Forum Post: We all have the right to Lobby the government.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 11:45 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA
(610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why is it a crime when corporations do it ?
The government focuses there attention on issues brought to them , and thats what lobbyists do ; they bring issues to the government .
It just so happens that the wealthy businesses are more keen on this and can afford the time ..Lobbying don't come cheap.
But anyone can .. even this miserable wretch of an occupy movement can register themselves as lobbyists. perhaps they could be sponsered by charity .. good luck having them address any concerns but their own ..
Yes there is nothing criminal about businesses lobbying their government .. in fact it's a positive resource.. in an open society that we have built.
Whether we like it or not, corporations do have a right to petition the government, but there is a big honking difference between petitioning the government and lobbying as it's currently practiced. If I were to walk up to you and ask you to give me a hundred dollars, then that's completely acceptable (if obnoxious). If I spend half an hour reading an essay I wrote on why the world would be a better place if you gave me a hundred dollars that would be obnoxious as fuck and you're allowed to tell me to go die in a fire, but I'm still allowed to do it. If I threatened to pay people to fire you if you didn't give me a hundred dollars, and I had both the capacity and the intent to act on that threat, then that's called extortion and you could actually have me put away for a good long while for a stunt like that. Corporations have long since realized that #1 and #2 aren't very effective when you're trying to sell snake oil, and for some reason #3 is perfectly legal for them, so they've effectively been allowed to run a protection racket on our government. Under pretty much any variation of lobbying reform that any of us have proposed, #1 and #2 would still be legal, but #3 wouldn't be.
sorry .. no comprendee
Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney put in layman's terms how a lobby operates in the government.
http://youtu.be/MeVBa4lSscw
.
What do you mean? My point is that there is a big difference between petitioning the government for a legitimate redress of grievances and the current mix of coercion and bribery that currently goes on in the name of lobbying.
how will you ever really know .. under any law .. what goes on in the mind of some politicians. When I see one party totally disagreeing on another party .. I tend to call BS. what are the odds that every time an issue comes up they disagree ? we must certainly have to question their honesty at some point.. not?
How do we know what goes on in the mind of a small storeowner when he pays his protection fees to the local gangbangers? He may like them for real, legitimate reasons, and he may well have given the money to them as a gift even if they weren't going to bill him upfront. In fact, ten to one that's what he'll say in court too if we break his other kneecap. Hey Moe, pass me the crowbar, wouldja?
ahh now I see where you are going ..
Hence my point about lobbying. Regardless of what a given person is thinking while he is being bullied and bribed, bullying and bribery is still taking place and in a system like this none of the politicians are going to come out and say "The lobbyists made me do it" because that'll end their political careers for good.
..so you are suggesting lobbyists are threatening bullies !
Pretty much, yeah. The current combination of campaign finance deregulation and lobbying deregulation allows corporations and the wealthy to pour unmatchable sums of money into the coffers of any candidate they choose. More often than not candidates will take corporate money in order to get elected, because it is incredibly difficult to raise the necessary funds for a full-fledged campaign otherwise. Once Candidate X becomes Representative X, the other half of the deal comes due when the lobbyists come to his office with the following message: Vote the way we tell you and the organizations we represent will fund you for as long as you want; buck us and get ready to go back to private citizenship....
well if its like you say .. why wouldn't politicians be the first to ban the practice .. after all it's their knee cap !
Because it's also their rival's kneecap if they agree to play ball and their rival won't, and they've been playing this game for so long that a lot of them are scared shitless of what would happen if it were dismantled.
I would not want to be a politician..
Unfortunately, someone has to because the alternative is to let the lobbyists run the place directly. What we need to do is develop an independently aligned aggregate base of small donors strong enough to get a few people in power who didn't have to play the game to get in, and then make campaign finance and lobbying reform a major, long-lasting issue in the hope of slowly changing the climate up there.
it sounds like this aggregate base of donors will have the person that gets in doing their bidding .. so how is this different from the current knee cappers ?
Because politicians have a civic responsibility to their constituents, and an aggregate base of small donors will most likely be composed primarily of said constituents. Imagine a town wants to develop an empty lot, and already has a specific plan in mind. Unfortunately, a single person must hold the title to the property to begin the development process. Currently, the person with the title is chosen by whatever developer is willing to shell out the most money to install him regardless of whether the developer's plan is in line with that of the community. An aggregate base of small donors would allow the townspeople to collectively outspend the developers and thus choose someone who will actually contract out the development in a manner consistent with the plans of the town.
I can't afford to bribe them.
Get the money out!
supporting a campaign trail is not bribery .. thousand dollar dinner plates is not bribery .. where is the bribery ?
