What is Digg?116 Comments
- eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+59One of the most sickening pieces of legislation rammed down our throats by the republican congress. Never again can the republicans say they are "fiscally conservative" without it being a bald face lie.
- SickMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Ross Perot may have been a bit wacky, but he had the right idea. He wanted to restrict the power of lobbyists to providing politicians with information only, not money. He also wanted to institute a five year waiting period before any politician would be allowed to take a job as a lobbyist after he/she left office.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25I've call congressman/women, senators and others with whom I have an issue. In all cases, they listen to my bitchin and that's it. Some hang up. I'm never rude, crude or profane, I just tell them what angered me and they say "I'll pass your comments onto Congressmen....blah blah" But, you know, these sentiments are never conveyed. These people are totally insulated from the citizenry. Why can't a citizen get a seat at a press conference and ask questions? In stead, you've got all these blow-dried pussbag journalists sitting there and asking skewed questions and trying to bag their next story. It's all rigged. The politicos spew hot air and the scribes describe its flavor and odor.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Every politician, if they visit with lobbyists, is dirty. I arranged for a meeting with my senator and they turned it into a photo-op.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Surprise and shock! Thank god for 60 Minutes, I would never have had any idea this could happen in the US of A. I am sure this must be an isolated incident but perhaps we should pay a little closer attention to these people. Our honest as the day is long leaders in the Legislative and Executive Branches must be livid over having this despicable deception perpetrated upon them by a few bad apple lobbyists in the ranks of what is normally a highly ethical group.
On the bright side, the damage to the taxpayer is limited.
/sarc - Axfire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Lawyers for the credit card companies wrote the new bankruptcy law which makes credit card debt inescapable for life. Most lawmakers in the last congress voted for it without even bothering to read it. Fascism is the merging of government and big business. When you have laws that are literally being written BY corporations for THEIR benefit, its hard to argue that this isn't the direction we're heading.
- tucsonsun13, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22The corporations have conquered the system, and now it will being to fail the people.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16These ***** need to be shot in the groin. ***** corrupt bastards.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"there are some politicians who genuinely want to make a positive contribution and consistently vote their conscience"
Yeah...those are the ones who don't succeed. - DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The problem with politicians is, anyone who wants the job shouldn't be allowed to have it.
- slappynutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I disagree about *every* politician being dirty. Though it seems as though the vast majority are, there are some politicians who genuinely want to make a positive contribution and consistently vote their conscience. Unfortunately, that group lately seems to be limited to a few dozen Democrats and maybe a handful of Republicans. Sad state of the United States.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Most of these ass clowns are now lobbyists for the huge pharm cabal.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Lying? From a politician? When any politico's lips are moving there's lying taking place. Also, the MSM are in on the game too.
- D1STORT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10In my home state, Michigan, the pharm industry has blanket immunity from lawsuits. This was granted to them by the state legislature over a decade ago. Did Vioxx cause a loved one to die of related heart problems? Too damn bad, its not Pfizer's fault for not doing a comprehensive long-term study, its the victim's fault for succumbing to corporate propaganda and taking the drug in the first place.
- Platypus3333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It's not restricting the information, it's restricting it TO information.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Same as Iraq, no bid contracts. Doesn't matter if Haliburton poisons and kills the troops with contaminated water, they still get the contracts.
- Constitution1st, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8That's why I say we should institute a lottery, your name gets drawn, then you have to serve. Only you take two years instead of 2-weeks off for jury duty. I can already hear it now, "but I can't - they just couldn't get by without me at work" - then this is the price you pay - you get the best gummit money can buy!
Of course another option with the instant access to communication we have now, would be for us to govern via internet, with bills in committee, voting on legislation, etc, from our desktops. And appoint a cabinet position of head hacker to keep an eye on the spook hackers. Would be more democratic than black box voting. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Lips moving=lying.
- wageslaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ive often joked about having a 3rd house that is populated in that manner.
I totally agree. - redfox2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Just forward us the word document so we don't have to type it again. There is one big problem in that we need a lot of money/alcohol/hookers/blackmail to get it to pass.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Hmm, bribery, corruption, arm twisting, and the result of making quite a nice profit... all conducted by "businessmen" in nice suits.
Sounds an awful lot like the mafia. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The healthcare industry is 25% of US GDP output. What do you expect?
