Once again lets pass it so we can find out what it says

Full title is : Oh Dear, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie Touches the Third Rail – Reveals DC’s Biggest Secret…

I think my next life I want to come back as a Congress Critter. Stay home and eat ice cream then show up for what is called work a few days a week. Maybe do some face time on MSN to help with the reelection. Have my aides tell me what has been going on and what is in the bill my party wants me to sign into law; I mean after all the bill has 1400 pages of lawyer double speak so why bother.. Just go with the flow errr the party line.

With congress saying they will not be returning to work next week, it appears Kentucky representative Thomas Massie has decided to use the opportunity to expose Washington DC’s biggest secret. Something 99% of American voters do not understand:

Oh dear, he’s telling secrets. You see, congress doesn’t actually write legislation. The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s. Modern legislation is sub-contracted to K-Street. Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress commissions for passing their laws. That’s the modern legislative business in DC.

theconservativetreehouse.com...- 190326

Sorry for this being an American centrist thread however I would assume other countries are plagued with the same problems if not just plain out right in your face corruption.

a reply to: 727Sky

But I thought the President was going to stop lobbyists in his effort to “drain the swamp”.

President Trump hired 281 lobbyists to his administration by the halfway point of his first term, which is four times more than President Obama hired six years into office.

One lobbyist was hired for every 14 political appointments made, according to a ProPublica and Columbia Journalism Investigations analysis released Tuesday.

Trump had named more ex-lobbyists to his cabinet by September than Obama and President Bush did in their eight years in the White House, The Associated Press reported at the time. That includes recent additions Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia and Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
thehill.com...

Special interest lobbyists are a problem in most governments , a problem that even with nice words from political leaders continues unabated.
In my opinion lobbyists are antidemocratic and should be subject to higher scrutiny and oversight , I doubt they can be stopped but their access and influence should be curtailed.

originally posted by: 727Sky
I mean after all the bill has 1400 pages of lawyer double speak

Remember President Trump's desire to reduce the amounts of legislation in this country.

Let's propose this to him: Any law with legal doublespeak in it ... is nullified.

TPTB have wrecked our educational institutions. We've got an average IQ of 89 in the USA. (I'll let the masses figure out what that meant). If a guy with an 89 IQ can't understand what the law "says" ... it's dropped from the books. Done!!

I'd personally like to see another law that says, "If you're trying to do something sneaky within the Gooberment, you spend five years as a gladiator. And, you must face a fight-to-the-death not less than once a month or your sentence starts over.

Back in my Ops officer days (yep hard to believe) I had to write up the reports for the awards and decorations that were sent back to Washington for approval. If it was not 23 (close to that number no kidding) pages it did not get approved.. Well after way to long a time some REMF decided that if the action could not be explained in a paragraph or even a page or two then do not submit. Wow what a relief it was.. !

If you know the exact target it is easier to aim IMO and should be the same with these bills. I do wish the line item veto had been approved back when Regan was President as that would cut out mucho pork.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: 727Sky
I mean after all the bill has 1400 pages of lawyer double speak

Remember President Trump's desire to reduce the amounts of legislation in this country.

Let's propose this to him: Any law with legal doublespeak in it ... is nullified.

TPTB have wrecked our educational institutions. We've got an average IQ of 89 in the USA. (I'll let the masses figure out what that meant). If a guy with an 89 IQ can't understand what the law "says" ... it's dropped from the books. Done!!

I'd personally like to see another law that says, "If you're trying to do something sneaky within the Gooberment, you spend five years as a gladiator. And, you must face a fight-to-the-death not less than once a month or your sentence starts over.

I've been saying for years, "Running Man" might happen in this corptacracy

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: 727Sky
I mean after all the bill has 1400 pages of lawyer double speak

Remember President Trump's desire to reduce the amounts of legislation in this country.

Let's propose this to him: Any law with legal doublespeak in it ... is nullified.

TPTB have wrecked our educational institutions. We've got an average IQ of 89 in the USA. (I'll let the masses figure out what that meant). If a guy with an 89 IQ can't understand what the law "says" ... it's dropped from the books. Done!!

I'd personally like to see another law that says, "If you're trying to do something sneaky within the Gooberment, you spend five years as a gladiator. And, you must face a fight-to-the-death not less than once a month or your sentence starts over.

I've been saying for years, "Running Man" might happen in this corptacracy

The title 'Lobbyist' would be dropped from American vernacular.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky

But I thought the President was going to stop lobbyists in his effort to “drain the swamp”.

President Trump hired 281 lobbyists to his administration by the halfway point of his first term, which is four times more than President Obama hired six years into office.

One lobbyist was hired for every 14 political appointments made, according to a ProPublica and Columbia Journalism Investigations analysis released Tuesday.

Trump had named more ex-lobbyists to his cabinet by September than Obama and President Bush did in their eight years in the White House, The Associated Press reported at the time. That includes recent additions Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia and Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
thehill.com...

Special interest lobbyists are a problem in most governments , a problem that even with nice words from political leaders continues unabated.
In my opinion lobbyists are antidemocratic and should be subject to higher scrutiny and oversight , I doubt they can be stopped but their access and influence should be curtailed.

You know, I used to think all lobbyists were 'bad'. Trump cabinet still has unconfirmed members....and it's not because some of them are lobbyists.

