How Lobbyists Literally Run The Country

  • metta

    Posts: 39075

    May 25, 2012 3:54 PM GMT

    How Lobbyists Literally Run The Country

    http://www.upworthy.com/how-lobbyists-literally-run-the-country?c=bl3
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2012 4:02 PM GMT
    metta8 said
    How Lobbyists Literally Run The Country

    http://www.upworthy.com/how-lobbyists-literally-run-the-country?c=bl3


    The irony is that left leaning Politifact considers Obama's stance on lobbyists as a promise broken:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

    We previously rated this promise a Compromise while we waited to see whether Lynn was confirmed and how the Obama White House handled its waiver process. Some have said that Lynn alone caused the promise to be broken, but we felt that a transparent, timely and objective waiver process might merit a ruling of Compromise. But the concerns about waivers and recusals outlined above have convinced us that this promise is not being kept in letter or in spirit, and a Compromise rating is no longer appropriate.

    Obama was very clear with his promise. He said no lobbyists would "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." No means none. Promise Broken.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 2:20 AM GMT
    This is Obama's America: He calls Super-PACs a threat to democracy then invites big donors to the White House to donate to his Super PAC.

    http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/big-donors-democratic-super-pacs-visited-white-house/

    Though President Barack Obama called super PACs a "threat to democracy" before embracing them last February in his own reelection effort, he and members of his inner circle had no trouble meeting with the kind of people who contribute to them. At least 16 individuals who gave money to some of the major outside spending groups had meetings with White House officials--including Obama himself.

    The group of 16 includes major Democratic donors, bundlers for Obama's campaign and a few individuals who have official roles in the administration. Some have frequent access to both the president and his inner circle, visitor logs released by the White House show. Six of them have given to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC started by former White House officials that's supporting the president's reelection effort, while others have given to groups working to elect congressional Democrats.

    As the money race continues in the 2012 election, big donors, fundraisers and friends of Obama are steering money to super PACs. An analysis of White House visitor logs shows the names there intersect with those on lists of contributors to major Democratic super PACs--including Priorities USA Action; Women Vote!, a super PAC working to elect Democratic women to the House and Senate; the House Majority PAC and the Majority PAC, which are focusing on supporting Democrats for the House and Senate, respectively; and American Bridge 21st Century, which was established in November 2011.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 2:31 AM GMT
    It was one of the major Obama promises broken, and he could not blame anyone else this time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 2:35 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidIt was one of the major Obama promises broken, and he could not blame anyone else this time.


    It's something his supporters want to ignore.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 4:09 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness saidIt was one of the major Obama promises broken, and he could not blame anyone else this time.


    It's something his supporters want to ignore.


    No. Both Obama and his supporters still dislike it, but Citizens United forced his hand. What was he supposed to do, bring a knife to a gun fight?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 12:48 PM GMT
    More true now than before.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/lobbying/193469-k-st-mints-money-from-regs-surge

    Top K Street officials say their regulatory work has accelerated in recent years thanks to the sprawling rule-making from the healthcare and financial reform laws.

    “We’re in this situation now, where we have this strong executive branch [that is] taking full advantage of being able to do whatever they want,” said Rich Gold, a partner at Holland & Knight.
    While revenue from traditional lobbying work has flatlined, K Street firms say their regulatory practices are thriving. Several lobbyists said federal agencies are increasingly “where all the action is.”

    The increase in regulatory lobbying is “borne out of necessity,” said a lobbyist at a Washington regulatory firm who requested anonymity to speak freely.

    “You’re trying to develop clients, and while you can’t sell them on bills coming out of Congress, you can sell them ... on working with the agencies.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 5:20 PM GMT
    Granted, it's from Glenn Beck's site which in a way, given how some here accuse Tea Partiers as being closet corporatists, makes it even worse:

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-delicious-irony-of-dark-money/
    The left’s preferred narrative is simple, easy-to-understand and has a ring of truth. It goes like this: Regulation helps consumers but hurts business’ profitability. Individuals give money to big-government organizations to promote regulation. Corporations donate to small-government organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to fight regulation.

    But the fact that corporations also fund big-government organizations raises questions about this narrative. If regulation hurts corporations, why are they funding think tanks which promote it?