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@sokz-"They will never succeed with the way things are going.. what can be done? Pretty bleak future."
What can be done is to apply the following rules when casting your votes in all elections:
Which candidates have been deemed "electable" by the Big Megaphone folks?-under no circumstances vote for them.
Which candidates have been able to raise enough money to be deemed "viable candidates" by the Big Megaphone folks?-under no circumstances vote for them.
Which candidates have "name recognition" according to the Big Megaphone folks because the Big Megaphone folks keep showcasing them?-under no circumstances vote for them.
This simple test will tell you which candidates are in the pockets of the Power Barons, unless you are truly a Power Baron yourself (you are not, if you think you are get back to me and I will clear that up for you one way or another) you do not want those people in office, they will not serve the common good and that is what you want, the "Common Good".
After you have determined which candidates to definitely cross of your list as possibles for your vote by the above simple test, look closely at the remaining candidates and cast your vote for the one you think will best and most honestly serve the "Common Good". After that, get back to the much more important task of pursuing your own, Life, Liberty and Happiness.
- bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is all you guys need to do: (replace "Canadian" with "American" and there you go.)
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=med&document=jan0207&dir=pre&lang=e&textonly=false
As of January 1, 2007, the new limits are:
o No more than $1,100 in any calendar year to each registered political party
o No more than $1,100 in any calendar year to the various entities of each registered political party (registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates)
o No more than $1,100 to the leadership contestant or the leadership contestants of their choice in a particular leadership contest
o No more than $1,100 to each independent candidate for a particular election
These limits are indexed on April 1 of each year.
* Only individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents can give a contribution to registered parties, candidates, nomination contestants, registered associations and leadership contestants
* A ban on contributions by corporations, trade unions and unincorporated associations to registered parties, candidates, nomination contestants, registered associations and leadership contestants
* Prohibition on cash donations of more than $20 - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Their marketing efforts totally owned my face.
- redfox2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@drmangrum
"We will fine those contributors even if we have to tap ever phone in America." - wageslaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Dont forget this scandal:
Cheney's Energy Task force was actually Big Oil.
Big Oil wrote American Energy Policy.
Cheney is(was?) fighting in the courts to keep the all this a secret. - wageslaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7" Big Labor which writes most of the Legislation for the Democrats"
Calling planet McCarthy, the red scare is over. Planet McCarthy. Come-in planet McCarthy. - villium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is why it should be illegal to have corporate campaign contributions.
- farksucksmasack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6the people can have a say over the course of their government when you pry that opinion out of their cold DEAD mouths.
our legislators are not beholden to the people, since they can only be elected with the money they recieve from industry. WELCOME TO THE MACHINE. - AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And remember folks those are Canadian Dollars. I'd love to have the limits set at 750 USD.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Separation of State and Corporations.
- AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Okay troll go back under your bridge.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3but it's okay, because they can then use their big pharma drugs to heal.
a win-win. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Your assuming all contributions are reported. Most are under the table.
- PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@kdx200rider:
don't try and use this as a bash conservative rant?
this bill was held up by the republican majority, and fought by the dems when it passed. It's not bashing conservatives, but merely stating what actually happened. Republicans have lost their fiscally conservative soul amidst the scandalous lobbying culture in washington. Also, remember that a big reason many republicans lost seats last November is because people have been sick of how many Republicans seem to throw ethics out the window for private gain at the expense of public equity...,.it's sick. - Constitution1st, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's nationwide now, thanks to big pharma for writing this legislation too...
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some say the Swift Boat controversy (and Kerry's inept handling of same, true enough) swung the 04 election to Bush by knocking out one of Kerry's only connections to Red State constituents (Kerry's war hero thing). The Swift Boat campaign was not organized by a corporation, it was organized by soft money.
Point being, corporations buy politicians in a subtle manner now. By offering them seats on their boards after they leave office, for example. Soft money handlers are now the primary players in direct overt influence of elections in the US. - jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Big Labor" is not a citizen.
I believe if you check, the constitutions doesn't say a damn thing about huge national corporations being allowed to lobby the government. Come to think of it, I don't believe that huge national corporations have any rights whatsoever under the constitution. People do, but a 'corporation' is not a person. - wageslaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Corporations have 'human rights' -- only in the USA.
