T Nation

Who's your daddy? Washington Lobbyists

How do you folks feel these shenanigans?

What would be the point of firing congress if they just go work for big pharma and other lobby groupies once we vote them out? System itself needs changes.

Problem is these people are so incredibly insulated it’s nearly impossible to hurt them legally or financially, seems the people who can hurt politicians most are the lobby groups as they control who gets funding, and as we have seen on this vid they can back opponents to intentionally blackmail politicians to do what they desire. If politicians don’t cave, they can simply put their money behind someone who will do what they/big pharma wants. The fact is they are more parasitic to the functioning of our economy than anything I can think of.

So, still want to talk about welfare, food stamps and those greedy poor people who keep wanting free shit? How about the already wealthy politicians selling us out for their greed? Where’s the uproar?

ROAR…this is ground zero for the decline of morality in our culture.

Leadership PACS , Life style subsidies, I heard this where they spend %70 of their time raising funds ,money right into personal bank account,

not only is our Government for sale , Our government extorts money for favors

these are the issues people should vent their rage on , not food stamps or unemployment

About the original post it’s called a revolving door

If you ask me I don’t see how Congress can be held accountable. My first idea is to have them tried by the UCMJ and have them tried as traitors, but then I’ve categorized big pharma as a domestic enemy lol, but my feelings towards them are about harsh as they come.

End of the day they have done nothing legally wrong, we know the revolving door around congress and lobbies. How do we hurt the people who write our own laws lol? Feeling like a prole yet? Am I a traitor for wanting these people to pay for what they have done in blood?

This is why I somewhat like Thomas Sowell’s idea of paying Congressmen and women $1M per year with term limits of course. It would not only help take away some of the financial incentive to allow their votes to be bought but would encourage the best and brightest among us, who wouldn’t otherwise give up the large income they make in the private sector, to run for office on their principles.

-It’s incredible that Americans take it, then ask for more.

-What’s the point of giving anyone the power to pass the laws Congress does?

-The problem is that we grant the politicians power, and not just legitimate power, but the power and right to rule. If we merely granted them the powers and rights which we as individuals possess, that would be fine. We fail to recognize that they exercise powers and rights that nobody has individually.

-The poor are nothing but pawns, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
This is why I somewhat like Thomas Sowell’s idea of paying Congressmen and women $1M per year with term limits of course. It would not only help take away some of the financial incentive to allow their votes to be bought but would encourage the best and brightest among us, who wouldn’t otherwise give up the large income they make in the private sector, to run for office on their principles. [/quote]

How would that take away financial incentive-people always want more? It MAY make lobbying more expensive, so that only the wealthiest groups can lobby-what better way to do away with future competition? Ron Paul is one of the few(only one I’ve heard of) who supposedly didn’t do anything for lobbyists. Americans obviously want politicians who do.

Paying politicians a non-market value will help nothing. The market would pay politicians what they’re worth if it was allowed to operate.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
This is why I somewhat like Thomas Sowell’s idea of paying Congressmen and women $1M per year with term limits of course. It would not only help take away some of the financial incentive to allow their votes to be bought but would encourage the best and brightest among us, who wouldn’t otherwise give up the large income they make in the private sector, to run for office on their principles. [/quote]

How would that take away financial incentive-people always want more? It MAY make lobbying more expensive, so that only the wealthiest groups can lobby-what better way to do away with future competition? Ron Paul is one of the few(only one I’ve heard of) who supposedly didn’t do anything for lobbyists. Americans obviously want politicians who do.

Paying politicians a non-market value will help nothing. The market would pay politicians what they’re worth if it was allowed to operate.[/quote]

There is no drawback to reducing the number of lobbyists and making it more expensive to participate. Do you believe there are no honorable men in the private sector who would be insusceptible to lobbyists and vote according to their principles? A million/yr isn’t chump change.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
This is why I somewhat like Thomas Sowell’s idea of paying Congressmen and women $1M per year with term limits of course. It would not only help take away some of the financial incentive to allow their votes to be bought but would encourage the best and brightest among us, who wouldn’t otherwise give up the large income they make in the private sector, to run for office on their principles. [/quote]

How would that take away financial incentive-people always want more? It MAY make lobbying more expensive, so that only the wealthiest groups can lobby-what better way to do away with future competition? Ron Paul is one of the few(only one I’ve heard of) who supposedly didn’t do anything for lobbyists. Americans obviously want politicians who do.

