Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Voltaire

Since Obama did this, it must automatically be harmful for America to some of you

Recommended Posts

Personally I think this ban of lobbyist access to government officials is great. I couldn't be more pleased. However the article is chock full of lobbyists howling about how wrong and terrible this law is so there's lots to work with here if you're inclined to work agree with them.

 

I can't read the far right posters around here. Since we couldn't even get that consensus on the killing of bin Laden, who knows? Anyways, does anybody here want to criticize the president or have we finally found an issue that everybody here agrees on? I hope, finally, we'l have found an issue that everybody agrees Obama has done right. Right?

 

 

-----------

 

Limits on Lobbyists as Hosts? Simply Unworkable, They Say

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: April 6, 2012

 

WASHINGTON — Tough new limits proposed on the way special interests could court executive branch officials have prompted a fierce counterattack from lobbyists who fear they will end a cherished Washington ritual: hosting federal workers at events like conferences, cocktail parties, galas and movie screenings.

 

Filmmakers and farmers, gun makers and real estate agents, and people in dozens of other industries say the rules under consideration by the Obama administration would choke off their ability to have a mutually beneficial dialogue with government officials. As a result, they say, public policy would be made in a vacuum, and federal rules would be more unrealistic and unworkable.

 

The proposal would extend restrictions now on political appointees to more than two million government workers. Federal employees could no longer accept “gifts of free attendance” at the many seminars, receptions and other social gatherings held by registered lobbyists and lobbying organizations as a matter of course in Washington.

 

In issuing the proposal under instructions from President Obama, the Office of Government Ethics said lobbyists often used such events to curry favor with federal employees.

 

The ethics office, which is now weighing the response to the proposal it made last September, said lobbyists had used these gatherings not only to discuss business with federal employees, but also to “foster a social bond that may be of greater use in the long run.”

 

The problem, it said, is “not the brazen quid pro quo, but rather the cultivation of familiarity and access that a lobbyist may use in the future to obtain a more sympathetic hearing for clients.”

 

The American League of Lobbyists, a trade group, denounced the proposal as excessive, and leaders of other groups branded it as demeaning and dismissive of the role that industry experts can play in formulating sound public policy.

 

The Motion Picture Association of America, the trade group for major Hollywood studios, strenuously objected to a suggestion by the ethics office that movie screenings were social events where lobbyists built good will, thus enhancing their influence with federal employees.

 

The association said that movie screenings at its headquarters two blocks from the White House “are not purely social events akin to sporting events or theatrical and musical events, but rather serve as educational opportunities,” allowing federal employees to learn about moviemaking techniques and “challenges facing the industry.”

 

Ronald L. Phipps, former president of the National Association of Realtors, said the restrictions would “perpetuate the problem of the Beltway bubble,” isolating regulators from the industries they regulate.

 

The USA Rice Federation, the lobby for rice growers, called the proposal insulting. The administration, it said, appears to view lobbyists as predators and federal employees as “weak, unprincipled victims.”

 

Under current rules, federal employees can accept free invitations to certain “widely attended gatherings,” and they often do so. Under the proposal, they could no longer accept such “gifts” from registered lobbyists and lobbying organizations.

 

Administration officials are still reviewing the comments, and it is unclear when a final decision may be made on whether to impose the new rules. But the Obama administration defended the proposal as a way to curb the influence of special interests, just as Mr. Obama did in 2010 when he told federal officials not to appoint registered lobbyists to advisory committees, boards and commissions.

 

Special interests can drown out the voices of ordinary Americans by deploying “lobbyists who have special access that is not available to all citizens,” Mr. Obama said then.

 

Mr. Obama promised to run the most ethical and transparent administration in history. While berating lobbyists in public, the administration has worked with them in private. White House officials have often met with lobbyists at coffee shops near the White House, so the meetings do not show up in White House visitor logs. Despite a pledge not to take money from registered federal lobbyists, Mr. Obama has relied on people active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.

 

The proposed rules are aimed at lobbyists who work for trade associations. The new restrictions would not apply to institutions of higher education or to certain nonprofit groups like professional associations, scientific organizations and learned societies.

 

While these entities may lobby, the ethics office said, they pose less risk of “ethical harm,” and they can promote the professional development of government scientists and other federal employees. By contrast, it said, professional education is usually not the primary concern of trade associations.

 

This distinction infuriated lobbyists for trade associations.