I think if a judge hosted a $1000 a plate dinner and invited Conrad Murray before the sentence was made, then gave him probation; people would be unhappy.
For some reason its perfectly acceptable for a politician to do it...
should the tax payer pay for the campaign? or do they already to a certain extent ..?
I think if people want to send money fine, but a lobbying schmooze fest attended by people with big pocketbooks looking for face time and future favours is something else. They're not paying for the food or the conversation.
How about an absolute limit on campaign spending for all parties? Then it wouldn't be necessary to throw ridiculous dinners at all... and fewer television ads to endure.
Well as I just wrote to WorkerAntLyn, the financial support will help a poor man run for office , and this gives everyone with a clean soul a chance to run. This ability to support with campaign funding actually removes the coruption. Imagine if only the rich could afford to run ? you would be the first to cry foul !
..and since there already is a limit .. on lobbyist ..donations ? ..not quite sure how that changes hands .. everyone knows the government runs on a tight budget .. and since they are up their on our behalf .. any additional representation we ask for along with a small donation would be most welcome ..
I think the point we may be overlooking is the purpose of lobbying the government and the government themselves.. this is a political process which enables ideas to presented for discussion and debate .. this is one of our greatest freedoms of our time.. during the days of "absolute power .. to even suggest an new idea to the king could be treason ..punished severly. In fact there are political supporters all around the world currently imprisoned for their opposition to the government.
I think we need to consider we have the finest system in the world .. a process without absolute power by anyone..
just one last note , I have heard these town hall meetings .. only the local business people usually show up .. and address their council with petitions .. so there again as I mention in my opening statement .. the focus of our government is what is brought to their attention .. it's all good .. or do you expect the business man to ask petition for his employees ? [not a serious question]
I'm all in favour of extremely strict limits on personal or private donations, as well as corporate donations; and backed up with penalties like disqualification. An absolute limit on campaign funding would be a big help too, that way no one can outspend the other.
The issue I have is that the lobbying process and fundraising (bribing) process is dominated by wealthy individuals and organizations who have the ability not only to get an audience, but also to use financial incentives to get the results they want from a politician.
Sure, I have no problem if anyone wants to walk into their rep's headquarters, or send a letter; but an exclusive $1000 a plate dinner where there is probably other talk of "Hey I don't like regulation X, how about I cut you a $1M cheque and you look into it."
Given how busy these people are fending off lobbyists, I'd be honestly surprised if most ordinary people would even get a return phone call, let alone any face time. You gotta have power, influence, and you gotta be willing to pay to be taken seriously.
Well I hear slander an accusations from national media talking. This is an issue of guilty until proven innocent. Bribery or slander choose your poison they both need to stop. Although no one has provided any evidence of bribery.
What would you call that then?
That ain't all they do either.
Actually, it is bribery. Bribery is, I quote:
Bribery is the offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. Bribes can take the form of gifts or payments of money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the person accepting can be charged with bribery.
Lobbying was supposed to be about petitioning causes. In other words, you're supposed to be convincing them with words, not thousand dollar dinner plates. The former is lobbying, the latter is bribing.
the dinner is trying to get your political leader to win the race by supporting a little campaign fund raising .. there is no petition involved .. no cause other than the direct support overall .. I don't see how limiting a dinner plate will change politics any .. when all campaigns have the same freedom ?
Campaign fund raising and lobbying are not the same thing. Lobbying, as defined by Mr Webster:
To conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation
Fund Raising is not lobbying. They are different things. You asked what was illegal with lobbying. Nothing, provided no exchange of money or gifts are involved. Once it is, it becomes bribery. Plain and simple. Like in my previous business example:
There's nothing wrong with the Buyer and Shirt Maker B having dinner while discussing their business deal. It's even considered fair that Shirt Maker B pays for the dinner - provided it does not cost over a certain amount. Because then it walks the line between business and bribery.
It's the same with those who want to back a political leader. If they want to hold a dinner for him, fine. But if they keep throwing money around, not fine. Then, regardless of how influenced the said person really is, it gives the appearance of influence. It's good sense for both parties to not be so involved. Both for the business, and the candidate.
how does the million dollar cap for lobbying fit in to this ?
Because it's the legal dollar limit able to be spent before the law cries foul. Don't you think it's a rather high amount before anyone sits up and takes notice? Even once a company or individual has given a politician $500,000, don't you think you'd feel like the politician was bought out by them?
There's arguments that lowering the cap doesn't change things because supposedly they say that the lobbyist with the most money will still win out. But here's the thing - considering that their talking to a person who's supposed to represent the people - shouldn't those people be listening to the facts presented and making an informed decision? Not choosing their issues by who has the biggest wallet?
