PDA

View Full Version : Obama goes to war against lobbyist and big interest groups



FOBolous
02-28-2009, 06:41 PM
Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 1 min ago

WASHINGTON Ė President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.

"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."

He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."

The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.

On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.

Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.

Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.

Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."

Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."

Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."

"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."

Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.

Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.

He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."

___

On the Net:

Obama address: http://www.whitehouse.gov

:nod: :clap:

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 07:06 PM
Battling against lobbyists (in general) is overrated. Nobody understands what lobbying really is.

aNYer
02-28-2009, 07:13 PM
Battling against lobbyists (in general) is overrated. Nobody understands what lobbying really is.

unless you know somethin I don't I think most get the general idea behind lobbyists

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 07:23 PM
While there's a difference between corporate lobbyists and general citizenry/issue lobbyists, lobbying itself is actually very important. Either way, everybody needs a voice.

It's when politicians start engaging in contributions with lobbyists in seedy manners that it becomes an issue. But, all of a sudden the term "lobbyist" has derived a very negative connotation. And, that's really unfortunate.

I mean, anybody that engages in policy or issue discussion with a politician is technically lobbying them. So, in general, fighting against lobbying is kind of silly.

Fighting against lobbyists that donate vast sums of money toward re-election efforts is a much more valid argument (especially when donations are in violation of FEC laws).

I hope I made that clear. I'm not sure I did ... lol

BobbyCox4Life
02-28-2009, 07:29 PM
to make it a little bit more clear... lobbyists pretty much run the country

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 07:35 PM
But, lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes.

The auto makers have lobbyists ... but concerned citizens do, too. And lobbying doesn't necessarily reflect money. In fact, lobbyists very rarely represent money at all.

FOBolous
02-28-2009, 08:03 PM
But, lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes.

The auto makers have lobbyists ... but concerned citizens do, too. And lobbying doesn't necessarily reflect money. In fact, lobbyists very rarely represent money at all.

not true at all. lobbying involving money is very much alive and is very common. true laws have been pass to prevent that from happening by there are loops holes in the law that both the lobbyist from big corporations and politicians alike exploit. politics is a very dirty business.

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 09:11 PM
Lobbying is the practice of influencing decisions made by government. It includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups. A lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby. Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying)

-Lobbying is not illegal.
-Lobbying does not always involve money.
-Lobbying is an important part of democracy -- it often brings the voice of the people to their political leaders concerning specific issues.

Lobbying gets a bad reputation; one that it does not deserve.

Cubsrule
02-28-2009, 09:16 PM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying)

-Lobbying is not illegal.
-Lobbying does not always involve money.
-Lobbying is an important part of democracy -- it often brings the voice of the people to their political leaders concerning specific issues.

Lobbying gets a bad reputation; one that it does not deserve.

On that point to there are also lobbyists for things like education and other good causes, you're definately right in saying it gets a bad rep it doesn't deserve.

FOBolous
02-28-2009, 10:01 PM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying)

-Lobbying is not illegal.
-Lobbying does not always involve money.
-Lobbying is an important part of democracy -- it often brings the voice of the people to their political leaders concerning specific issues.

Lobbying gets a bad reputation; one that it does not deserve.

of course there are different kinds of lobbying and i'm sure Obama is not going after lobbyists for things like education and other good causes. The lobbyist Obama is going after are lobbyist from big corporation who contribute money to politicians in hopes that the politicians would support laws and bills that's beneficial to them. THAT is illegal and laws have been pass under the Clinton administration to insure its status. unfortunately, there are looholes in those laws, and politicans and lobbyists alike exploit that loophole. Those lobbysist are the lobbyists Obama is going after.

DenButsu
02-28-2009, 11:05 PM
Battling against lobbyists (in general) is overrated. Nobody understands what lobbying really is.

