Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel

Some analysts say Obama’s proposals are almost radical.

I call that "change I can believe in."

Hehehehe.... Watch them scurry for ways to bash Obama while STILL not taking up the gauntlet.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Obama. I was looking for a change from the traditional "no-bid" Washington. Change Washington Obama. < :-)

Sounds good to me.

More charades.

"One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans - it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008."

President Barack Obama; Nov 3, 2007

Where the money came from: Agribusiness - $2,156,719 Communications/Electronics - $24,914,397 Construction - $5,165,930 Defense - $1,039,694 Energy & Natural Resources - $2,505,900 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate - $37,610,335 Health - $18,707,862 Lawyers & Lobbyists - $43,102,997 Transportation - $1,589,610 Misc Business - $35,043,701 Labor - $470,824 Ideological/Single-Issue - $13,541,771 Other - $82,207,561

Source: OpenSecrets.org

Obama found room for lobbyists: "Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005."

Source: Politico.com

Politicians say a lot of things... and people believe them. Of course, it helps that the big media giants are in the tank (so far). The more things "change," the more they stay the same... or get worse.

The more he promises, the more markets drop.

Disaster.

Obama is merely a Leftist.He is a Socialist and a budding Fascist.The best thing for the US in the long run would be for his agenda to go down in flames. Dante welcomes you, Obama, to the innermost circle of the Inferno.(Paradoxically the innermost circle is a frozen lake with the souls frozen in situ.)

Dante only visited Hell, how else could his story be told? If Dante welcomes Obama, then it is from Paradise.

Regardless of Obama's political stripes, he is addressing the real problems facing America. Bush & Co. had 8 years and all we hear is excuses ala "We got it wrong", "Who knew?", or "It was Clinton" (that's my favourite). So b!tch and moan all you want, Obama is in power because the so-called party of business didn't get a damned thing done. The American voter wanted real leadership, do suck it up.

he is addressing the real problems facing America. Bush and Co. had 8 years

I voted for Obama, but I don't see anything wrong with asking questions or making informed decisions about his policies. I think he's doing a good job so far so I give him a lot of credit. But you can't go running behind Bush every time any piece of criticism comes up for Obama. That's simply avoiding the issue and taking the entire checks and balances system off the table. Right now the strategy from the radical left seems to be "support everything Obama does or be branded a Republican." It's the blind support that makes me wonder if people who follow Obama really follow his message. You can talk about blind support from Republicans, and I'm sure you will, but keep in mind that it in no way counters anything that I've said. It just reinforces it.

SuperLib: I'm glad you are happy with Obama. It seems like he's making some really bold choices, which is in part why he was elected, and hopefully they pay off.

"But you can't go running behind Bush every time any piece of criticism comes up for Obama"

I just wanted to point out that the comment Buddha was referring to was not 'criticism' in the slightest... or at least there was nothing constructive about it... it was a hateful post that made the poster look 'unbalanced'. The shots about 'Socialism' and 'Fascism' are WAY off the mark and very reminiscent of the people who bought the lies that McCain/Pain were spreading around. It's therefore not at all inappropriate to bring up Republicans and/or bush, particularly since Buddha was also contrasting the choices made by Obama with those (or the lack of, as he suggests) by bush.

I do agree that blaming bush for EVERYTHING under the sun and blindly supporting anyone is just wrong, but saying you cannot take a look at the past to see where you are heading doesn't help the road ahead either. Had Buddha just come on and started bush bashing then I think your comment would have been more in line, but as it is, with him bashing someone who is simply lashing out at Obama, I don't think your comment carries as much weight.

Of course asking questions and making informed decisions are fine - never said nor implied that they weren't, so put away your strawman. The preceding post I was responding to did not have a question or a decision, so there was nothing to avoid or take off the table. Whatever the radical left does has about influence with me as the radical right - both are wacked in the head and need treatment (a dose of reality perhaps).

As to Obama, grown ups on both sides seem to recognize that America is not out of the woods and Obama's policies may fail, not for the lack of trying. The ideological babies in the sandbox are just throwing dirt because that's all they can do.

Obama has completed the most free-spending, debt-incurring first month as POTUS in American history, and to cap off the loony tunes show has tapped Joe "I Forget the Website Number" Biden to oversee the implementation of a pork-filled wish list covering and finally indulging four decades of some of the most demented "liberal" projects and policies imaginable, and one that Nancy Pelosi has also decided will be called a stimulus bill.

In his 33 - year career as a politician Joe Biden's Dem colleagues never put him in a single leadership role unless his seniority basically mandated it, and yet our rookie president has just put this near senile old goof in charge of the most expensive spending plan in history.

Simply.

Amazing.

rollonarte: "and yet our rookie president has just put this near senile old goof in charge of the most expensive spending plan in history."