Anyone who says lowering the cap doesn't change anything is pretty much admitting to corruption. That it's the dollar amount, and not the petition itself, that is looked at.
so than .. where is the bribery .. this is all legit ..?
just thought of something.. going back to campaign funding .. wouldd not campaign donations.. dinners etc . actually prevent only the rich from becoming politicians ? with donations a poor man is able to run .. if he has the right merit .. folks can support him/her through donations .. just saying there might be another side to this .. one that is not corrupt .. but in fact prevents corruption..
as for $500 000 sounds pretty high to .. a poor man .. but don't forget everyone is allowed to lobby and support financially .. and as you say the politician represents the people not his own agenda .. he is their to argue and debate with other politicians on his constituents behalf.. and all the issues they bring forth .. big or small ..
If their is corruption, where is it that you see evidence ? would it not be vital to bring this evidence forward ? you would have a stronger case .. and I would think the media would jump all over it if there were some kind of mischief going on .. not ?
"I would think the media would jump all over it if there were some kind of mischief going on..."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Yeah, because we all know how interested the media is in uncovering political "mischief"...did you just fly in from Jupiter or something?
I don't have a problem with campaign funding. It is necessary, especially to allow an even field. A poor man certainly can't run without contributions. And guess what? Here's the limits on contributions:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
Most of which are much lower than the lobbying limit. I feel like the unlimited ability to contribute by some parties are a bit questionable myself. But overall, these numbers are quite reasonable.
My point with the lobbying is that they've legalized bribery, and I feel this is wrong. They say - anything under $1 million is not bribery. Which is why there's no case for the media. (Who I don't have much confidence in. I have a family member who retired from printing media after many long years in it's workforce and has a great deal of disdain for modern news media. Watching news with him is very interesting, because he will point out to you the flaws of the broadcast. But that's a different discussion.)
I am against money being involved with lobbying because it would be like running a business like this:
Assistant Manager Bob is in charge of ordering supplies. Shoe Department Manager Joe wants a new display table. Clothing Department Manager Tom wants more hangers.
Joe goes to Bob, gives him a hundred dollars and says, "Hey, buddy, I need that new table." (For the record, the table costs much more than a hundred dollars)
Bob tells Tom he'll have to wait until later for more hangers, he's decided to buy a new Shoe Display Table.
If you worked at this store, would you feel this was right? Yet this is exactly how lobbying works. By saying "It's not bribery until it's a million dollars", they've legalized government bribery. That is my issue with the current form of lobbying.
In the end, even if the politician was for Law A instead of B all along, does it look or feel right for them to accept money; gifts; etc; to give their vote to the law?
well it is certainly an interesting argument .. in a shoe store it is not a democracy .. and I would think all sorts of favortism goes on .. bribery and what not .. it's a private affair really..
but in politics I think you pointed to something valid "to give their vote" which really does not ensure an outcome in democracy .. it is only one vote ..and all votes have equal weight.
and again there is no evidence of any bribery .. as lobby contributions are legit.
recently Mr President Obama tried to establish a nation wide health care system. Do you feel it was "bribery that prevented this proposal from seeing completion ?
I find your continue use of "well, it's legal so it's legit" interesting. So you don't feel upset at all at the idea that a company who wants a law passed can pay your congressman money or other types of assets in an attempt to sway his vote? That anyone can do this? You don't think that's an upsetting notion? You really have enough faith in these people to believe he/she will not be swayed by such gifts into voting how the company or person pays him to vote? Because I honestly don't. And that's why I don't want money involved with lobbying.
Ah, but see - this is also where the million comes in. You can give money to as many people as you want, as long as the sum is under a million. And on most bills all you need is a majority vote to pass. So you don't have to give money to everyone. Just enough to pass. And it's considered legit. You may take the stance that if it's the law, it's legal. My stance is - it's an Illegal Law. Bribery is Illegal, so should this practice be.
I disagree with your opinion on the store. If I was the store owner, I'd fire both parties involved. It's once again bad business as well as bad ethics. Bob's job is to make sure the store has what it needs. If it needs the hangers more than Joe's display table, then it doesn't matter if Joe gives him money, buys him coffee, or is his bowling buddy. He needs to do what's right for the store, not Joe. It's not a private affair because it effects everybody - from the other people who work at the store to the consumers who buy the products. Bad ethics is bad for business.
To be honest, I feel that it's this legalized bribery that is running both the passing and the defeat of all proposals in this current system. From the one you described to many others. So, I suppose my answer would be yes regardless of what proposal you asked me about.