    The truth is that most regulation is written by and for incumbent businesses to erect barriers to entry and to buy advantages over their competitors. That’s why corporations fund groups like the Center for American Progress.

    Earlier this year, Center for American Progress donor Citibank hired lobbyists to literally write 70 out of 85 lines of a bill regulating derivatives trading which passed the House. If this regulation was meant to hurt Citibank’s profitability while defending their customers it’s unlikely to have done so.

    There are three main reasons corporations like Citibank write their own legislation. First, lawmakers feel pressure from constituents to regulate industries about which their staffs know nothing; corporate lobbyists and lawyers provide much-needed information. Second, it’s much easier and faster for a company to understand and comply with a regulation it wrote. Third, and most important, companies write regulation that is easier and cheaper to comply for them than for their competitors.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 5:25 PM GMT
    Lobbyists do run the government, which is why short-term profits and the environment-be-damned is business as usual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 5:48 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidLobbyists do run the government, which is why short-term profits and the environment-be-damned is business as usual.


    Except that the environment has been improving... Guess which country has done most to reach Kyoto targets?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 6:03 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidLobbyists do run the government, which is why short-term profits and the environment-be-damned is business as usual.


    Except that the environment has been improving... Guess which country has done most to reach Kyoto targets?

    How can you say the environment is improving when nothing has been done to ensure the protection of the rainforests, or to stop drilling for greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources? Right now, the lobbyists of environmentally damaging energy companies are competing to get their propaganda heard. Look at the nuclear power industry, claiming nuclear energy (and nuclear waste, etc) is green. It's terrifying to know that one bad day at one nuclear power plant will instantly and irrevocably erase decades of benefits from all the other properly functioning facilities combined. Japan would be better off had they never built a single nuclear plant than they are now that they have a bottomless money pit and a fifty mile radius of permanently inhospitable land. No one even knows the full cost of that one bad day yet, but still the lobbyists continue to profit off people's willingness to be chumps. Same goes for fracking. It's dirty and unsustainable.

    If people had their priorities straight, then we would move to renewable energy, and the decision would be based on common sense, and not on which industry wins the battle for the biggest profit margins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 6:08 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidLobbyists do run the government, which is why short-term profits and the environment-be-damned is business as usual.


    Except that the environment has been improving... Guess which country has done most to reach Kyoto targets?

    How can you say the environment is improving when nothing has been done to ensure the protection of the rainforests, or to stop drilling for greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources? Right now, the lobbyists of environmentally damaging energy companies are competing to get their propaganda heard. Look at the nuclear power industry, claiming nuclear energy (and nuclear waste, etc) is green. It's terrifying to know that one bad day at one nuclear power plant will instantly and irrevocably erase decades of benefits from all the other properly functioning facilities combined. Japan would be better off had they never built a single nuclear plant than they are now that they have a bottomless money pit and a fifty mile radius of permanently inhospitable land. No one even knows the full cost of that one bad day yet, but still the lobbyists continue to profit off people's willingness to be chumps. Same goes for fracking. It's dirty and unsustainable.

    If people had their properties straight, then we would move to renewable energy, and the decision would be based on common sense, and not on which industry wins the battle for the biggest profit margins.


    Japan's alternative is burning coal and you need a lot more of it while for nuclear power, it was a particularly old facility with much older tech in a high risk area. There are tradeoffs. And I can say that because it's true - particularly in the US. There's that Kuznet's curve in most other places.

    Now as for rainforests, one of the fundamental problems isn't lobbyists, it's just corrupt governments plain and simple. A lack of property rights for the poor and the rich make protecting the environment difficult.

    As for fracking... there's a lot more science out now showing that in fact it's a lot cleaner than was originally believed in addition to the fact that natural gas is far better than oil or coal. It's the reason the US has been able to get closest to meeting emissions targets under Kyoto. Granted, it uses a lot of water, but even there - better filtration technologies suggest that the future of fracking means a lot less water.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 6:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidLobbyists do run the government, which is why short-term profits and the environment-be-damned is business as usual.


    Except that the environment has been improving... Guess which country has done most to reach Kyoto targets?

