[BengalTiger]

You want to reduce the incentive to lobby the government?  Reduce the power of the government.  If government can interfere less, there will be less of a reason to lobby for special preferences.  Influence-peddling and big government go hand-in-hand.

But that means no gov power in health care, so those who are against lobbying and support gov health are in a pretty dumb situation now, at least when it comes to deciding on whether the gov should get larger or smaller...

[SpardaSon21]

What it really comes down to is that they are against lobbying that contradicts them, and for lobbying that is in line with their aims.  Me, I don't mind lobbying that much, since I believe it falls under the heading of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

[iamzack]

Definitely falls under the heading of only the rich can influence the government.  It stops being a representative democracy and becomes an oligarchy

[headdie]

the only way to remove lobbying is to have a 100% state funded political and election campaigning system with publicly set limits on what can be spent and where you can do so. only then will the the private pound, dollar, yen, euro, or whatever other currency you can think of have no political value

[SpardaSon21]

But that's highly restrictive.  What if someone wants to donate to a candidate because they like his views?  Rich corporations aren't the only ones who donate to political campaigns.

[Sushi]

You want to reduce the incentive to lobby the government?  Reduce the power of the government.  If government can interfere less, there will be less of a reason to lobby for special preferences.  Influence-peddling and big government go hand-in-hand.

 

[Liberator]

Getting back on the topic of health care reform...

The thing that stuck out at me the most was that whole diatribe on "granny killing" and whether it was false or not.

It didn't come out of nowhere.  There are people in office right(including the President sadly) who are now or have been in the recent past a part of or leader of organizations who advocate the removal of the elderly from society because they are a drain on resources or for any number of asinine reasons.  I mean the President said that if a persons grandmother was facing a Cancer diagnosis, that it might be better to just dose her on pain pills and ease her suffering in the last months of her life rather than providing her with whatever therapies or surgeries that would save her life, simply because she's past the point in her life where she can provide a benefit to society by holding a job.  This indicates to a lot of outside observers a disturbing lack of empathy with others at the very least to a sickening lack of connection to the sanctity of human life.

[blackhole]

Getting back on the topic of health care reform...

The thing that stuck out at me the most was that whole diatribe on "granny killing" and whether it was false or not.

It didn't come out of nowhere.  There are people in office right(including the President sadly) who are now or have been in the recent past a part of or leader of organizations who advocate the removal of the elderly from society because they are a drain on resources or for any number of asinine reasons.  I mean the President said that if a persons grandmother was facing a Cancer diagnosis, that it might be better to just dose her on pain pills and ease her suffering in the last months of her life rather than providing her with whatever therapies or surgeries that would save her life, simply because she's past the point in her life where she can provide a benefit to society by holding a job.  This indicates to a lot of outside observers a disturbing lack of empathy with others at the very least to a sickening lack of connection to the sanctity of human life.

And of course, nowhere in here do you mention the words "Blown out of proportion."

[Liberator]

Well, it is a little, but, and it's a big but, you can't let people with that perspective become anything approaching the mainstream.  The next step down that path is lowering the age until there's no one over 50 allowed to live, then maybe they start governing who can have children and who can't or who gets an education and who goes to work in the factories or on the fishing boats or whatever, it's a very slippery slope with a very bad end that everyone seems more than happy to not just walk down, but run at full speed with a tail wind.

Seems like I saw that on a Star Trek or Star Wars or somewhere...

[Flipside]

Methinks certain talking heads have been watching too much Logans' Run to be honest

There isn't a society in the world that has enforced euthenasia for the old, and such a law would never be passed, because most politicians are only about 10-20 years from that sort of age by the time they reach a position where they can make a decision on such matters, they aren't going to consign themselves and their families to the 'happy chambers'.

[Kosh]

Do you want to reduce the number of lobbyists in Washington?  There's a simple solution to that if you want to: reduce the incentive to lobby the federal government.  If there's less incentive to lobby for changes to bills, fewer special-interests will have lobbyists.

Why not just ban lobbying all together like many other developed democracies do? In fact doesn't Germany have a system of limited public funds and no lobbying?

But that's highly restrictive.  What if someone wants to donate to a candidate because they like his views?  Rich corporations aren't the only ones who donate to political campaigns.

There wouldn't be a need to donate, since all donations would be banned. How the person would show his or her support is where it should matter: the voting booth, otherwise it isn't a republic, it's a plutocracy.

It didn't come out of nowhere.  There are people in office right(including the President sadly) who are now or have been in the recent past a part of or leader of organizations who advocate the removal of the elderly from society because they are a drain on resources or for any number of asinine reasons.  I mean the President said that if a persons grandmother was facing a Cancer diagnosis, that it might be better to just dose her on pain pills and ease her suffering in the last months of her life rather than providing her with whatever therapies or surgeries that would save her life, simply because she's past the point in her life where she can provide a benefit to society by holding a job.  This indicates to a lot of outside observers a disturbing lack of empathy with others at the very least to a sickening lack of connection to the sanctity of human life.

Where do you get this stuff from?