I understand what you're saying (from this post on down), but in the same sense that most people look at the term "lobbyist" as being roughly equivalent to "monied interests that buy off politicians for their own personal gain", don't you think that when Obama refers to going up against "the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business" he specifically is referring to the "bad type" of lobbying and not declaring an all-out blanketed war against all forms of lobbying? Part of his communicating the notion effectively depends on using the term in the sense that most people are familiar with it (even if they're wrong).

DenButsu
02-28-2009, 11:50 PM
Giordano (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/new-and-improved-us-vs-them-narrative):


The New and Improved "Us vs. Them" Narrative

...

Here's the money quote:


"I realize that passing this budget won't be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offer ing Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

"'So am I.'

"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I donít. I work for the American people. I didnít come here to do the same thing weíve been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November."

Okay, here's what I think just happened: The President has reframed the narrative from the stale dysfunction of Democrats demonizing Republicans and Republicans demonizing Democrats and stepped over that puddle of slime to create a more authentic narrative: The American people vs. the special interests (and note that the ones he mentions are universally from the corporate sector).

And let's keep in mind that the interests he mentions - "the insurance industry... the banks and big student lenders... the oil and gas companies..." - have their hooks and donations just as deeply into Congressional Democrats as they do for Congressional Republicans. They've all just been put on notice: oppose the reforms he's pushing and be portrayed as siding with those corporate interests against the American people.

This is is quite huge. It hasn't been done by a president since FDR. And the populist campaign rhetoric by Edwards, Clinton and even Obama in 2008 aside did not rise to this level of clarity by a longshot. Really, it hasn't been done this way by any Democratic presidential candidate since Oklahoma Senator Fred Harris ran in 1976.

This is the real "us against them" fight to be waged, far more important than the eternal and often childish skirmishes between Democrats and Republicans. He's just pulled the curtain to reveal those who are the real obstructionists behind the puppets. This is exactly to what I had referred to back on February 7 when I noted that bipartisanship is not all carrots, but is also a big stick to be wielded on Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike.

Tread carefully, oh members of Congress.

Meanwhile, I'm firing up the popcorn.

Update: Here's an additional observation. Obama can do this in a way that prior presidents in the age of expensive television advertising could not do precisely because his campaign supporters established a primacy of small donors making him not dependent on corporate sector contributions for his reelection campaign in 2012. He is in a position of unprecedented strength, as long as his small donors continue to see his presidency as important to them. He can afford to blow off the "influence donor" machines without harming his political prospects.

The challenge, now, is for members of Congress to wean themselves off dependence on influence money and develop, similarly, small donor armies, and, yes, that means the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, too. That's not going to be easy. But the harder path would be to try and resist the tide that has now broken through the dam.

Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/obama-1-limbaug.html) (building on the above post):


Obama 1, Limbaugh 0

I'm struck by the dissonance between the speeches today given by the president and by the leader of the opposition. Here's Obama, shrewdly observed by Al Giordano:

(/quotes same Obama passage as the article above quoted/)

I concede I couldn't make it through all of Limbaugh's tirade (it was Castro-esque in its length, bombast and reception).

I'm actually sympathetic to the broad argument that government is usually not the solution to our problems, and I'm leery of the massive spending this president has proposed in a depression - just as I was leery of the massive spending the last presidentaccomplished in a bubble. But what I heard most of all from Limbaugh was the demonization of libruls, again and again and again. Limbaugh is attacking the motives and good faith of more than half the country - and of a president just elected in a landslide. Limbaugh takes us right back to the 1980s and 1990s - the old red-blue paradigm that has led to massive GOP losses. But Obama has reframed his opponents as the vested interests resisting reform. Who do you think will win on that battlefield?

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 11:54 PM
of course there are different kinds of lobbying and i'm sure Obama is not going after lobbyists for things like education and other good causes. The lobbyist Obama is going after are lobbyist from big corporation who contribute money to politicians in hopes that the politicians would support laws and bills that's beneficial to them. THAT is illegal and laws have been pass under the Clinton administration to insure its status. unfortunately, there are looholes in those laws, and politicans and lobbyists alike exploit that loophole. Those lobbysist are the lobbyists Obama is going after.

