Does This Bother You At All?

[Guest]

A recent report by the Congressional Ethics Office--there's a misnomer if I ever heard one--reported that lobbyist's campaign contributions to members of Congress has totaled $1.7 billion over the last ten years. Further, the rate of campaign "giving" has accelerated dramatically in recent years.

With all those zeros, it's sometimes hard to do the arithmetic. I did it for you. That's $3.91 million for each and every walking, talking member of the U.S. Congress! Of course, they all didn't get that much--some got lots more if they were in positions to be "friendly" towards their donors.

This is the "democracy" designed by our founding fathers? I think not. I've almost concluded we need a new system. Would a monarchy work better?

This factoid really P's me off.

[Guest]

A recent report by the Congressional Ethics Office--there's a misnomer if I ever heard one--reported that lobbyist's campaign contributions to members of Congress has totaled $1.7 billion over the last ten years. Further, the rate of campaign "giving" has accelerated dramatically in recent years.

With all those zeros, it's sometimes hard to do the arithmetic. I did it for you. That's $3.91 million for each and every walking, talking member of the U.S. Congress! Of course, they all didn't get that much--some got lots more if they were in positions to be "friendly" towards their donors.

This is the "democracy" designed by our founding fathers? I think not. I've almost concluded we need a new system. Would a monarchy work better?

This factoid really P's me off.


yes of course it does, and so does this...

"A day after beating incumbent Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary contest, Rep. Joe Sestak announced that he would make "enforcement of the pay-as-you-go budget rules" a priority if he wins in November. Good luck to him.

"Pay-as-you-go, or paygo, rules require that new entitlement spending and new tax cuts must be paid for dollar-for-dollar with entitlement spending cuts or tax increases. As Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee has noted, the Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi "have violated pay-as-you-go rules by nearly $1 trillion" over the past three years.

And they're not done. In the coming weeks, say Congressional Republicans, we should expect some $300 billion of expenditures that Democrats will declare "emergency spending" and thus do not have to be offset by other spending cuts. The list includes $60 billion for a military supplemental spending bill; $23 billion for education; and $170 billion for jobless and other welfare benefits. All said, the deficit could climb to $1.7 trillion from the current record high $1.4 trillion. "I really can't think of the last time the Democrats paid for anything they want to spend money on," Mr. Ryan grumbles."


Now I realize that the deficit is all Bush's fault....as is the international monetary crisis but just thought I would at least say this....That doggone Bush !

IF anyone responds it will be interesting how it gets twisted to be his fault !

[Guest]

...Now I realize that the deficit is all Bush's fault....as is the international monetary crisis but just thought I would at least say this....That doggone Bush !

IF anyone responds it will be interesting how it gets twisted to be his fault !Aww c'mon Bucco. Who in any recent posts has assigned complete blame for the current runaway deficit spending and the exploding level of the national debt totally on George Bush? What good would it do to assign blame to a President that's retired to his ranch?

The facts are that a pattern of deficit spending and a growing national debt began on Bush's watch, in 2001 specifically. It has continued unabated into the Obama administration. If you want to assign blame to Congress, the first six years of the run of deficit spending and growing debt occurred in Republican Congresses and has continued for the last three years that the Democrats have had the majority.

If anything, the rate of deficit spending and debt growth has increased on the current Democratic watch. But it's tough to determine accurately how much was due to simple old spending on unfunded programs as opposed to war spending and the cost of trying to reverse the financial crisis.

It's a meaningless exercise to try to assign blame at this point. What's more important is who's going to take action, provide leadership, to begin to reverse our profligate spending and unsustainable debt levels? Is that person or persons currently in elected office? So far, it doesn't look that way to me.

By the way...how in only one post did this thread morph from considering the effects of special interest lobbying to who's responsible for the national debt? How about getting back to the lobbying question?

[Guest]

Aww c'mon Bucco. Who in any recent posts has assigned complete blame for the current runaway deficit spending and the exploding level of the national debt totally on George Bush? What good would it do to assign blame to a President that's retired to his ranch?