Actually, it was the majority of the American people who put him there, as they did with Obama. Deal with it.

rollarte: "Obama has completed the most free-spending, debt-incurring first month as POTUS in American history..."

necessary due to your hero... the last president.

The second bailout was pitched as necessary, when it was no more necessary than the first. The investment sides are in trouble, but the consumer banking side can survive. The logical course is to perform triage, using limited resources to save what can survive and allowing the mortally wounded to die. The government should have forced divestiture and allowd the the investment banking side to go belly up. This would have saved the consumer banking portion of the finance industry. Instead, the President and Congress listened to lobbyists from investment banking firms and pressed for a taxpayer-funded bailout. The truth is that attempting to "save" the investment side amounts to following the same failed Keynesian policies that extended the Japanese recession and left it in a weakened state. Indeed, government policy played a large role in creating the real-estate bubble.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act was the root of the bubble, but it was the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that made it grown. It not only repealed portions of Glass-Steagall but it effectively required that banks make loans to individuals that would not be able to qualify for a regular mortgage (in accordance with CRA). This resulted in far more home loans than the market would have normally supported and a balloon began to form. Moreover, GLBA allowed the mixing of consumer banking and investment banking, setting into motion a series of M&As and investment products based upon those sub-prime loans. This was not easily discernible due to the depressive effects of the dotcom bubble's bursting. It might even be argued that it prevented from the dotcom bust from crashing the market. Nevertheless, when you act for short-term gains, you invariably pay for it in the long-run.

President Barack H. Obama encourages banks to give credit and for people to buy on credit in order to "stimulate" the economy. This is nonsensical. Credit, specifically the over-extension of it, is part of the problem. Individuals, companies, and financial institutions borrowed obscene amounts of money in anticipation of future earnings. (The consumer debt is over 2.6 trillion dollars, not including mortgages.) While such borrowing vastly increases the movement of currency and "economic growth", it amounts to a very delicate house of cards. A large number of defaults, a loss of confidence in the currency, or economic instability has the ability to bring it all down and so the house of cards fell.

January's inflation was quadruple that of the normal yearly rate and the government plans on spending more. This sort of spending is unsustainable. If we do not take the pain now, we will make things far worse in the long run... which might be sooner than we think.

Investment banking must be saved at all costs. We are the creme of the crop. Without us society cannot function.

"The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side"

Heh. Change!

sarge: "Heh. Change!"

What are you upset about? They finally tried linking something Obama said or did to bush... you should be proud!

Obama has completed the most free-spending, debt-incurring first month as POTUS in American history

And your point is...? The US economy today is that largest in history period. When it falls apart, it gets very expensive very quick. What? Did you think that when everyone said the markets are crashing it was just a neat TV reality show? I think part of the problem is that some of you have yet to wake up to the fact that money is lost and money will have to be spent regardless who is in power.

Smith - Heck, I'm not upset! But since President Obama's style has been likened to Bush's "bring-it-on style, which you criticized countless times, YOU must be upset, no?

I agree with Sarge, great posts buddy. Certainly puts smith in his place. Tee Hee!

sarge: "But since President Obama's style has been likened to Bush's "bring-it-on style, which you criticized countless times, YOU must be upset, no?"

Not in the least. You see, it was Obama's sharp rhetoric that drew some people to conclude it was like the tone of his predecessor, nothing else. Now, if his decisions were even a 10th as bad as bush's, and were he as incompetent and stupid, well, then I might be upset that he had run in the first place.

Smith: "You see, it was Obama's sharp rhetoric that drew some people to conclude it was like the tone of his predecessor, nothing else"

So those people are wrong, right?

OnTheRecord - Smith will never admit to being wrong about anything. Tee hee!

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act was the root of the bubble, but it was the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that made it grown. It not only repealed portions of Glass-Steagall but it effectively required that banks make loans to individuals that would not be able to qualify for a regular mortgage (in accordance with CRA).

Anyone recall the political party affiliations of Gramm, Leach, and Bliley? All Republicans, right? The bill itself is a perfect example of the fruits of the Republican deregulatory philosophy.

Of course, the writer of the above fails to mention the arcane financial instruments created out of the questionable mortgages in order to attempt to leverage quicker and greater returns from them. Some of the best and brightest mathematicians worked to create those instruments, which have properly been likened to fianancial weapons of mass destruction.

sarge: "So those people are wrong, right?"

Aside from saying any kind of bombastic talk is like his predecessors, they are completely wrong if they think there's more, yes.

Care to actually talk about the issue, sarge?

he he he ... the Bushies did the hokey pokey with the world's hindquarters for 8 years then they wanna cry because the chicken dance era is over. if what mr. obama says is true/sincere, then prepare for the meek to inherit the earth. Bushies, find your ankles with your hairy palms because, the hokey pokey will now be done unto you ... ha ha ha.

ashika1009 - "Obama is merely a Leftist.He is a Socialist and a budding Fascist.The best thing for the US in the long run would be for his agenda to go down in flames."

