73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[BigRob]

I think "hated" is a big word.

I don't "hate" anyone!

But I have little respect for people who advocate for ANYTHING for greed only if what they advocate for takes away fairness, freedom, and is detrimental to the earth and our environment.

....there are a ton of lobbyists lobbying for the exact opposite here.

And. . .no, I am not connected to a lobbyist in anyway, although one of my neigbor used to be a big time, Washington lobbyist. I do not know HER/HIM very well. All I know is that She is very pushy and overbearing.

In all your years as a social worker etc, were you ever a part of any trade group? A union? Have kids in the Boy Scouts? etc?

 

[dogtowner]

I think "hated" is a big word.

I don't "hate" anyone!

But I have little respect for people who advocate for ANYTHING for greed only if what they advocate for takes away fairness, freedom, and is detrimental to the earth and our environment.

And. . .no, I am not connected to a lobbyist in anyway, although one of my neigbor used to be a big time, Washington lobbyist. I do not know HER/HIM very well. All I know is that She is very pushy and overbearing.

all lobbyists are motivated by greed. either money direct or laws favoring their interests which translates into money to pay their fees. the lobbyists themselves are about greed, they have rent etc to pay.

 

[PLC1]

I don't hate lobbyists. I hate the influence that they have over the government. We're supposed to have a government of the people, by the people. Sometimes, it seems as if it is instead a government of the money and for the money, and the lobbyists are the ones controlling the money.

Why do we subsidize ethanol and require it in our cars, for example? Is it because it saves money and/or helps the environment, or is it because of lobby money?

A government that is for sale is not acceptable.

 

[Openmind]

I don't hate lobbyists. I hate the influence that they have over the government. We're supposed to have a government of the people, by the people. Sometimes, it seems as if it is instead a government of the money and for the money, and the lobbyists are the ones controlling the money.

Why do we subsidize ethanol and require it in our cars, for example? Is it because it saves money and/or helps the environment, or is it because of lobby money?

A government that is for sale is not acceptable.

I totally agree with your statement about this issue.

Lobbyists are parasites feeding off the big corps and infecting the government.

 

[GenSeneca]

A government that is for sale is not acceptable.

It's the whore who sells herself for money that attracts the Johns. If she weren't selling herself for cash, then the Johns wouldn't have a reason to give her money.

The problem is with government. Every single special interest group lobbies government for preferential treatment, to punish competition, or some combination of both. If government were forced to treat every single citizen equally under the law, then no amount of money could buy special interest privileges.

 

[GenSeneca]

Lobbyists are parasites feeding off the big corps and infecting the government.

Is that how you feel about the Union lobbyists? What about the Pro-Choice lobbyists, are they too parasites infecting government?

 

[GenSeneca]

But, all those poor lobbyists... they'd be out of a job!

Don't be silly, I would welcome them to come lobby me, personally. If a lobbyist wishes to take me out to dinner to discuss the merits of his cause and why I should support it with my hard earned tax dollars, I'm 100% in favor of hearing his oratory over some Filet Mignon and Caesar salad.

EDIT

And you know who wouldn't get lobbied? The 47% who pay NOTHING towards the income tax... Only we, the venerable 53%, would be subject to their bountiful gratuities.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Don't be silly, I would welcome them to come lobby me, personally. If a lobbyist wishes to take me out to dinner to discuss the merits of his cause and why I should support it with my hard earned tax dollars, I'm 100% in favor of hearing his oratory over some Filet Mignon and Caesar salad.

try doing it, having your job depend on there money, and then have them threaten to take it away if you dont move on a issue...

 

[GenSeneca]

try doing it, having your job depend on there money, and then have them threaten to take it away if you dont move on a issue...

As usual, you have it bass ackwards. Their job depends on MY money, if I don't support them, they lose funding. They couldn't do a damn thing to "punish" me for not contributing to their cause du jour.

 

[PLC1]

It's the whore who sells herself for money that attracts the Johns. If she weren't selling herself for cash, then the Johns wouldn't have a reason to give her money.

The problem is with government. Every single special interest group lobbies government for preferential treatment, to punish competition, or some combination of both. If government were forced to treat every single citizen equally under the law, then no amount of money could buy special interest privileges.

OMG! I find myself in agreement with GenSeneca!

Further, the politicians wouldn't have to take the money if they didn't need to fund an expensive ad campaign to get elected.

They'd still like the perks, of course, but they wouldn't have to take money in order to get reelected.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, it would.

I think you're on to something there. Specific taxes for specific purposes. Gas taxes could only be used for roads and bridges, for example. A specific war tax to support Iraq and Afganistan, a tax that would go away when the wars ended.

Not that Congress would ever pass such a thing, of course, but the idea does have potential.

Thank you, I think this is just one idea that needs to be advanced from the grass on up.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thought about this a lot over the years...

I'd love it if we were given the option to choose where our income tax dollars went. For example, log onto the IRS website with your income tax ID number, then pick which departments of government you wish to fund and even allocate your tax dollars as a % to each section, or sub-section, of the budget for the selected fiscal year. E.G., I might put 25% into Defense, 25% into the Veterans Administration, 25% into the Courts, and the last 25% into NASA for fiscal year 2012.

Since each of us have different priorities, and views about the role of government, each person could see their income tax dollars put to work on only those specific areas where they agree with that particular government expenditure while no longer being forced to contribute to government spending in areas they disagree with.

Such a change would radically alter the way government functions. Many of the lesser known and/or unpopular departments and expenses would see their budgets disappear entirely while others would see an increase in their budget. When the Iraq war started it was very popular, and would have seen ample funding, but as it became less popular, the funding would have dried up and potentially saved us billions of dollars by getting us the hell out of there sooner.

Thinking out loud here... I'm not sure anyone would voluntarily fund the IRS, and since they would be necessary for such a program, perhaps something like .25% (leaving you with 99.75% to divvy up) should be automatically set aside for their funding as a "fee" for the service being provided. I'd gladly fork over a fraction of a % of my income for the opportunity to decide where my income tax dollars went..

I think it is an idea that could be followed through on to a degree. However, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and populism is not without its grave faults.

This could be applied in some areas but not in all. Unpopular but necessary programs need to be funded too.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's the whore who sells herself for money that attracts the Johns. If she weren't selling herself for cash, then the Johns wouldn't have a reason to give her money.

The problem is with government. Every single special interest group lobbies government for preferential treatment, to punish competition, or some combination of both. If government were forced to treat every single citizen equally under the law, then no amount of money could buy special interest privileges.

Lobbying is important and useful. A million people who share the same view would have trouble communicating that to their representatives but when they join their voices and hire a spokesperson then that is just lobbying.

The problem is not so much with the lobbyists saying what they want but with the congressmen making laws that in the end favor one special interest and not providing equal protection under the law.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's the whore who sells herself for money that attracts the Johns. If she weren't selling herself for cash, then the Johns wouldn't have a reason to give her money.

The fact that lobbyists give to opposing parties is evidence of that.

 

[dogtowner]

I know openmind is no longer on this forum but this idea deserves discussion.

I think it is an idea that could be followed through on to a degree. However, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and populism is not without its grave faults.

This could be applied in some areas but not in all. Unpopular but necessary programs need to be funded too.

isn't this why we run the House for only two year terms ? to make sure they pay attention to what WE want ? any sort of direct democracy is subject to fraud. elections are no different but the fraud is harder to effect on a grand scale than some internet thing.