    How can you say the environment is improving when nothing has been done to ensure the protection of the rainforests, or to stop drilling for greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources? Right now, the lobbyists of environmentally damaging energy companies are competing to get their propaganda heard. Look at the nuclear power industry, claiming nuclear energy (and nuclear waste, etc) is green. It's terrifying to know that one bad day at one nuclear power plant will instantly and irrevocably erase decades of benefits from all the other properly functioning facilities combined. Japan would be better off had they never built a single nuclear plant than they are now that they have a bottomless money pit and a fifty mile radius of permanently inhospitable land. No one even knows the full cost of that one bad day yet, but still the lobbyists continue to profit off people's willingness to be chumps. Same goes for fracking. It's dirty and unsustainable.

    If people had their properties straight, then we would move to renewable energy, and the decision would be based on common sense, and not on which industry wins the battle for the biggest profit margins.


    Japan's alternative is burning coal and you need a lot more of it while for nuclear power, it was a particularly old facility with much older tech in a high risk area. There are tradeoffs. And I can say that because it's true - particularly in the US. There's that Kuznet's curve in most other places.

    Now as for rainforests, one of the fundamental problems isn't lobbyists, it's just corrupt governments plain and simple. A lack of property rights for the poor and the rich make protecting the environment difficult.

    As for fracking... there's a lot more science out now showing that in fact it's a lot cleaner than was originally believed in addition to the fact that natural gas is far better than oil or coal. It's the reason the US has been able to get closest to meeting emissions targets under Kyoto. Granted, it uses a lot of water, but even there - better filtration technologies suggest that the future of fracking means a lot less water.

    There are other options than burning coal. But even coal would be the lesser of two evils when compared with a nuclear spill. Just saying that a facility is old only confirms that there is no such thing as green nuclear energy. The older these places get, the more dangerous they become, because, even if there was a way to prevent leaks and accidents from ever occurring (which is impossible) there is nothing that can be done with the pile up of nuclear waste. There's just nowhere on earth to safely store it because it remains a threat to life for 240,000 years. It simply can't be cleaned up and each accident creates a permanent disaster.

    Japan and every other community on earth could convert to renewable energy, if instead of relying on energy companies, each household had their own energy sources, such as geothermal heating and cooling and solar powered electricity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 6:36 PM GMT
    What do they do for lights at night? My solar panels only generate when the sun is up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 6:39 PM GMT
    Couldn't all the nuclear waste be stored in those dreaded supermarket plastic shopping bags???
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 6:47 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidWhat do they do for lights at night? My solar panels only generate when the sun is up.

    The alternative is to keep polluting. People just need to do some long overdue soul searching and realize that having clean air, an untainted food supply and biodiversity are so much more important than the short term convenience of generating energy from dangerous and unsustainable sources.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 6:49 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidCouldn't all the nuclear waste be stored in those dreaded supermarket plastic shopping bags???

    Cute, but I'm not sure if radioactive materials would be secure floating around amidst an island of trash.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 8:03 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 saidWhat do they do for lights at night? My solar panels only generate when the sun is up.

    The alternative is to keep polluting. People just need to do some long overdue soul searching and realize that having clean air, an untainted food supply and biodiversity are so much more important than the short term convenience of generating energy from dangerous and unsustainable sources.


    So, you don't want people to have lights?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 8:39 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 saidWhat do they do for lights at night? My solar panels only generate when the sun is up.

    The alternative is to keep polluting. People just need to do some long overdue soul searching and realize that having clean air, an untainted food supply and biodiversity are so much more important than the short term convenience of generating energy from dangerous and unsustainable sources.


    So, you don't want people to have lights?

    So, you don't want people to have breathable air?

    Our current situation is unsustainable, and it has nothing to do with what I want. We simply can't continue to not give a fuck as our brief and arguably inglorious industrial revolution kills the mechanisms of nature and life on our planet. It's not whether I want people to have lights; it's that we're having lights like there's no tomorrow.

    Unfortunately, it's getting harder to ignore the grim reality of climate change and the degradation of the planet. Wide scale pollution is causing irreparable damage. Scientists say we need to act now to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Our backs are already against the wall.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 9:59 PM GMT
    So you don't want people to have lights. We will all have to shut down or die. I'll know you're serious when you shun all electrics and move into a tent made of cloth bags sewn together, by hand. Oh, and pot smoke is ok, Chief Pontiac.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 10:25 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidSo you don't want people to have lights. We will all have to shut down or die. I'll know you're serious when you shun all electrics and move into a tent made of cloth bags sewn together, by hand. Oh, and pot smoke is ok, Chief Pontiac.