Further, they dont have the responsibilities of people. Cannot be arrested and jailed, for, say, dumping toxins in the river or removing machine guarding and killing people.
oh, and, um they are immortal. - meechwings, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, that Congressman who got the bill passed is such an *****.
- machine82, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Just like Iraq, there is nothing you can do about so just bend over.
- PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2deskflyer:
that's the heart-breaking truth that would be so easy to fix with some decisive ethics reform...however, it's hard to convince pigs at the trough to do anything. - wageslaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hm, you mean "they supressed any study that prohibited its profit"
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3All politicians do this, conservative and liberal...I don't like any of em...
My state passed the bill to start a lottery during an unscheduled vote where to opposing officials couldn't get there to vote, and it was passed by like 1 vote... - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So repubs had all 3 branches and only take credit for the good stuff. Remember that 'take responsibility for your actions' mantra? Repubs had all 3 branches. Now dems have power and they won't do a thing about this. You sound like a child.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They did a little something like this down here, except that people change their behavior to fit the rules. After they did "campaign finance reform" and limited the amount that can be directly contributed, up sprung Political Action Committees and 527s to manage "soft money".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_money
They do not directly give money to a candidate but spend ASSLOADS of money "independently" supporting candidates and issues, running attack ads on the opponent of their chosen candidate, for example. The end result is the same.
Money always finds a way. Always. I'm tired of people talking about the "300" movie, but the road to the invasion was paved with gold. And the people who wouldn't take the gold got slaughtered. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"It's a good thing you guys have national healthcare!"
That's why the pharmaceutical industry needs lobbyists. To fight this socialist attack on their business. How dare a country demand a price for a product from a company, rather than negotiate a price. It's unfortunate the lobbyists went too far in this case - thoughtcancer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It should really come as no surprise to anyone halfway familiar with our system of governance that corporations own the political process. While this 60 minutes vid was saddening, frustrating, and outrageous, it was not surprising. This is just the end result of citizens abdicating their responsibilities to police the government.
I started thinking about ways to help solve this problem, but graft and corruption are endemic to the current system; there is no easy cure. So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I offer these easy-to-follow instructions for cleaning up the mess we've created:
1) Make lobbying and the perception of lobbying (or being a lobbyist, or consorting with lobbyist in any way) punishable by death. The accepting of anything of value by an elected official (anything!!) will result in impeachment and a non-appealable 20 year prison sentence in the same secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe where the US sends "terrorists" to be tortured. No money, no gifts, no trips, no dinners, no teddy bears, no thank-you cards. Nothing. Lawmakers, policy makers, government workers, or anyone who actually recieves a government paycheck is covered under this rule. Additionally, anyone involved with the political process shall be subject to random independent financial audits of their holdings, transactions, etc, to ensure that they are not taking, hiding, funneling, or otherwise party to "influence peddling". Death for Lobbyists, horrible punishment for those who deal with or associate with them.
2) Set a "net worth cap" on any individual who wishes to run for and attain a publicly accessible office, or an appointed position by an elected official (such as ambassadors, directors of agencies, etc). The rule shall state that no one whose net worth is more than 30 percent above the state or national average (as applicable) is allowed to hold office. So, let's say that the "average American" has a net worth (you know, total assets minus total liabilities) $10, then a political candidate can have a net worth of no larger than $13. This will ensure that the wealthy do not dominate office. Why? Simple...the wealthy look out for their interests, will consort with other wealthy people, will pass laws that benefit their positions and the positions of those that can help them, all at the expense of the "common man". By ensuring that all political workers come from the working class (and due to the above rule #1, won't be likely to get money while in office), we can ensure that our elected officials are closer to "us" than "them".
3) Every time a politician speaks in public anywhere outside his own home, he is Under Oath and everything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. This should go a long way to solving the "lips moving = lying" phenomena by making every word spoken by a politician punishable by a perjury conviction.
Seriously, even though I'm halfway joking here, I'm halfway not. Tell me with a straight face, if these three things were in place and enforced, would the pharmaceutical lobby been able to do what was shown in the 60 Minutes video? - LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Our government is owned by the global corporations and is corrupt, we just will not admit it.
Forget the Democrats vs Republicans they are all the same they just play people against the other party , don't fall for it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is