The facts are that a pattern of deficit spending and a growing national debt began on Bush's watch, in 2001 specifically. It has continued unabated into the Obama administration. If you want to assign blame to Congress, the first six years of the run of deficit spending and growing debt occurred in Republican Congresses and has continued for the last three years that the Democrats have had the majority.

If anything, the rate of deficit spending and debt growth has increased on the current Democratic watch. But it's tough to determine accurately how much was due to simple old spending on unfunded programs as opposed to war spending and the cost of trying to reverse the financial crisis.

It's a meaningless exercise to try to assign blame at this point. What's more important is who's going to take action, provide leadership, to begin to reverse our profligate spending and unsustainable debt levels? Is that person or persons currently in elected office? So far, it doesn't look that way to me.


I dont disagree with you but if you read my post on the plans of the President and the Democratic party, they plan to campaign this fall using the "Blame Bush" mantra as their centerpiece !

In case you missed it in my thread earlier...

"Obama’s 2010 Election Strategy: Campaign Against George Bush"

"President Barack Obama is trying to ride the wave of anti-incumbency by taking on an unpopular politician steeped in the partisan ways of Washington.

It doesn’t matter that George W. Bush left office 16 months ago.

The White House’s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear – pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush.

It’s a lot to ask an angry, finicky electorate to sort out. And even if Obama can rightfully make the case that the economy took a turn for the worse under Bush’s watch, he’s already made it – in 2008 and repeatedly in 2009."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obamas_2010_election_strategy_campaign_against_geo rge_bush

This is a man who has NEVER had a real job and is a career politician !

[Guest]

Back to VK's point in this thread, yes - it is Congress, so significantly influenced by lobbyists, that is to blame for the financial collapse and the resultant deficit. Even short term historical analysis will tell a simple story of how Congress dismantled financial regulations, opening the floodgates to unparalleled corporate greed. So what if Bush was in the White House! Sure, he thought deregulation was a good idea. But so did Greenspan, Dodd and a lot of other 'experts'. You can stop defending Bush's part in creating the problem. He was a minor player and nowhere close to smart enough to see what would happen. In the same vein folks should stop demonizing Obama for spending us out of the recession. Yes, it's a problem, but history will also say it was effective drastic action. I know you are not happy with this, and perhaps you refuse to believe the stats, but the worst financial crisis in 70 years is being reversed in a far shorter period than almost all the 'experts' imagined.
I agree the situation is scary, and frustrating because Congress could do a much better job of spending the money and crafting the regulations which would fix this even sooner and better. The 'party of no' is the perfect example of a purely political response to a very real set of problems.

It's Congress which is to blame. Let's stick to that topic for a while.

[Guest]

Back to VK's point in this thread, yes - it is Congress, so significantly influenced by lobbyists, that is to blame for the financial collapse and the resultant deficit. Even short term historical analysis will tell a simple story of how Congress dismantled financial regulations, opening the floodgates to unparalleled corporate greed. So what if Bush was in the White House! Sure, he thought deregulation was a good idea. But so did Greenspan, Dodd and a lot of other 'experts'. You can stop defending Bush's part in creating the problem. He was a minor player and nowhere close to smart enough to see what would happen. In the same vein folks should stop demonizing Obama for spending us out of the recession. Yes, it's a problem, but history will also say it was effective drastic action. I know you are not happy with this, and perhaps you refuse to believe the stats, but the worst financial crisis in 70 years is being reversed in a far shorter period than almost all the 'experts' imagined.
I agree the situation is scary, and frustrating because Congress could do a much better job of spending the money and crafting the regulations which would fix this even sooner and better. The 'party of no' is the perfect example of a purely political response to a very real set of problems.

It's Congress which is to blame. Let's stick to that topic for a while.

Since I agree with some of what you say, it appears you were giving me a short lecture on staying with the topic.

I spent the campaign on here discussing exactly that. One of my oppositions to this President was that it was creating the "perfect strom" with this particular congress.

