Tags for this video have been changed from 'Obama, lobbyist, keystone pipeline' to 'Obama, lobbyist, keystone pipeline, rt' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^VoodooV:


Hate to say it but Mitt won that exchange. If that guy they referred to really is a lobbyist running his campaign, Mitt now knows he he needs to cover it up and be more discrete about it. Even if it is just a game of semantics...Mitt won.


Dont know much about the washington network except from watching that last clooney film, but if there is such a thing as an amoral mercenray lobbyist for hire who gets 20 million dollars a year from a couple dozen corporations and business pressure groups to push for legal changes IRRESPECTIVE of whats right for the country in the long run, then this Kaufman guy seems to be the CLASSIC EXAMPLE. If thats true then the reporter was right.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/browse_thread/thread/299b4d1fdf45dd3b>> ^quantumushroom:


There's a reason gun sales soared last xmas. Stay tuned...


Jesus christ. Sorry Quantum, this is just what happens to the empire when the others its been pushing around grow bigger and start taking YOUR lunch money.. welcome to the pacific!

I have to admit I do think the reporter came off as a douche. Plus it really wasn't the right time to attack him on that because Mitt just plays right off it to his advantage. Making it look like he's just defending himself from the rabid attacking reporter.

Hate to say it but Mitt won that exchange. If that guy they referred to really is a lobbyist running his campaign, Mitt now knows he he needs to cover it up and be more discrete about it. Even if it is just a game of semantics...Mitt won.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

>> ^heropsycho:

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but that would be a disaster. Voters don't have the foggiest idea how to allocate a federal budget.
>> ^Edgeman2112:
Real change = let voters control federal budget.



Congress has had a century of generally poor track record, so let's give it a try.

And that's actually beside the point. The entire lobbying industry would collapse overnight since the concentration of money in Washington is vanished. 300 people controlling money vs. ~200 million voters? Lobbyist buying power will be completely decimated.

What seems lost in translation for the left is, the "evil" corporations as well as the little guys have little choice but to ALL have lobbyists pursuing their own interests. Why?

Because government is too large and too powerful.

You can take your pick of which is the greater evil: 'greedy' corporations which can and do fail, or a permanent class/army of government bureaucrats untied to quality performance or market demand, and which has lobbyists to shame even the corporations.

I'd rather take my chances with the market.






>> ^westy:

>> ^quantumushroom:
People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.
In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.
also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

>> ^srd:

Two things that irritate me a bit about this commentary:
a) they gloss over the fact that GoDaddy was involved (some say their legal department directly, others say via lobbyists) in writing the draft AND they are themselves exempt from SOPA, and
b) didn't TYT have a GoDaddy affiliate program at one point? Is it still active? If so, are they going to drop it in response?
For some reason, I expected a bit more of TYT on this count.


He did mention this on the show the next day that they did indeed once get sponsorship from GoDaddy, however they have since ceased this arrangement with them (well before the SOPA thing started).

>> ^VoodooV:

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue
If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.
I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.
Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.
We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy


Correct step, but you're not accounting for folks who hire onto some big corporation or what not after their public service term. Government regulatory bodies are notorious for this, but so are Congress or their staffers. You can't really deny them future employment, but there is obvious alignment and abuse of that taking place throughout government. Taking lobby dollars away might make it harder for them to maintain a relationship, but they will work out it by employing their family members with fat salaries or other means.


And then once they get to working for the company, they have a line into the relationships created during their terms. While it'd still be lobbying, it'd just end up being favors....a less quantifiable currency.

>> ^srd:

Two things that irritate me a bit about this commentary:
a) they gloss over the fact that GoDaddy was involved (some say their legal department directly, others say via lobbyists) in writing the draft AND they are themselves exempt from SOPA, and
b) didn't TYT have a GoDaddy affiliate program at one point? Is it still active? If so, are they going to drop it in response?
For some reason, I expected a bit more of TYT on this count.


well, if godaddy is partnering with youngturks, i'd say holy crap, good job, turks, for supporting the truth despite the fact that you're sponsored by godaddy. however, i imagine that's no longer the case, considering what they've said here.

Two things that irritate me a bit about this commentary:

a) they gloss over the fact that GoDaddy was involved (some say their legal department directly, others say via lobbyists) in writing the draft AND they are themselves exempt from SOPA, and

b) didn't TYT have a GoDaddy affiliate program at one point? Is it still active? If so, are they going to drop it in response?

For some reason, I expected a bit more of TYT on this count.

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue

If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.

I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.

Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.

We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy

It's all about incentives. Right now there's strong incentives for rich bankers to influence politicians with lobbyists, and to grab money in every way possible, because there's no real penalty for it or no better incentive to not do it.

In smaller companies, the CEOs have a higher incentive to keep people employed, because they are often more specialized, so they can't just get outrageously more pay than other workers for instance.

In the end it comes down to politicians must implement checks and balances, such that they are harder to corrupt. Companies are in it for the profit, morals don't enter into it.

i admire ron paul for voting what he espouses.he is fairly consistent and i can respect that BUT he is also a devout ayn rand fan and that should give anyone pause.
a unrestricted free market will not produce the pseudo financial utopia the chicago economists like friedman espouse,no matter how much they may wish it.
in fact,it will produce the exact opposite and there are many examples that people who believe in unrestricted markets seem to ignore.

in my opinion a few small but powerful changes could make a difference:
1.get rid of citizens united and make it so no private money can fund public elections.
2.put a cork on the ability of the congress and senate to profit from insider trading AND the ability to turn their political influence into a lucrative career as a lobbyist.make the job about public service and not pure enrichment at the detriment of those you were elected to represent.
3.re-instate glass steagall and other measures to separate commercial from investment banks.
4.return the phrase "for the public good" (removed in the early 70's) from the corporate charter and allow civil and class action suits against corporations who are discovered abusing communities by what ever means.and allow AG's to dissolve a corporation for gross un-compliance.if they are going to be deemed a "person" then they should be held to the same standard of community as the rest of us.

these are just some of the points ron paul does not address and i feel they are so vitally important and are a few reasons i cant support him.
his stance on military intervention and recinding the gross over-powering of the executive branch i totally agree with.
i also am not against his end-the-fed and other useless federal government agencies.either make them more effective or give that power to the states and some (DOD comes to mind) are so bloated and cumbersome that they have taken on an eerie "too big to fail" kind of character.

there is one thing that i find curious.
since ron paul is a free market prophet,why arent the corporations backing this man up with all their money and influence?
gingrich,romney and obama are getting all the wall street campaign money and media exposure.while ron paul is being marginalized.
maybe i am just being cynical but it seems to me that ron pauls "free market" talk may be perceived as a de-rigging of the game and our corporate masters cant have that.they paid big money to keep your business in the shitter.

if thats the case...well..good on him but i have to admit not being an expert on corporations nor economics.so i could be way off the mark.

The same tired old debunked arguments make it blazingly obvious they simply don't want it to be legal, whether influenced by lobbyists or from plain old fashioned unfounded prejudices.

I completely agree with you there. We can only hope it happens sooner rather than later.


>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Auger8:
I'm sure the system can be fixed but as it is now it just seems like lobbying breeds corruption.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
@Auger8 @Sagemind
Lobbying is a good thing.
Many years ago I was a member of a successful, grassroots organization which hired a full time lobbyist to talk to state legislators.
Lobbying is not inherently evil.
What is needed is to enforce the existing laws against bribing public officials and re-enact the laws against immoral campaign contributions BRIBES.
Getting rid of Super-PAC's would be an excellent start.
I also really like the Canadian laws against paid political commercials.


It won't be easy--but it can be done.