A competent manager would place the welfare of the business over personal request.
I would like to ask about how the transaction of lobby donations take place. And where is that money used?
It's true that a competent manager would put the welfare of the business over a personal request or a bribe. Now the question is, how many competent manager's have you met? And if you think a private business can easily be filled with corruption, why would you have more faith in politicians?
A company cannot directly give money to the politician. They can, however, set up a PAC, which can then raise money to contribute to the politician. Mostly through employee contributions, but obviously as a higher level of management since I don't recall being asked for campaign contributions at work recently. This whole wack-a-doodle procedure pretty much essentially means the company is giving money to the politician, but hey - why do things straight forward when you can do things round about?
Where the money is used? That you'd have to ask a politician. Where it ends up after it's given is pretty much anyone's guess. Also, these are monetary contributions and do not include non-monetary gifts, dinners, plane tickets, etc.
Here's a link to the top recipients from last year:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php
As well as the top contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2010&indexType=s
It's getting so this thread limits how many times I can respond. Not quite sure
Please note the unemployment insurance has already been extended. So to try again.
Well at least you agree with inequality of wealth provides unfair education advantages.
Ps if you would like to continue please start a fresh comment
I was wondering why you were replying to my earlier replies. I shall start a new thread.
WorkerAntLyn , are you suggesting the United States Government accepts bribes ?
Mr president Obama , just announced he will try to extend unemployment insurance and pay for it by taxing the wealthy. Where are the facts you speak of?
If you really want to focus on the inequality that wealth provides , I suggest you look at education. It seems to me the wealthy have an increased opportunity to pursue a college degree. Of course hard to prove. But we really should encourage all students to achieve.
I guess you missed the fact that I said Lobbying = Legalized bribes?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. That donations by lobbyists to politicians are legalized bribes, and are directly related to what bills and proposals pass and what doesn't.
He will "try to" do these things. "Try" is not proof of anything. "Try" is a promise. A promise far too easily broken or manipulated. See what the bills read once they get to the floor before you praise any promise. And see it be passed. And read it, and see what it really says. And pay attention to what's been added on - that's something alot of people miss. That completely unrelated items are added onto proposals, and these unrelated items can have effects nobody pays attention to, because they are too busy yay/nay to the big item. Frankly, I find the current system a mess.
Actually, there is an inequality in acquiring higher education based on wealth, and it's not hard to prove at all. In fact, I believe several studies have already proven it. I remember reading about one months ago. And it does have an effect, because there are people who never get the training for jobs who would be very skilled and dedicated workers in them.
But I also believe that there's an increase skewed view that a higher education means you'll always get a better job. When the truth is, many people who get these educations never work a day in the jobs they're trained for. When a college or trade school says "n%" of our graduates are working, they include those not working in the fields they are trained in. They don't promise that the graduates are working where they trained, so it's not a lie. But it paints this image in people's minds when they hear that number. Sad that "spin" and "marketing" has made it's way even into our education, but it's true.
Why would the government provide social security. Surely the wealthy did not lobby for SS. Why would they with all their wealth.
I think you are very determined with this issue that it blinds you from the whole truth.
The government is for the people by the people and has accomplished many great things for everyone across the board. Political contributions are simply an avenue of supporting. Anyone can lobby. Or write a letter. If I was in office I would pay close attention to the " sensible petitions.
PACs did not exist in 1935 when social security came into being. The first one was formed in 1944 to back the reelection of President Roosevelt. If I lived during that time period, I might feel different about government, PACs, and lobbying. But I live in the present time period, and feel that the system has grown corrupt and needs changed.
I feel strongly about many issues, but I base those beliefs on facts. Yes, anyone can lobby. If you call your congressman and tell them you don't want him to vote for a law - you are lobbying. I'm not against lobbying. Presenting facts and petitions for or against an issue is fine. Giving money or non-monetary gifts is bribery. It doesn't matter if it's currently legal. Lots of things have been legal in the past that are not legal today because people realized that it was wrong and the laws were changed.
Go up to my previous post and take a second look at the limits even a PAC can give to a campaign per year. The amount they can give to back a candidate's campaign is roughly 4% of what that can give to a candidate for lobbying. Lobbying and party contributions are not the same thing.
I ask you again, if they are not influenced by this money, why would they accept it?
I would have to disagree with the whole paranoid theory. There are good honest citizens in this world. Look around at all the government has done for everyone rich and poor.
All the government has done for...?
Okay, I'm not going to touch that one. I think you need to read into the history of our government and research these matters. You seem to be rather under-informed. More than ever now is the time to be informed about what's really happening.