I will be glad to stick to the subject of congress but it seems that each time that happens, we hear about George Bush thus my sarcastic comments on him. Even the President has decided to campaign that way.

I need no lectures to point a finger...this body which the President allowed to come up with the "stimulus" bill which was approx 60% pork, this body which the President allowed to do most of the heavy lifting on that wonderful mess of a health bill. I know where the problem is but each time you mention our leadership whether it be the WH or congress, you get the old Bush routine.

[Guest]

...plans of the President and the Democratic party, they plan to campaign this fall using the "Blame Bush" mantra as their centerpiece!..."President Barack Obama is trying to ride the wave of anti-incumbency by taking on an unpopular politician steeped in the partisan ways of Washington....It doesn’t matter that George W. Bush left office 16 months ago....The White House’s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear – pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush....Well, good luck to them. I'm certainly no political strategist, but if they think that "centerpiece" strategy will work, I'd guess there'll be a lot of openings for new Democratic political strategists in the not too distant future.

I know that strategy won't work with me. In fact, I can't see where there's any value in even listening to any of them, from either party. I'm just going to turn them all off and vote for someone who isn't there now.

[Guest]

. I'm just going to turn them all off and vote for someone who isn't there now.
__________________
The solution to fixing a government which is so clearly dysfunctional? NEVER VOTE FOR AN INCUMBENT!

VK, I totally agree.........

[Guest]

This is the "democracy" designed by our founding fathers? I think not. I've almost concluded we need a new system. Would a monarchy work better?


I'm not sure a monarchy would be the solution, but we are rapidly heading off a cliff. Forecasts six months ago were that we would be in the same shape as Greece is in today by 2020. The recent estimates say we may be there by 2015. This puts a stress on the country that cannot be supported. S&P is leaking hints that US Treasuries debt rating may be cut.

Right now there are bills in congress to put through an 'emergency' bailout of Public Service Union Pension's. The initial cost is estimated at between 150 and 200 billion dollars. These are primarily unions in the most liberal states (California, Michigan, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Mass, etc). It is expected that people who live in states like Florida, Texas, Tennessee, etc will go along with this subsidy like good little sheep. The recent opposition to the AZ illegals programs demonstrates that DC is unconcerned about what the people want. Estimates vary between 70-80% of the population supporting this law. Our national government opposes it despite the fact that it mirrors national law. Unemployment in the private (taxpaying sector) continues to increase.

If we are realistic, we know where continuing these policies will lead us. We will become insolvent as a nation, be unable to support basic service and become a replica of what we see happening in Greece today. These conditions will lead to massive protests and we may well wind up with conflicts between the citizens and the military of this country. This is not idle speculation - it has happened before in this country. The WWI bonus veterans established a tent city DC protesting not being given what they were promised, including jobs. They marched on the capitol. Answering this march was a US Army brigade under the command of Douglas MacArthur. They destroyed the tent city and drove the veterans away by force of arms.

Unless we change direction, I suspect that in a few years, the nation will be ready for 'a man on a white horse'. I hope we can change our direction before this occurs. As Thomas Jefferson said..."When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Ask yourself, do you believe that anyone in our government fears the people or are we afraid of our government (I'm from the ITS and am here to help)?

[Guest]

...we are rapidly heading off a cliff. Forecasts six months ago were that we would be in the same shape as Greece is in today by 2020. The recent estimates say we may be there by 2015....we know where continuing these policies will lead us. We will become insolvent as a nation, be unable to support basic service and become a replica of what we see happening in Greece today....This is not idle speculation - it has happened before in this country....As Thomas Jefferson said..."When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Ask yourself, do you believe that anyone in our government fears the people?...Right on the button, BBQ. I can't disagree with one thing you said. I've been saying it myself. The only answer is a complete change in the people elected to our government (something that is doable), or a change in the form of our government (not much of a chance of that). So we all know what we have to do.

[Guest]

We have the best Congress that money can buy!