Paying politicians a non-market value will help nothing. The market would pay politicians what they’re worth if it was allowed to operate.[/quote]

There is no drawback to reducing the number of lobbyists and making it more expensive to participate. Do you believe there are no honorable men in the private sector who would be insusceptible to lobbyists and vote according to their principles? A million/yr isn’t chump change.
[/quote]

The way money is raised for election campaigning makes it hard to vote for what one feels is best

an interesting twist

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
There is no drawback to reducing the number of lobbyists and making it more expensive to participate. Do you believe there are no honorable men in the private sector who would be insusceptible to lobbyists and vote according to their principles? A million/yr isn’t chump change.
[/quote]

There are no drawbacks if you’re wealthy enough to pay X(the amount needed to sway those with the power to eliminate your competition).

I don’t believe any mortal is insusceptible or absolutely principled-that is why I oppose giving mortals the power to rule me. If someone enslaves me, I don’t want there to be any illusion that I have consented.

$1,000,000 is certainly not chump change, but $2,000,000 is even better.

*Some people are certainly principled enough to resist the money offered(though I’m sure they have a price, too-it’s just more than their value to lobbyists) by lobbyists-the majority of people don’t care much for those people.

There is no reason to legally restrict lobbying.

If we’re going to pay politicians massive sums of money to represent us, I have to ask either:

-Why not let such a valuable service be privatized?
OR
-If we want to attract the best we have to government jobs, why not socialize all jobs? If a talented man’s best use is government work, why not let that talented man control how the less talented are used?

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If we’re going to pay politicians massive sums of money to represent us, I have to ask either:

-Why not let such a valuable service be privatized?
OR
-If we want to attract the best we have to government jobs, why not socialize all jobs? If a talented man’s best use is government work, why not let that talented man control how the less talented are used?[/quote]

I am curious what it would be like in Nickviarville , please give me a detailed description . All the nuts and bolts

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious what it would be like in Nickviarville , please give me a detailed description . All the nuts and bolts
[/quote]

I have no desire to either rule or be ruled. I view anyone who wants to rule as an aggressor, whom I should be justified in defending myself from. I view anyone who wants to be ruled as a fictional character-nobody wants to be ruled, most just believe that THEY are in charge of others.

The only way I could give you a detailed description of a society is if it was to be centrally planned.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If we’re going to pay politicians massive sums of money to represent us, I have to ask either:

-Why not let such a valuable service be privatized?
OR
-If we want to attract the best we have to government jobs, why not socialize all jobs? If a talented man’s best use is government work, why not let that talented man control how the less talented are used?[/quote]

The act of governance by its very nature cannot be a privatized entity so not sure what you mean by that. Not sure who is arguing that talent is best used in government work but you have to admit the majority of Congressional members are rather unimpressive intellectually. Just listen to Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, etc. There is little incentive for people in the upper echelons of their chosen professions to enter politics due to the intensive scrutiny involved and as a result we simply do not have the best candidates to choose from. Legally earned money is a good motivator.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The act of governance by its very nature cannot be a privatized entity
[/quote]

You’ll have to explain this point.

Governance at its best is a privatized entity. Governance at its worst is socialized, dictatorial, and tyrannical.

*Lobbyists are not the evil that we need to combat. If a man robs you, then uses some of the money to buy his wife a pizza, should you punish his wife for his crime?

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Legally earned money is a good motivator.
[/quote]

Money is a great motivator. I don’t think we should try to motivate driven, intelligent people to enter government(AKA non-productive work). The fools we have do enough damage, imagine what intelligent folks could do with that power.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The act of governance by its very nature cannot be a privatized entity
[/quote]

You’ll have to explain this point.

Governance at its best is a privatized entity. Governance at its worst is socialized, dictatorial, and tyrannical.

*Lobbyists are not the evil that we need to combat. If a man robs you, then uses some of the money to buy his wife a pizza, should you punish his wife for his crime?[/quote]

I should have qualified that with governance under our Constitution. I am not talking about the many useless services currently provided by the government that could be privatized. I am talking about the executive and legislative branches and the process of making and enforcing the laws society has to live by. Privatizing this would do nothing to take money out of politics.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I should have qualified that with governance under our Constitution. I am not talking about the many useless services currently provided by the government that could be privatized. I am talking about the executive and legislative branches and the process of making and enforcing the laws society has to live by. Privatizing this would do nothing to take money out of politics.
[/quote]

Our government was supposed to be basically privatized-look who was allowed to vote. Our government has managed to convince people that voting is a natural right, and that one has a right to decide how property which is owned by others is used. The Constitution can not save the land called the United States of America, or its inhabitants.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
nobody wants to be ruled.[/quote]

I think you are dead wrong on this, tho I like much of what you say