Otherwise, all I can say is it's hardly a paranoid theory to suggest that what is occurring is bribery, and is both unethical and should be illegal. There's lots of groups who have protested the use of money in lobbying over the years and attempted to have it scaled back or cut out completely. Ask yourself this - if they weren't influenced by this money, why would these politicians not back those saying the money should be removed? Why would you continue to accept these gifts knowing it was unpopular to the public and made you appear crooked if you weren't?
Yes, there are good honest citizens in the world. But the bad in mankind has proven time and again to be equal to the good. Trust is earned, not given. There's a difference between faith and blind faith. Be hopeful, but be informed.
But you don't have the right to taxpayer money when you fail miserably in business. When our representatives in congress and appointed officials at the Fed sell us out and hand you our hard-earned money and when we are made to suffer the fallout from your profligate business ventures, then we will strenuously protest a system where crony capitalism and pay-to-play rules.
your referring to the bailouts.. I don't think that was lobby influenced..
and at the time .. we thought they were to big to fail .. there would have been so much colateral damage .. so we saved the big three and bailed out the banks ... but now looing back .. perhaps we onlyy fueled the problem and allowed it o go global .. perhaps we should have taken the hit and dealt with all the damage .. and maybe we would be better off today .. this is not over .. and somewhere it will end .. the euro is struggling perhaps as a result .. , butt htey are in a crissis .. which will still affect the global economy .. no this is not over .. unlesss we can find a way .. a miracle cure ..
I had suggested on another post .. a sales profit CAP would turn this economic recession around , and I still believe it would .. we will see .. right now the situation is not desperate enough .
I agree that we should have taken the hit as you suggest and dealt with the fallout, even though it would have been difficult. Anytime the government intervenes in a capitalist system, it interjects a gross distortion by picking winners and losers. It also destroys the concept of moral hazard. I disagree, however, that the bailouts were not influenced by lobbyists. I believe that the influence of big bank money played a major role in the bank and AIG bailouts as did labor union money with auto industry bailouts. This disaster isn't over yet by any stretch. The government and the Fed simply kicked the can down the road. That's what politicians do best because they are a big part of the problem.
Well its an imperfect system in an imperfect world .. try to be a part of the solution
@FriendlyObserverA:
I have read both the senate and congress bills for unemployment insurance, and so far have not found anything that sounds fabulous. The piggybacking on it is amazingly less than on it's predecessor, but there's still time for more since the final bill isn't up yet. Here's only a few of the issues I see:
SEC. 103. STATE FLEXIBILITY TO PROMOTE THE REEMPLOYMENT OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS. (Sorry for the caps, I'm copy and pasting)
This. This is exactly what I meant by adding things onto bills. If you read through, what this is essentially saying is the government is giving itself the right to lend money to the states for demo projects. Our government, which has no money - all it has is debt - is saying that if a state wants to do a demo project, they'll lend them the money. Demo projects are research. Anyone will tell you research costs money. The idea of creating jobs by doing research - which may or may not lead to approved projects - with non existent government money is a joke. And has no place on a bill that has to do with reforming unemployment payments and regulations. It should be a separate proposal.
SEC. 105. RESTORE STATE FLEXIBILITY TO IMPROVE UNEMPLOYMENT PROGRAM SOLVENCY. (a) In General- Subsection (g) of section 4001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is repealed.
If you read what this amounts to is that you can lie, you can flat out lie, and get unemployment or a larger sum of unemployment payment, and you won't be prosecuted for it. And, you can still apply for unemployment and receive it.
I would like to know what Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 is. Because every version I've looked at ends at d. There is, however a (1) under (d) that includes a ";and". Might be what they're referring to in the bill. Be nice if our own government could keep it's sections and letters straight.
SEC. 101. CONSISTENT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENTS.
This has been an issue of mine for several years now. Here's what it comes down to. You either lose a job or are searching for a job, and suddenly are injured or come down with an illness. This injury or illness prevents you from getting employment for a time period under six months, but will keep you out of work between one to six months.
How do you receive assistance? Answer - You don't. Disability won't help you unless you're out of work for over six months, and Unemployment won't help you because you can't get a job. So you get Zip. Zero. Nada.
Yep, these sound like great improvements. I'm so glad our government thought of them. Also, alot of these provisions about extending unemployment say in the laws that the final decision falls to the state. So if the state says no, then the extensions don't happen.
The bottom line through all of this is that last time I checked SS was responsible for unemployment. Of course the rich and the government don't care. SS is a separate account from which the government can't spend, and the rich have no need of.