Actually -- it's not illegal, particularly if there are loopholes. There are rules and regs set forth by the FEC that limits the sizes of donations and gifts that politicians can receive ... like personal jet allowances provided by supporters.

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have (or don't deserve) a voice in political matters? That hardly seems democratic.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:02 AM
I understand what you're saying (from this post on down), but in the same sense that most people look at the term "lobbyist" as being roughly equivalent to "monied interests that buy off politicians for their own personal gain", don't you think that when Obama refers to going up against "the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business" he specifically is referring to the "bad type" of lobbying and not declaring an all-out blanketed war against all forms of lobbying? Part of his communicating the notion effectively depends on using the term in the sense that most people are familiar with it (even if they're wrong).

Hey, I'm not saying the rules don't need a good looking over with possible amendments. But, what I am saying is that limiting a voice to legislators (national or otherwise) -- regardless of whether it's a concerned mothers group or a John Deere health advocacy group -- is wrong.

You have to be careful with this. Because John Doe from Main Street, USA is essentially a lobbyist if he catches Senator XYZ's ear. Should he be barred from donating funds to see his senator elected simply because he lobbied? Granted, there should be limits. But, so far it has been an "all-out blanketed war against lobbying."

We just need to be very careful when we talk about lobbying. Trust me, I had a difficult time with it. But the definition of the word is the most important. But, lets be clear of the difference between lobbying and donations.

blenderboy5
03-01-2009, 12:18 AM
I loved the quote about Obama winning in a landslide... he ran in an incredibly anti-Republican year against an incompetent idiot and could only get 53% of Americans to vote for him... which is the first time a Dem got a majority since Carter(50.1%).

Anyway, lobbying isn't bad. And the bad lobbying is supported by Obama, though he's not the worst offender.

FOBolous
03-01-2009, 12:21 AM
Actually -- it's not illegal, particularly if there are loopholes. There are rules and regs set forth by the FEC that limits the sizes of donations and gifts that politicians can receive ... like personal jet allowances provided by supporters.

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have (or don't deserve) a voice in political matters? That hardly seems democratic.

it's not democratic when big corporations have more influence on our politicians than the people of the United States :shrug:

and i think you're going waaaaaaay off the teangent here. Obama isn't going on an "all-out blanketed war against lobbying." He's "going to war" against lobbying by big coporations who's lobbying against the interest of the people so they can continue to victimize the people. It's bout time our government start listening to the people again rather than the deep pocketed CEOs.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:23 AM
Eh, "landslide" is certainly debatable. As was "mandate" in 2004.

It was a large victory in a bitterly polarized country ... but I suppose when I think of "landslide" I picture FDR and Reagan. Although, I've seen some pretty strong arguments for a "modern landslide." But, I'm not going to go into it here.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:26 AM
it's not democratic when big corporations have more influence on our politicians than the people of the United States :shrug:

and i think you're going waaaaaaay off the teangent here. Obama isn't going on an "all-out blanketed war against lobbying." He's "going to war" against lobbying by big coporations who's lobbying against the interest of the people so they can continue to victimize the people. It's bout time our government start listening to the people again.

There are more people than there are corporations. But, people fail to stand up and let their voice be known (aside from at the polling booth every two-to-four years). Corporations shouldn't have to cut back on their voice simply because the "people" don't utilize theirs.

And, I don't think I am. The term "lobbyist" has derived a very negative connotation, and unfairly so. If you have a problem with FEC rules regarding donations -- then lobby your local representative or senator on the matter.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 12:27 AM
I loved the quote about Obama winning in a landslide... he ran in an incredibly anti-Republican year against an incompetent idiot and could only get 53% of Americans to vote for him... which is the first time a Dem got a majority since Carter(50.1%).

Anyway, lobbying isn't bad. And the bad lobbying is supported by Obama, though he's not the worst offender.

:ouch:

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:30 AM
Ha -- I missed that part!