LOL! Funniest, most out-of-touch quote of the day?

Heh, this just in - Romney picked as 2012 GOP front-runner.

That's it for the GOP. Would the last one to leave please turn out the lights. :-)

Even Obama's chief "vetter", Gregory Craig, has also turned out to be a tax cheat.

These people have no shame.They want you to pay taxes but they apparently regard themselves as above the law and obligation.

Is there anyone on his staff who isn't a crook?

Sounds like some on here need to go and dig up Junior Senator Joseph McCarthy... the seconding coming of what they need.

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.... why then are so many Americans scared of living up to the ideals of their Founding Fathers?

I predict that an observable trend will emerge on the forums of the internet's busiest political sites - when foreign support and mindless cheerleading for Obama exceeds or even replaces domestic Democrat support, that particular issue will invariably become a failure or a setback for Obama or a victory for his opponents.

rollonarte, the Dems are looking like picking up seat number 60 in Congress.

Will total Democrat domination change your mind and put you on a pro-American path for the first time ever? :-)

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act was the root of the bubble, but it was the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that made it grown.

Actually, those are red herrings, as with all the talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Clinton, Greenspan, etc. As yabits already pointed out, this is all about securitization, which allowed the USA to export its debt and basically launder money to get around the reserve requirements of the banking system. Without securitization there is no bubble.

The truth is that attempting to "save" the investment side amounts to following the same failed Keynesian policies that extended the Japanese recession and left it in a weakened state.

you are mixing two different things here, the banks and the stimulus. Keynesian policies have nothing to do with fixing the banking problem. And the point of the stimulus is not to fix the problem, it's to avoid collapse and depression (though the government is not going to say that). Which is pretty much what Japan did.

rollonarte: "predict that an observable trend will emerge on the forums of the internet's busiest political sites..."

Who knows what trends will emerge. I know one, at least, that will stay, and that's the banning of people like yourself (for the umpteenth time) who have no idea how to argue/debate, and can only resort to calling people foreigners and suggesting cheerleaders when you are shown the door (again).

sarge: "OnTheRecord - Smith will never admit to being wrong about anything. Tee hee!"

I notice you've brought in your 'tee-hee' fan club again. Good. Anyway, I notice you didn't take up my challenge the other day, which means that you simply could not, so you feel that running away from it (typical republican approach) and calling names from the sidelines makes you feel you are correct. I know you like to avoid like the plague threads in which you've taken a serious beating, but still.

Once again, though... good challenge by Obama.

Mindless Obama supports vs. mindless Bush supporters.

Who will win in the end?

Oh! He's going to challenge lobbyists now is he? Thats like challenging a form in the fog. Only the low budget nonprofit groups are public lobbyists the rest are wealthy intelligent individuals that are motivated by the primal urge of greed and self interest. A smart man would use their assets to his advantage, a foolish man will punch at the mist until he collapses from exhaustion.

Barack Obama is just slapping some lobbyists right in the face. This means no more secret energy meetings where the participants and notes are either destroyed or buried under rules of secrecy.

The lobbyists are the ones who have kept the US from going into alternate energies. Instead of finding new energies sources and new ways of powering the country. By keeping us using petroleum at the same time screaming more drilling and less spending for wind power.

I'm all for bringing everything out into the open and making this a conversation between the American people and the congress without some lobbyists sliding a few bucks in to stop the process or steer it their way. < :-)

With all the government money that is being spent the lobbyists are busy-ier than ever shaking their cups.

Obama is right that the lobbyists are a problem and holding America back and behind. Having some transparency would help, but having politicians not accept these lobbyist's moneys would help even more. A new system is needed where politicians do not decide where money is spent.

President Obama has undertaken a noble cause. I for one fully support President Obama in this cause. Our nation needs to wrench away the power of these lobbyist. I hope that the people will be behind him in this cause.

Sushi: "That's it for the GOP. Would the last one to leave please turn out the lights?"

I thought the GOP's lights were already out.

yabits and GJDailleult, If you read the entire paragraph, you would note that I wrote the following: "Moreover, GLBA allowed the mixing of consumer banking and investment banking, setting into motion a series of M&As and investment products based upon those sub-prime loans."

The sub-prime collapse and the securities collapse are tied together. If the sub-prime market did not collapse, the securities based upon them would not have collapsed. That's why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the CRA are part of the mess. The Democrats insisted on including those items. This ensured that sub-prime financing would become part of the market expansion. As the market ballooned, more non-CRA institutions got involved in sub-prime products, either by issuing their own sub-prime mortgages or by purchasing bundled instruments containing those loans. As with other bubbles, purchasers of those securities did not understand the risk, relied upon almost arbitrary ratings, and thought that they couldn't lose in the bull market. The result of the Republican and Democrat legislation was a proliferation of toxic loans and their concentration in investment securities.

The market poisoned itself, but the politicians provided the poison.