Lobbyists, Making out like Bandits under Obama and the Democrats
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Making out like bandits?
The lobbyists aren't getting much bang for their buck. Business lobbies give $millions to the Democrats to influence legislation yet still complain that Obama is anti-business and a commie. I don't get it.
Thats because those paying for influence, get SPECIAL exemptions, which help to limit competition...
Wake up...nappy-time is over. They are not talking about political contributions, they are talking about money expended on lobbying efforts, such as the salaries of lobbyists, the rent for their offices, the cost of their support staffs and so forth. It is quite natural to expect those expenditures to be up during an administration that actually does things. If you've followed these numbers -- which would have been difficult if you didn't know what they were -- they have risen and fallen over the 12 months ended in March in proportion to the intensity of the health care debate. We'll see what sorts of issues drive them up or down over the rest of the Spring and Summer, but so much was at stake in health care that the total is likely to decline from here...
Sag as usual, having trouble following the conversation.. I wasnt the one who made such claims.. You are in such a hurry to argue with individuals, that you dont seem to be able to follow along with who said what.. Try harder!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
Gee, do you think this can have something to do with The Supreme Court's insane ruling that corporations are entities that have the same rights as people and can influence the vote just as individual citizens do? If this bugs you, I would assume that you are in favor of Campaign Finance Reform and realized that the Superme Court's decision was whacko. Hate to say we told you so, but we told you so...
Of which I stated that the Supreme Court ruling had is not what we are talking about..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ahh no.. the money flowed in BEFORE the Supreme court ruled that corporations are entitled to freedom of speech..
Thanks though for again validating the accuracy of my posting sag.. You never cease to provide me with hours of entertainment over you arguing I'm wrong, while confirming I'm right..
Yup..and Obama was going to wipe DC clean of those pesky lobbyists from the Bush administration as part of his campaign agenda.
No, he wasn't. That's some unbelievably myopic spin that YOU put on his words out of your own unfamiliarity with the way Washington is and works. Nobody who had worked here even for the length of time that Obama did could have any such such misconception as to believe that he could do away with lobbyists. He can limit their positions, their influence, and to some extent, their access with respect to the White House and other Executive Branch agencies, but he can't make them go away anymore than he could make the baristas at all the Starbuck's go away. Some of you need to get in touch a little better...
Sag as usual, having trouble following the conversation.. I wasnt the one who made such claims.. You are in such a hurry to argue with individuals, that you dont seem to be able to follow along with who said what.. Try harder!!
You may be right on some pedantic, technical level that I should have linked back to <sickofnyc>'s post in addition to your own. My apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Of which I stated that the Supreme Court ruling had is not what we are talking about..
No, that's NOT what you stated at all. What you stated was...
Ahh no.. the money flowed in BEFORE the Supreme court ruled that corporations are entitled to freedom of speech..
There is NO disagreement expressed with regard to any of <sickofnyc>'s assumptions at all. Your only quibble was over timing. Rewriting history again in a not so successful attempt at CYA...
You may be right on some pedantic, technical level that I should have linked back to <sickofnyc>'s post in addition to your own. My apologies..
Your apology would hold some value if you didnt again say I was wrong, while confirming I was right.. AGAIN!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
No, that's NOT what you stated at all. What you stated was...
Ahh no.. the money flowed in BEFORE the Supreme court ruled that corporations are entitled to freedom of speech..
There is NO disagreement expressed with regard to any of <sickofnyc>'s assumptions at all. Your only quibble was over timing. Rewriting history again in a not so successful attempt at CYA...
I didnt quibble over the timing, I disputed the fact that the Supreme Court ruling had a dam thing to do with the lobbyiest money flowing in. Which of course you came in to say I was wrong, while saying the Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with it. If its this difficult for you to follow along with the thread, then I'm curious how you manage to keep your government job.. Unionized?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