This bill is like giving a hungry dog a single treat instead of a meal. It's a tactic - look how nice and great we are. We passed this bill for you. Meanwhile, the real problems faced by the general public continue to go unaddressed.
well , you are obviously very concerned .. and have been working with this closely..
the first, SEC 103 .. sounds perfectly legit ..flexiblity to promote reemployment.. which sounds like creating work in research .. it puzzles me why the government would pay employment insurance for someone to sit at home , when they could pay them a little more and do something constructive ? can you explain this ?
the part about being injured and uneligible for neither insurance .. well why would disability take so long to kick in ?
I don't work with it, though sometimes I think I should. Reading the bills is a pain because they refer to other bills and laws, which you then have to research to find and read up on. But it's definitely worthwhile to understand what the government is doing.
My problem with SEC 103 is it's what I referred to as "piggybacking". Essentially, instead of presenting small bills that deal with a specific subject, they add something unrelated on. Or only partially related. SEC 103 is about the government giving the states rights to do research projects. Which, if they had the money to do so, I'd be behind 100%. But a) They don't have any money. And b) It doesn't belong together with a bill saying unemployment should be extended. Because that means if you want to pass the latter, you have to pass the former.
The bill can be sent back for revision if a section is disagreed upon, but the result is delays of the bill actually passing. That's why I say the system's a mess. Put separate issues on separate proposals and the emergency issues can get passed faster.
I rather think it's because SS is the only section of the government that's not out of money. Because it's funds are separate. The government has taken excess from it before, but for the most part it's funds aren't allowed to be used for anything but the programs it was set up for. However, part of the debt our government owns is to SS for the times it used the excess SS had after paying out for the year.
To get disability payments, the law requires you to be disabled for six months or more. To get unemployment, you have to actively be seeking work. I know because i know someone who had to have an emergency surgery several years ago. Was out of work for five months, and was told precisely that by both groups. So he got nothing. Helped support him during that time, and I can't tell you how angry the injustice of it made me. He certainly wasn't a slacker either, he'd been working right up until the surgery, and went right back to work after recovering.
what about health insurance ? doesn't that pay recovery time .. and support
Job didn't offer health insurance, and he couldn't afford it on it's own. Plus, most basic health insurance don't cover it. Short term disability (as it's called) is something you have to pay extra for. Any time I get health insurance from a company I work for, I make sure to get short term disability now. But, no, it's not included in most health insurance, and was definitely not included in the government one he ended up on because of needing the surgery.
Yes , I was truly hoping Mr President Obama would have been successful in providing a nonprofit public insurance .. I believe it was the wealthy elite that stopped the government from helping its citizens .. how exactly I do not know .. but I do know Mr Obama tried his darndest .. but the media gave him no support[ media is owned by the wealthy] .. there is big money in private insurance , they did not want to lose .. regardless of the suffering to all the innocent hard working people ..
You see you are always targeting the government .. where I personally feel it is the wealthy that is thetrue enemy to equality .. and the government is really our only hope of ever winning this battle .. and keep in mind it was history that gave us this advantage .. this power for the people by the people ..
WorkerAntLyn .. I sure wish you would stop attacking the government on such small trivial matters .. and see how much good they truly have done and continue to try to do more ... they are having a difficult time too .. they are up against a very wealthy and powerful opposition to every move they try to make ... they truly do not need us pestering them from the sidelines or underneath .. we shouldrather be out front supporting their fight and struggles ..
The government is the strongest establishment we have to defeat the enemy .. why would you believe all the rhetoric the capitalist media keeps feeding you .. having you pester them from one side while they apply continual pressure from the other ... the enemy is so smooth they have you helping them and you don't even realize it..
sorry WorkerAntLyn , thats just the way it is .
please open your eyes
Oh, I don't trust the media - believe me. The sensationalism of the media definitely shares it's part of the blame. Instead of informing people of what's happening, they spin things to whoever's side they want. They're in a race for the most "sensational story" instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing - telling people the truth. Giving them the facts. Not opinions, not speculations, not stories. Facts. That's the job of the news media. And that's the job they are no longer doing.
I am against the wealthy and the corporations that are misusing their power. But I do believe there are serious issues with the running of our government that needs addressed as well. I'm afraid I don't have much faith in any of our current politicians. I feel they are all puppets run by the puppeteers - the wealthy and the corporations. I don't see them fighting the good fight against these groups. I don't share in your belief that they are trying to make things better, I don't see this struggle at all. I see them padding their own pockets with corporate money and throwing a few bones to the downtrodden to keep them content.
well it seems to me when the media is paid for advertisements and what not by the wealthy .. they would not try to discredit the wealthy in an ongoing battle for health care ... so this would fall under your definition of coersion .. if not bribery
thank you for your honesty .. I think you may have touched me
Thank-you for the interesting discussion. And for staying calm and being willing to listen to an opposing argument without resorting to the immaturity or anger the internet is known for.
well thank you for mentioning it !
