mebmer of congress is elected to represent HIS/HER consituency and yet yiou want to force one states elected representatives to represent ALL.

Sorry have to run but will finish this post later.

 

[Foxfyre]

Based on your constitutional amendment you are against fema, medicare, social security etc. And based on your current spin anything afforded to one group should be afforded to all no matter what so when does everyone start getting the same healthcare that the military gets?? After all that is spending of the people's money and currently only applies to those who served and is not equally available to ALL Americans.
Furthermore, if one state needs to have a highway repaired you want every state to get a highway repaired at equal cost whether they need it or not. LOL

Oh and you still don't explain HOW the continued flow of money into the congress through lobbyists won't have a continued affect. You just keep claiming that it will while providing no REAL justification.

In addition you seem to be arguing that ALL consituencies are the same and want the same things. A mebmer of congress is elected to represent HIS/HER consituency and yet yiou want to force one states elected representatives to represent ALL.

Sorry have to run but will finish this post later.

Don't bother because you've already demonstrated your inability to read very well or to understand what you read.

I will probably not respond further unless you have something different to say, but I will repeat:

It is already illegal to funnel more than the legal limit to any member of Congress. And, if you make it illegal for Congress to directly reward the lobbyists or other special interests, you remove a lot of incentive for anybody to funnel millions and millions to the political parties OR make their own pitches for their self-serving schtick in the media.

Otherwise, short of malicious libel or slander or intentional malicious misrepresentation of facts, there should be no barrier to anybody expressing their views through whatever means they can find to express them, which is what SCOTUS ruled in the interest of defending the First Amendment.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXZrveuMP4Q]YouTube - Tom Petty - Refugee[/ame]