    It doesn't matter if you take me seriously. The consequences of doing nothing will speak for themselves.

    I don't "want" to give up on technology. We need to switch to alternative sources of energy, and it's not happening fast enough. The money people are digging up from the ground, in terms of fossil fuels, is short sighted profit with long term consequences.

    We could consume clean energy if homes ran on geothermal power and solar energy. I think the government should play a role in getting individual households to be energy independent, matching twenty first century necessity with long term, forward thinking technology.

    Also we needer greener urban areas, while returning more land to nature, such as protecting areas of the planet that are essential.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 11:01 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidSo you don't want people to have lights. We will all have to shut down or die. I'll know you're serious when you shun all electrics and move into a tent made of cloth bags sewn together, by hand. Oh, and pot smoke is ok, Chief Pontiac.


    Hey Blakes, don't insult Chef Pontiac by using that in the same post as a fem.icon_wink.gif

    photo e5bfe571-e5c8-4a8d-9ada-de8255101d7a.jpg

    We've discovered hundreds upon hundreds of years supply of oil over the last decade or so, but still I would use geothermal and/or solar when I could. Being a conservative, I like the idea of being self sustaining.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 11:39 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Blakes7 saidSo you don't want people to have lights. We will all have to shut down or die. I'll know you're serious when you shun all electrics and move into a tent made of cloth bags sewn together, by hand. Oh, and pot smoke is ok, Chief Pontiac.


    Hey Blakes, don't insult Chef Pontiac by using that in the same post as a fem.icon_wink.gif

    photo e5bfe571-e5c8-4a8d-9ada-de8255101d7a.jpg

    We've discovered hundreds upon hundreds of years supply of oil over the last decade or so, but still I would use geothermal and/or solar when I could. Being a conservative, I like the idea of being self sustaining.

    Right. You'd think self sustaining v unsustainable would be a no brainer.

    And what's wrong with fems, they don't drive big enough cars for you??? There could be some kind of Freudian thing going on there.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2013 11:41 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    freedomisntfree said
    Blakes7 saidSo you don't want people to have lights. We will all have to shut down or die. I'll know you're serious when you shun all electrics and move into a tent made of cloth bags sewn together, by hand. Oh, and pot smoke is ok, Chief Pontiac.


    Hey Blakes, don't insult Chef Pontiac by using that in the same post as a fem.icon_wink.gif

    photo e5bfe571-e5c8-4a8d-9ada-de8255101d7a.jpg

    We've discovered hundreds upon hundreds of years supply of oil over the last decade or so, but still I would use geothermal and/or solar when I could. Being a conservative, I like the idea of being self sustaining.

    Right. You'd think self sustaining v unsustainable would be a no brainer.


    And what's wrong with fems, they don't drive big enough cars for you??? There could be some kind of Freudian thing going on there.icon_wink.gif


    Took you 38 minutes to respond. What's the matter with you?
    icon_wink.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 19, 2013 11:46 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    HottJoe said
    freedomisntfree said
    Blakes7 saidSo you don't want people to have lights. We will all have to shut down or die. I'll know you're serious when you shun all electrics and move into a tent made of cloth bags sewn together, by hand. Oh, and pot smoke is ok, Chief Pontiac.


    Hey Blakes, don't insult Chef Pontiac by using that in the same post as a fem.icon_wink.gif

    photo e5bfe571-e5c8-4a8d-9ada-de8255101d7a.jpg

    We've discovered hundreds upon hundreds of years supply of oil over the last decade or so, but still I would use geothermal and/or solar when I could. Being a conservative, I like the idea of being self sustaining.

    Right. You'd think self sustaining v unsustainable would be a no brainer.


    And what's wrong with fems, they don't drive big enough cars for you??? There could be some kind of Freudian thing going on there.icon_wink.gif


    Took you 38 minutes to respond. What's the matter with you?
    icon_wink.gif

    It's not like I'm on RJ all the time!!!icon_mad.gif