What you saying is lobbing is good? that is what we what to change so you are the 1%
Not necessarily. Lobby is good yes. How else can we bring forth petition ?
You go ahead and try to lobby the government for something. Let me know how well you do. How many people in foreclosure got bailed-out because their high-paid lobbyists threatened and cajoled your representatives?
Well personally I think the government treats everyone fairly and with all due respect.
"open society"
what fucking world are YOU living in?
EVERYBODY is talkin' these days about Tammany men growin' rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin' the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There's all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I've made a big fortune out of the game, and I'm gettin' richer every day, but I've not gone in for dishonest graft—blackmailin' gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc.—and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics.
There's an honest graft, and I'm an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin': "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em."
Just let me explain by examples. My party's in power in the city, and it's goin' to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I'm tipped off, say, that they're going to lay out a new park at a certain place.
I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before.
Ain't it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that's honest graft.
Or supposin' it's a new bridge they're goin' to build. I get tipped off and I buy as much property as I can that has to be taken for approaches. I sell at my own price later on and drop some more money in the bank.
Wouldn't you? It's just like lookin' ahead in Wall Street or in the coffee or cotton market. It's honest graft, and I'm lookin' for it every day in the year. I will tell you frankly that I've got a good lot of it, too.
I'll tell you of one case. They were goin' to fix up a big park, no matter where. I got on to it, and went lookin' about for land in that neighborhood.
I could get nothin' at a bargain but a big piece of swamp, but I took it fast enough and held on to it. What turned out was just what I counted on. They couldn't make the park complete without Plunkitt's swamp, and they had to pay a good price for it. Anything dishonest in that?
Up in the watershed I made some money, too. I bought up several bits of land there some years ago and made a pretty good guess that they would be bought up for water purposes later by the city.
Somehow, I always guessed about right, and shouldn't I enjoy the profit of my foresight? It was rather amusin' when the condemnation commissioners came along and found piece after piece of the land in the name of George Plunkitt of the Fifteenth Assembly District, New York City. They wondered how I knew just what to buy. The answer is—I seen my opportunity and I took it. I haven't confined myself to land; anything that pays is in my line.
For instance, the city is repavin' a street and has several hundred thousand old granite blocks to sell. I am on hand to buy, and I know just what they are worth.
How? Never mind that. I had a sort of monopoly of this business for a while, but once a newspaper tried to do me. It got some outside men to come over from Brooklyn and New Jersey to bid against me.
Was I done? Not much. I went to each of the men and said: "How many of these 250,000 stories do you want?" One said 20,000, and another wanted 15,000, and other wanted 10,000. I said: "All right, let me bid for the lot, and I'll give each of you all you want for nothin'."
They agreed, of course. Then the auctioneer yelled: "How much am I bid for these 250,000 fine pavin' stones?"
"Two dollars and fifty cents," says I.
"Two dollars and fifty cents!" screamed the auctioneer. "Oh, that's a joke! Give me a real bid."
He found the bid was real enough. My rivals stood silent. I got the lot for $2.50 and gave them their share. That's how the attempt to do Plunkitt ended, and that's how all such attempts end.
I've told you how I got rich by honest graft. Now, let me tell you that most politicians who are accused of robbin' the city get rich the same way.
They didn't steal a dollar from the city treasury. They just seen their opportunities and took them. That is why, when a reform administration comes in and spends a half million dollars in tryin' to find the public robberies they talked about in the campaign, they don't find them.
The books are always all right. The money in the city treasury is all right. Everything is all right. All they can show is that the Tammany heads of departments looked after their friends, within the law, and gave them what opportunities they could to make honest graft. Now, let me tell you that's never goin' to hurt Tammany with the people. Every good man looks after his friends, and any man who doesn't isn't likely to be popular. If I have a good thing to hand out in private life, I give it to a friend—Why shouldn't I do the same in public life?
Another kind of honest graft. Tammany has raised a good many salaries. There was an awful howl by the reformers, but don't you know that Tammany gains ten votes for every one it lost by salary raisin'?
The Wall Street banker thinks it shameful to raise a department clerk's salary from $1500 to $1800 a year, but every man who draws a salary himself says: "That's all right. I wish it was me." And he feels very much like votin' the Tammany ticket on election day, just out of sympathy.