I have NOT seen where his 'lobbyists' have have necessarily influenced policy. Or at least affected policy that has gone against the grain of most Republican's ideals.

As far as exposing this 'behind the curtain' chain of legislation process, it isn't new and most of us have been quite aware of it. Remember when HRC was running and we all knew that it would be Mills, Abedin etc. actually in charge and directing the Commander in Chief.

It's not just lobbyists. In practically every process upper management puts forth, under staff have influenced much of it. Or maybe I worded it incorrectly.

A lobbyist is "a person who takes part in an organized attempt to influence legislators." Aren't we all lobbyist wannabes, at least a little bit? After all, the boards here are full of posts from people who would like their ideas put into place. They just don't get paid for it. And just because lobbyist's get paid it doesn't mean all their influences are bad. It's just distasteful that they're getting paid....but even lobbyists have to put food on the table.

a reply to: 727Sky
Why do you think DC freaked out when Trump won. All these special interest groups pay legal groups to write legislation on thier behalf. Then the special interest group hires a lobbyist firm to shop it around Congress to get it sponsored by a congressional member . The congressional sponsor of the bill gets paid by the lobbyist in free trips and other perks for thier efforts. Everyone is getting thier legislation sponsored and making money when the DC money machine is rolling. Everyone is happy it's going great then the unthinkable happens Trump wins. Cue the freak out.

Everyone of these people thought Hillary Clinton would be president. The DC machine had stacks and stacks of bills written by law groups paid for by the special interest groups ready to go. The lobbyists were hired and paid for shopping the bills to find congressional sponsors. The members of congress were excited about the perks to sponsor these bills.

Except that all these bills were written and tailored with Clinton's political platform in mind ready to be supported and signed by Clinton.

When Trump won all that effort, time and money spent was a waste. There weren't stacks of bills written with Trumps campaign promises or his political platform in mind. Nobody thought he would win. Members of Congress both democrats and republicans would not be getting thier perks from the lobbyists. The bills would not be passed. To say people were disappointed would be an understatement.

a reply to: StoutBroux

A lobbyist is "a person who takes part in an organized attempt to influence legislators." Aren't we all lobbyist wannabes, at least a little bit?

A lobbyist is someone who has access to the wheels of power and gets paid to try to influence those wheels to favour of those paying for that access , the best lobbyists tend to be those who have served at some capacity in the processes of government and have connections to those with influence , we may be wannabes but we have no influence other than at election time and even then our influence is limited.

Lobbyists help grease the wheels of corruption.

If we remove the capability of personal enrichment from "serving" (iickk I shuddered typing that word in this context) in Congress, our problems with corruption would disappear OVERNIGHT.

It's easier said than done by a LONG stretch, but the implications are impossible to deny: we have the best government money can buy.

The dilemma can be expressed as thus: how do you incentivize congressional members from not seeing incentives. You must either penalize those offering incentives, penalize those for receiving incentives, or make it such that no matter what K street could dangle in front of members of Congress, it simply wouldn't be sufficient to make them want to "take the bait" (in other words you outbid the lobbyists).

Personally I'm starting to think the third option is the way to go.

a reply to: 727Sky

Great article. Thanks for posting. When viewed from that perspective, it all makes sense.

Congress are just the sales team. They get commissions. They get a heads up on insider trading and positioning. No wonder they get so wealthy.

Instead of statesmen, it's more accurate to think of them as sketchy car salesmen. I was wondering why my representatives never answered my emails or posts on FB. Now I know. I didn't throw enough $1's on the stage.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: 727Sky

Great article. Thanks for posting. When viewed from that perspective, it all makes sense.

Congress are just the sales team. They get commissions. They get a heads up on insider trading and positioning. No wonder they get so wealthy.

Instead of statesmen, it's more accurate to think of them as sketchy car salesmen. I was wondering why my representatives never answered my emails or posts on FB. Now I know. I didn't throw enough $1's on the stage.

Very true IMO. There should be someway to stop that crap however since Congress has someone write/dictate the laws and seems to be against cutting their own money train out It would appear it is what it is. Sucks IMO.

www.technocracy.news...

But if you thought this lack of congressional action means not much is happening in Washington in terms of policymaking, you would be very wrong. It’s just that the democratically elected institutions have now become a largely irrelevant sideshow. The real policymaking takes place among unelected experts, who decide for themselves—with minimal oversight or control from actual elected officials—what will happen in terms of public policy. The people who really run the country are these experts and bureaucrats at the central banks, at public health agencies, spy agencies, and an expanding network of boards and commissions.

This is not a new trend. Over the past several decades—and especially since the New Deal—official experts in government have gradually replaced elected representatives as the primary decision-makers in government. Public debate has been abandoned in favor of meetings among small handfuls of unelected technocrats. Politics has been replaced by “science,” whether social science or physical science. These powerful and largely unaccountable decision-makers are today most noticeable in federal courts, in “intelligence” agencies, at the Federal Reserve, and—long ignored until now—in government public health agencies.

Technocracy as a style of governing has been around at least since the Progressive Era, although it has often been restrained by traditional legislative and elected political actors and institutions. Globally, it has gained prominence in a variety of times and places, for example in Mexico during the 1980s and 1990s.

But the technocracy’s power has long been growing in the United States as well.