Why the Rich Get More Time With Congresspeople

I agree. It's also quite ironic that all too often the wealthy that get their time are Democrats such as Corzine and Rubin.

That is true too.

Your govt. is bought and paid for.

In a simple explanation of how the revolving door works, Abramoff said he would use promises of jobs on K Street to lure Capitol Hill staffers into his pocket. He would let a chief of staff know that he was interested in hiring him or her. The promise of a high paying job — Abramoff made $20 million a year at one point — would entice the staffer to give Abramoff control over the congressional office. In Abramoff’s words, at that point he “owned them”:

"When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, “You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.” Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ‘em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do."

--Jack Abramoff, Convicted Felon and Ex Republican Lobbyist

>Your govt. is bought and paid for.

Agree, which is why we should lower taxes so there is less money for the government to spend on their pet causes,.

"should lower taxes so there is less money for the government to spend on their pet causes"

And more money for the rich to buy off the govt.?

How do you lower taxes when corporations don't pay any taxes?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/07/362646/defense-industry-tax-no/

Lowering taxes woudl require the government to write checks to corproations. After all, it is hard to lower taxes when your paying a negative tax rate.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf

We left out union influence.

>And more money for the rich to buy off the govt.?

Smaller government means less government to be bought off, whether for the union, or for the rich, or for anyone else. Union leaders should like less government, this way they can replace the government for their members and become more powerful.

"And more money for the rich to buy off the govt.?"

people in the position to buy government influence have been buying government influence as long as there have been governments, influence, and people. this is not a modern phenomenon, it is not unique to the us, and will never be eradicated in any society, ever. only way to truly limit government corruption is to limit the overlap of government and private interests by limiting the amount of influence government has to sell.

To expect people to not weild influence over Congress or Congress to seek out being influenced is not realistic . The system wasn't built to avoid influence.

"The system wasn't built to avoid influence."

It came very close to being fixed, however, RE John McCain campaign finance reform circa 1998 that died a slow, agonizing death.

"We left out union influence."

All unions put together equal about 1/20th of corporate money. This is obscured by the fact that many of the top ten donors are unions. But when you add up ALL donors, its not even a close race.

Socialist
about 15 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse Your govt. is bought and paid for.

In a simple explanation of how the revolving door works, Abramoff said he would use promises of jobs on K Street to lure Capitol Hill staffers into his pocket. He would let a chief of staff know that he was interested in hiring him or her. The promise of a high paying job — Abramoff made $20 million a year at one point — would entice the staffer to give Abramoff control over the congressional office. In Abramoff’s words, at that point he “owned them”:

"When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, “You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.” Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ‘em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do."

--Jack Abramoff, Convicted Felon and Ex Republican Lobbyist

i love that the tone of this is like it's blowing the lid off some explosive secret information. everyone knows this in dc, it's how dc works for both parties. every lowly staffer starts building their rolodex from day one, as soon as they think they've got enough to jump into lobbying or consulting, they do it. when they think they've lost street cred (or when they are women and get pregnant) they go back for the contacts (and benefits), and then go back to the "private" sector yet again when they want more money. how can someone seriously discuss politics and not know this? or claim not to know this?

Riversider
11 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse To expect people to not weild influence over Congress or Congress to seek out being influenced is not realistic . The system wasn't built to avoid influence.

yes. you'll note i said "limit" influence, not eradicate it. which i did say would be impossible.

>It came very close to being fixed, however, RE John McCain campaign finance reform circa 1998 that died a slow, agonizing death.

The cranky guy who doesn't know how many homes he has?

>All unions put together equal about 1/20th of corporate money. This is obscured by the fact that many of the top ten donors are unions. But when you add up ALL donors, its not even a close race.

Except that many of the top 10 donors are unions.

Oh, and those unions can deliver dollars, and votes.

>yes. you'll note i said "limit" influence, not eradicate it. which i did say would be impossible.

lucille, your tone is very different today than normal.

"(or when they are women and get pregnant)"

that should say when they plan to get pregnant. because of course a pregnant woman cannot get new health insurance as that is considered an underlying condition.

"lucille, your tone is very different today than normal."

not sure what you mean

Unions are vastly outspent whe you factor in all the corproate Super PACS. What they do is set up these Super PACS and then funnel unlimited secret money through them. So an example: I set up a PAC called SocialistPAC and Riversider contributes $2 million to it. I then take that some of that money and donate it to a candidate and I use the rest of it to run ads on their behalf. Nobody ever knows that Riversider gave me the money.

Speaking of PACs,I can't help but thinking that Paul Ryan's budget was nothing more than an elaborate scheme for him to raise money. He called his budget the "Ptah to Prosperity." The name of his PAC is "Prosperity PAC." The name of the #1 Koch beothers front group is "Americans for Prosperity." And now it came out that HErman Cain was taking illegal contributions from a PAC called "Prosperity USA."

What is it with Republicans and the word "Prosperity"?

>What is it with Republicans and the word "Prosperity"?

You figured it out. Congratulations. Now you are columbiacounty's level.

Oh, sorry, I meant to put an exclamation point after Congratulations.

!