Tammany was beat in 1901 because the people were deceived into believin' that it worked dishonest graft. They didn't draw a distinction between dishonest and honest graft, but they saw that some Tammany men grew rich, and supposed they had been robbin' the city treasury or levyin' blackmail on disorderly houses, or workin' in with the gamblers and lawbreakers.
As a matter of policy, if nothing else, why should the Tammany leaders go into such dirty business, when there is so much honest graft lyin' around when they are in power? Did you ever consider that?
Now, in conclusion, I want to say that I don't own a dishonest dollar. If my worst enemy was given the job of writin' my epitaph when I'm gone, he couldn't do more than write:
"George W. Plunkitt. He Seen His Opportunities, and He Took 'Em." http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/plunkett-george/tammany-hall/index.htm#s02
I don't care if corporations lobby the government. I do care, however, if corporations are allowed to contribute ONE CENT MORE to an election campaign than an individual is allowed to contribute. What don't you get? ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE. Not "one dollar, one vote"...
If you work as a buyer for a business, code of conduct forms that you sign limit your monetary interaction with any supplier. Any amount over the said limit must be payed back. Which includes the value of non-monetary gifts. In other words:
You buy merchandise for a store to sell, and are in discussions with a supplier. Let's say they make shirts. But, clearly your store sells other people's shirts. This code of conduct is there to prevent the new person from giving you gifts, free dinners, etc. Things that may make you think - maybe I'll convince the owner of the store to sell more of Person B's shirts than Person A's shirts. Not only is this unethical, but one can be fired for it.
Lobbying cap is $1 million dollars. Last I checked there was no fruit baskets that costed $1 million dollars. If attempting to influence decisions is considered both unethical and illegal in business, why is it alright for the government?
who would really discourage favortism in business , the shirt maker or the store?
Both, if you know what's best for your business.
First, lack of competition may sound great, but the truth is competition is good for business. In the end, Person B will probably sell less shirts than they would have competing against Person A. Plus, the lack of diversity is bad for the store since people may go to a store that carries a larger variety of products for them to chose from.
Second, if the public is made aware that favoritism took place it promotes a bad public image for both parties. Even if it wasn't the fancy gift basket or dinner, but the product itself that convinced the buyer to choose to carry more of Person B's shirts, how does it look from the outside in? It looks like Person B was influenced by the gifts given to them instead of making an informed decision.
The end result is that the public - who are both the store and shirt maker's consumers - will think that Person B bribed the Buyer. Most likely the Buyer will lose their job, the company will issue an apology, and Person B's products may very well be cut. Even if they're carried the image in the public's eye may well cause a push to not buy Person B's shirts.
In the end, it's a lose-lose situation for all. That's why ethics aren't just good morale sense, but good business sense.
so why than would there be bribery in politics .. wouldn't the results be the same .. bad public image ?
It should be the same for politics. But that isn't the case. The cap for lobbying is $1 million. That's alot of leeway for a company to have in handouts before anyone starts thinking that things might not be legal or that a politician might have been overly influenced.
Plus, most people aren't anymore involved in what goes on behind the scenes in politics than they are in the store. Until somebody blows the whistle, nobody knows. And that's what people are trying to do now - blow the whistle.
The corporations are spending way too much money in politics, and influencing the decisions of the people who make the laws. That's what people want stopped. And, really, if they aren't being influenced, then some of these politicians need to take a hard look and step away. It's in their own best interests.
But the sad fact is, in a choice between a bad public image and a couple million dollars, there's alot of people who wouldn't realize where their priorities should be.
Or they can set up a fund under their donate button in their toolbar up top.
lol , first they need a leader
Very true but that was my only idea on how your's could work reasonably with the system they have.
I am still chuckling ..!
I'm probably just being slow but can I ask why?
..sometimes its just the silly little things
This is very true, if a union can lobby, then a business can lobby. If you ban the corporation then you have to ban the union.
Why not?
If people in the Union care about the issue, they can call their representative; similarly, if non-union employees care about an issue affecting their business, they can do the same.
And the same holds true for a business owner.
But nobody's trying to ban anyone from lobbying. We're trying to ban people and corporations and unions from giving money to a politician to influence the way that politician votes. In other words, we're trying to ban bribery. What don't you get?
There isn't anything I don't get. The entire OWS seems to have been co-opted by the unions. I don't have a problem with banning large donations, as long as it applies to unions as well as corporations. I also agree with FDR, public unions are bad and need to be curtailed. If a union places demands on a corporation and puts it out of business they suffer the results along with the business that caved into their demands. The same doesn't hold true for a government entity. The government just raises taxes on the people to pay for it, the same people that cave into their demands just receive more contributions to continue to get them elected.
Umm.... I'm speechless. You are so subtle I can't grasp it!