McCain's campaign was horribly run. It was nothing but reactionary, and when he had the opportunity to seize momentum early on (when Obama and Hill were still duking it out), he failed.

FOBolous
03-01-2009, 12:37 AM
There are more people than there are corporations. But, people fail to stand up and let their voice be known (aside from at the polling booth every two-to-four years). Corporations shouldn't have to cut back on their voice simply because the "people" don't utilize theirs.

And, I don't think I am. The term "lobbyist" has derived a very negative connotation, and unfairly so. If you have a problem with FEC rules regarding donations -- then lobby your local representative or senator on the matter.

the "people" do utilize their voice and our governmet knows what the people want. unfortuantely, the people's pocket arent as deep as the CEOs so nothing the people wants ever gets done. you know what they say...money talks. Fortunately, the people elected Obama and fortunately, Obama is going to listen to us and have our best interest at heart. everything he's doing right now is what WE elected him to do. as a full time college student who's trying to make ends meet by working full time...i am greatful towards Obama for trying to make my life easier and for trying to do what i thought the government should've done a long time ago. I'm glad there's finally someone in the government who's not afraid to go against the system and try to fix it. what Obama is doing gives me faith in the governmet again....faith that the government will finally listen to me now.



and stop pointing out the different catagory of lobbying....i know what the differences is. everyone know what the differences is. you pointing out the differences have nothing to do with what we're talking about and has nothing to do with what Obama is doing. Obama isn't going after the "good lobbyists" he's going after the "bad" ones who keeping our elected officials from doing what the people wants to be done.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 12:44 AM
Ha -- I missed that part!

McCain's campaign was horribly run. It was nothing but reactionary, and when he had the opportunity to seize momentum early on (when Obama and Hill were still duking it out), he failed.

I fully agree, I can't count how many times I was hitting my head against the wall watching him miss countless opportunites and making countless blunders. The media didn't help, but he did provide a lot of ammo.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:47 AM
the "people" do utilize their voice and our governmet knows what the people want. unfortuantely, the people's pocket arent as deep as the CEOs so nothing the people wants ever gets done. you know what they say...money talks. Fortunately, the people elected Obama and fortunately, Obama is going to listen to us and have our best interest at heart. everything he's doing right now is what WE elected him to do. as a full time college student who's trying to make ends meet by working full time...i am greatful towards Obama for trying to make my life easier and for trying to do what i thought the government should've done a long time ago. I'm glad there's finally someone in the government who's not afraid to go against the system and try to fix it.

It's not as though Obama is the only politician that has ever wanted to fight corruption within the campaign system. That's why McCain-Feingold wrote legislation to reform campaign finance with the BCRA back in 2002. It's also why the FEC exists. It's why there are tight rules on 527s and 501s.

Corporate execs, although they have deep pockets, can't give untold millions to candidates. Monies raised by campaigns -- or national parties -- is recorded and reported. Gifts and personal allowances are properly reported.

But, like I said before -- if you have a problem with it, get in touch with your local Rep. Or, start a student advocacy group on campus. Act on behalf of your civil right to organize, and become aware of the rules, regulations, and ethics that surround campaigns. Use your voice because far too many people stay quiet expecting someone else to stand up for them.

But remember, lobbying isn't what you have a problem with.

FOBolous
03-01-2009, 09:00 PM
It's not as though Obama is the only politician that has ever wanted to fight corruption within the campaign system. That's why McCain-Feingold wrote legislation to reform campaign finance with the BCRA back in 2002. It's also why the FEC exists. It's why there are tight rules on 527s and 501s.

Corporate execs, although they have deep pockets, can't give untold millions to candidates. Monies raised by campaigns -- or national parties -- is recorded and reported. Gifts and personal allowances are properly reported.

But, like I said before -- if you have a problem with it, get in touch with your local Rep. Or, start a student advocacy group on campus. Act on behalf of your civil right to organize, and become aware of the rules, regulations, and ethics that surround campaigns. Use your voice because far too many people stay quiet expecting someone else to stand up for them.