 

Groups like the American Frozen Food Institute, the American Hospital Association and the Edison Electric Institute said they engaged in both lobbying and educational activities, with training as a major part of their mission.

 

However, watchdog groups like the Project on Government Oversight, the Government Accountability Project and Common Cause welcomed the proposal, saying it would help break up the cozy relationships between federal regulators and regulated industries.

 

Lobbyists said such relationships were essential at a time when the government regulates almost every corner of the economy and federal officials are continually promoting public-private partnerships to create jobs.

 

The Consumer Electronics Association, which holds a giant trade show each year, said the new restrictions would “drive a wedge between policy makers and job creators” and lead to a “drastic dumbing-down of government.”

 

The National Shooting Sports Foundation said the proposal would make it far more difficult to have “a constructive and mutually beneficial dialogue” between its members — manufacturers of firearms — and federal officials who regulate the industry.

 

Several members of Congress share the critics’ concerns. In a letter to the ethics office, nine House Democrats, including Representatives Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and James P. Moran of Virginia, said the rules could disrupt “the necessary flow of information between the public and private sectors” and adversely affect their constituents, including businesses and federal employees.

 

Civil servants say the rules could impose onerous new obligations on them. The rules suggest that federal employees check a searchable online database of lobbyists, maintained by Congress, to see if an invitation comes from a registered lobbyist or lobbying organization.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/us/politics/lobbyists-object-to-proposed-limits-on-courting-officials.html?pagewanted=2&hp&gwh=41E346DB0D1AC2843B1F728792F697F2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok .... first of all you say "We couldn't even come to a consensus" about killing Bin Laden.. Let's start there. Ummm. It's not like we had him in custody and had all kinds of time to make a decision.

 

But let's for arguments sake say IF .... we could poll the entire US population and get an instant result. You are the President. You know where Bin Laden is and you can kill him. Do you do it?

 

What do you think the percentage would be?

 

50/50?

 

You're high. It'd be 90 percent at least. Do you not approve? Took too long, IMHO.

 

I thought that's why Bush was elected to a second term, he used the fear tactics of the terrorists to suggest that he was gonna be the one to hunt down Usama. Dint do it.

 

Spent more money than most countries will ever own to try and do it too. But ... even given 4 more years ... nope ... no Bin Laden.

 

WTF?

 

I'm guessing Seal Team 6 and flying drones were in existence when Bush was President .... Maybe Obama is just utilizing them better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right? That's where you start ... so let's start there ... and then we can get along to the rest of these concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have any response? Do you know why that is?

 

It's because you are being intentionally mislead. You don't actually think for yourself ... you think how you were trained to think.

 

It's not your fault. A lot of money has been spent to make it convincing. But ... it's all bullshiat. Remember when you were a kid and your parents told you that you could be an astronaut? That was a lie. They didn't know it was a lie ... but it was.

 

What surprises me is that .... people just refuse to see the bleakness that is our future. America is not gonna survive on it's own .... the world friggin hates us. We are like the drunk uncle that shows up with the funny idea of bringing a sex toy wrapped in Christmas paper and leaves it under the tree for your daughter to find. We wanted to be there for you, and cheer you up .... but we always end up focking up things in the end. We get too involved, and we don't understand the meta, the details of the situation.

 

Never works out. Better off just pretending like it never happened. Can't be fixed ..... it happened. Joke gone bad. Just walk away ..... America can't do that. Chilean miners were on CNN 24/7. Now nobody cares. What's next!? Nobody cares about what's actually happening ... they just want to know about the next movie, the next celebrity wedding ... they want to feel included in a society that they just aren't included in.

 

It's sad really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The proposed rules are aimed at lobbyists who work for trade associations. The new restrictions would not apply to institutions of higher education [sEIU] or to certain nonprofit groups like professional associations, [wacko green initiatives], scientific organizations [Van Jones], and learned societies"

 

 

 

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, GF, the topic is preventing federal employees from being hosted, wined and dined, and buddying up with lobbyists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't our White-African-American POTUS campaign on getting rid of lobbyists in 2008? Why didn't he do this in 2009? Why now? Oh that's right, it's campaign season again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read that far.

 

Let's first observe this "consenus to kill Bin Laden" thing. I read that far.

 

Or do we just wanna concede that was a stupid thing to say .... and I might read the rest of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't our White-African-American POTUS campaign on getting rid of lobbyists in 2008? Why didn't he do this in 2009? Why now? Oh that's right, it's campaign season again.