[SpardaSon21]

Part of freedom is the freedom to do what you want with your money.  If that includes giving it to a political candidate, that's your choice, and the government shouldn't be able to stop you.

[Flipside]

I think personal donations are ok, it's just when corporate or political entities get in on the act, and start donating as groups seeking political advantage, rather than individuals stating support of a position, that the system all goes wonky. Donations are not a system that scale well.

[Nuclear1]

On campaign finance reform: limits need to be set.  A limit of 3000 per donor would seriously limit the influence of corporations and large entities over a particular candidate.  Right-wing commentators and pundits scream "ATTACK ON FREEDOM!!!", but the fact is campaign finance reform would do more good for the republic as a whole than sacrificing the power of the rich to buy candidates would hurt it.  Anyone who claims reform is an attack on freedom, whether they know it or not, are tools of the rich and corporate America.

On healthcare:
Liberator, I have no ****ing clue where you're getting your information, but I might be able to guess: Sarah Palin, 60 Plus, Michelle Bachmann, or any other of the lying shameless GOP anti-reform morons.

There is, never will be, and never has been plans to institute a program to kill off the elderly.  The fact hasn't been "blown out of proportion", because that implies it actually exists.

What Sarah Palin and the rest of the lying, backwards nutwings in the GOP have done is entirely misinterpret a section of the bill and use it as a scare tactic.  There's a section that allows for family members of the elderly to consult with a physician to discuss end-of-life options, a consultation which will be covered by the new health insurance.

Nowhere in the bill does it say we will purge the elderly from society.

Nowhere in there does it say healthcare will be rationed.

Even if you haven't read the bill, or listened to any of the right-wing pundits you're clearing your informaton from, just take a little bit of common sense and think: would any elected leader in Congress seriously implement a death panel for the elderly? Would one of the most popularly-elected leaders of the last quarter century actually sign a bill into action?

The only mention that such a horrible thing exists is coming from the mouths of the GOP and the right-wing. It has sunk to a level of bigotry, obstructionism, and deceit not witnessed in this country for a long while.  They'll take whatever measures necessary to serve insurance companies, and they'll lie and terrorize the American people into believing outlandish claims of mandatory euthanasia or a freely-elected government actively denying treatment to the sick.

Whether or not you think you are, the fact that you simply echo and repeat GOP and ultra-right talking points nicely-wrapped up by Fox Noise or Glenn Beck means you ARE a tool of the Republican Party and their cronies.

[Kosh]

Part of freedom is the freedom to do what you want with your money.  If that includes giving it to a political candidate, that's your choice, and the government shouldn't be able to stop you.

But no one can do anything they want with their money. I can't, for example, hire a hitman to assasinate you, I can't buy cocaine, and there is plenty of other stuff I can't do with my money.

I think personal donations are ok

There actually are well defined limits for personal donations, but there's pretty much no limit to "soft money".

[SpardaSon21]

Let me clarify myself.  I should be able to do what I want with my money, as long as I don't interfere with your rights, rights such as life, liberty, and property.  If my usage of money interferes with one of those rights, then I have no right to use my money in such a way.  However, my giving money to a political candidate interferes in no way to you living your life free of interference, as you still have your money and are free to spend it how you choose.

[Kosh]

However, my giving money to a political candidate interferes in no way to you living your life free of interference,

It can if that candidate is in favor of something that is harmful to me.

[SpardaSon21]

I could say the same thing about people donating to Obama, since he plans to get government involved in my life.  How do you feel about that?

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, because Obama implementing universal health care and raising taxes on a tax bracket I'm almost certain you don't belong to is the exact same thing as insurance companies maintaining a dangerous status quo, defense contractors contributing to the waste of tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary military buildup, or energy companies blocking progress in developing newer, cleaner fuels.

The EXACT same thing.

[SpardaSon21]

Maybe I don't want Obama dinging the rich to pay for my medical care, ever consider that?  Maybe I think I should be the one paying for my medical care.  And I happen to think a strong military is essential to freedom, as a military can be useful for protecting the citizens of a free nation.  Nations with weak militaries haven't lasted that long traditionally.  Remember the saying "If you want peace, prepare for war."?  Despite what Obama says, we really are engaged in a War on Terror.  While I may not happen to approve of the way Bush prosecuted it through his warrantless spying, I do think the U.S. military needs to be prepared to deal with outside threats of any kind.  And those newer, cleaner fuels aren't all that clean.  Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides, is just as polluting, and requires vast tracts of land, land that could instead go towards growing food for consumption.  Since ethanol production in the U.S. requires corn, all that corn used for ethanol isn't used for feeding people.  Supply of food is reduced, and prices go up.  Wind doesn't provide all that much power for the space it takes, it is only available in certain areas, birds can hit the turbine blades and get maimed, and solar is only effective during the day.  Geothermal energy is rare.  Fission power is extremely effective, is extremely clean, yet the environmental lobby is opposed to it.  I hate to say it, but fossil fuels are the best choice we have for power in the near future.  Solar, wind, and geothermal just aren't that effective, and fission power is widely opposed.