But remember, lobbying isn't what you have a problem with.

i hate to tell you think but smthblucitrus...in the real world, there are ways things are suppose to happen and there are ways things ACTUALLY happens. kinda like this situation with mcdonalad: http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334551

Mcdonald is SUPPOSE to give their employee worker's comp but because of loopholes in the law and the way the law is worded, McDonald can choose not to give him worker's comp and that's what they did. There are laws in place, rules they're suppose fo follow, and reports they're suppose to file but at the same time, there's loopholes they can exploit and words they can interpret. A lot of things happen under the table and behind close doors...those are the things Obama is declaring war against.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 09:09 PM
I love how college students say "in the real world."

behindmydesk
03-01-2009, 09:10 PM
They did because it had nothing to do with their irresponsibility. McDonalds did nothing wrong, maybe in bad taste, but again did nothing wrong.

behindmydesk
03-01-2009, 09:12 PM
And Fooblas you don't think Obama goes behind closed door meetings trying to get his way? Such as when he took Rep. Aaron Schock on Air Force One trying to make Aaron see his side and get another vote for the stimulus. That's lobbying too.

The only damn reason Obama is getting so much attention for this, is most of the country is unintelligent especially on this issue. Lobbyist are an easy scape goat get a bad name, and are wonderful people. I heart lobbyists.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 09:20 PM
And Fooblas you don't think Obama goes behind closed door meetings trying to get his way? Such as when he took Rep. Aaron Schock on Air Force One trying to make Aaron see his side and get another vote for the stimulus. That's lobbying too.

The only damn reason Obama is getting so much attention for this, is most of the country is unintelligent especially on this issue. Lobbyist are an easy scape goat get a bad name, and are wonderful people. I heart lobbyists.

Good thing he rejected, it would have hurt his credibility had he voted for it, the guy's only 27 and the President looks to him as a major player.

FOBolous
03-01-2009, 10:53 PM
And Fooblas you don't think Obama goes behind closed door meetings trying to get his way? Such as when he took Rep. Aaron Schock on Air Force One trying to make Aaron see his side and get another vote for the stimulus. That's lobbying too.

The only damn reason Obama is getting so much attention for this, is most of the country is unintelligent especially on this issue. Lobbyist are an easy scape goat get a bad name, and are wonderful people. I heart lobbyists.

omg...i feel like i'm talking to kids here even though i know most of you are older than me. There are different kind of lobbyists and there are different kind of "behind closed door meetings." Obama is going after the "bad" ones. It's like you people see the world in black and white. FYI...the world is not black and white.

FOBolous
03-01-2009, 10:59 PM
I love how college students say "in the real world."

when you're a full time college student living in the US by himself paying his own bill and rent while working full time at a 4 diamond hotel catering to organizations such as the BAR Association and CERA...yes, i have the right to say "in the real world."

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 11:17 PM
omg...i feel like i'm talking to kids here even though i know most of you are older than me. There are different kind of lobbyists and there are different kind of "behind closed door meetings." Obama is going after the "bad" ones. It's like you people see the world in black and white. FYI...the world is not black and white.

If I may ... you're the one viewing it in black and white; right vs wrong.


when you're a full time college student living in the US by himself paying his own bill and rent while working full time at a 4 diamond hotel catering to organizations such as the BAR Association and CERA...yes, i have the right to say "in the real world."

Hey, good for you. Really, I mean it. But, I don't appreciate people telling me how it is in "the real world." It's almost as bad as telling people to "wake up" or "open your eyes."

I know what lobbyists do and I know the difference between various segments of lobbying -- Lobbyists do not limit the "people's voice." Limiting that aspect of democracy is a slippery slope, and it's a road that I don't want to go down. There is nothing wrong with lobbying.

Zep
03-02-2009, 01:37 PM
FYI...the world is not black and white.


Obama is going after the "bad" ones.

mmkay.....

SmthBluCitrus
03-02-2009, 01:38 PM
:laugh2:

Very observant.