 

So, good idea, or not? Seem to have skipped that part and went right to the criticism on the timing. :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you follow? I'm trying to understand your point but ...the whole lack of "consensus to kill Bin Laden" .... still trying to get over that, before I address the rest of it.

 

You don't have anything to say in regards to that statement or my response?

 

ETA: Ok, I read more .... see why now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you at least volunteer that my position of 90 percent is a gift? I would hope it would be 100 percent.

 

I'm just saying these precise strikes that cost a couple hundred thousand dollars seem to be a lot more effective than these bazillion dollar wars we've been fighting.

 

Maybe, our tax dollars don't need to go to Haliburton anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you follow? I'm trying to understand your point but ...the whole lack of "consensus to kill Bin Laden" .... still trying to get over that, before I address the rest of it.

 

You don't have anything to say in regards to that statement or my response?

 

My point was that some people here have steadfastly refuse to give Obama credit for doing anything right. Taking out bin Laden or placing barriers in front of lobbyists to prevent access to federal employees should provide pretty much 100% support from all across the political spectrum but... no. These are great opportunity to take the high road and say Obama got one right.

 

I loathe George W. Bush, but I could name a few issues that I'm willing to agree with him and give him credit for doing/attempting: nuclear disposal sites in Nevada, auto industry bailouts, Social Security privatization, blocking California's EPA initiative, Guantanimo Bay, NCLB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's bad you stupid libturd. Only Repubturds and Liberturdians have any concept of what's right for America, now and until the end of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dubya was pro-latino ... he'd say as he ate some Tostitos.

 

8 years of a moron as our leader ... it's just not gonna be easy to come back from. It's funny though, I hear uneducated rednecks now with the same mantra. "It's gonna take 20 years to undo what Obama has messed up in 4 years." and the policies are not that much different, really.

 

They voted for Bush twice, but they'll say right away, "I never liked Bush, but ..." followed with something about terrorists or the economy.

 

I'm tired of it .... to be honest with you. Go ahead and vote yourself into stupidity ... I'm not voting in 2012. Not for Obama .... not for anyone. It's all a big scam anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you follow? I'm trying to understand your point but ...the whole lack of "consensus to kill Bin Laden" .... still trying to get over that, before I address the rest of it.

 

You don't have anything to say in regards to that statement or my response?

 

ETA: Ok, I read more .... see why now.

 

You are an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are an idiot.

 

You shouldn't feed the bears. He's going to come back joe that he has a masters and was making 60k (in manhattan, so you know that isn't jack) about 15 years ago, his family has millions that they won't give him.

 

Also, he was fast in junior high

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I's kinda like saying a 8 month old baby is a life ..... and abortion is murder,

 

Well .... you dunno ....... maybe that aborted child wouldabeen a d!ckhead? Couldabeen the next Einstein, we'll never know.

 

But I got odds .... taking bets at 100 to 1 that any given child is not the anti-christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quality of mercy is not strained

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:

'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes

The throned monarch better than his crown;

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,

The attribute to awe and majesty,

Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

But mercy is above this sceptred sway;

It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,

It is an attribute to God himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God's

When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,

Though justice be thy plea, consider this,

That, in the course of justice, none of us

Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;

And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much

To mitigate the justice of thy plea;

Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice

Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, good idea, or not? Seem to have skipped that part and went right to the criticism on the timing. :music_guitarred:

It's a great idea. Empty rhetoric like that will get dummies like you to vote for him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great idea. Empty rhetoric like that will get dummies like you to vote for him again.

 

Ok .... I'm all empty rhetoric. But let me ask you this .... do you believe Mitt Romeny will be the next President of the United States?

 

Really? Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great idea. Empty rhetoric like that will get dummies like you to vote for him again.

 

Hmm... go fock yourself? Simple question, no reason for personal insults. Already stated I'm writing in Ron Paul in the election, hopefully everyone does the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The supreme court would throw this out the window. We have the right to lobby the gov't, as do businesses, as does anyone in this country. You can't pick and choose

who or what intentions get to do this.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/217/case.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt this is a First Amendment issue. Then again, after Citizens United, who the hell knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever been to DC, I bet every fortune 500 company has offices and lobbyists there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giants fan: I like what you are doing in this thread. Please post in every political thread that you see recliner pilot or newbiejr posting in.

 

 

You might become my favorite poster on the bored if you can pull it off. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×