30 Major U.S. Corporations Pay More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes 2008 -2010

voted up gator

Because I'm new at this. I've only offered two items for conversation. Sorry about the inconvenience.

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine... When you're at the page, copy and paste the link from the address bar into the link field when you submit. It's even easier than typing in the whole .com address. I'm sure you'll get it next time! Oh and you can always edit your posts and update links, headlines, add stuff etc.

Actually, thank you for the info anyways. I've shared this elsewhere thanks to your find.

Thanks for the tip. I will keep your advice close at hand.

I doubt that anyone is going to crucify you. The point of the conversation, I think, is that this is the way politics is run in the U.S. now. It has been said that the monied interests in the United States have such a control over things, that a candidate is virtually held hostage to those interests. Yes both sides are doing it. I think it's because if you don't, not only would you never gain office, the voter might never hear your name.

Enough with the facts already!

sorry, just call me the political myth buster

Your facts are interfering with the daily Current diatribe!

welcome aboard. nice to have another member in the posse of truth and justice

which orifice do they come from?

i think we should start at the top, say the oval office

Your focus seems to be entirely on Obama. I guess you missed the meaning of the part in your own link that stated "Obama will not take money from registered lobbyists". Don't think we are naive enough to think he's not getting contributions from people? And a lot of his supporters are pissed he is not doing more about it. They know full well a Democrat is the only one (other than Ron Paul I take it) that ever would. You seem really steamed at the idea that Obama could be using a loophole to get campaign financing, but I don't hear a word about Republicans walking straight around the loopholes with their hands out. And really, your quoting Fox News? I have a bridge to sell you.

And put a .o1%er in office, you are nuts!

We already have one in office.

I think Obama's worth 2 or 3 million, and Romney's worth 250 Million!

Indeed a smaller 1%er, but a 1%er nonetheless.

Good idea. Let's start at the top and lead by example.

no jim, my point is to expose those who only paint out the right as being lobbyist hogs and continue to give their fearless leader a get out of jail free card time after time. you are correct there are a few in the minority on the left who are calling obama out and i praise them for doing so

anyone but obama

im just keeping things fair and balanced since few here ever focus on obamas dark side

They don't give him a get out of jail free card. The people who comment here talk about their disappointment in Obama all the time.

i partailly agree. although the get out of jail free card still exists among many, the despondency over the obama regime expressed by liberals is a recent phenomenon. it is good to see though that some of the american left are finally realizing what many of us on the right warned them about starting way back in 2007

its not acceptable, just common practice by both parties

like the bushes and obamas?

Only pertains to the "right" class of people. Any/all people of color need -not- apply, that goes without saying.

Humm, yep, well, geepers, seems to me that the slide is headed down the toilet with the Neo-Marxist/Progressive/Liberal/Democrat jack booted march into the meat grinder called SOCIALISM. So, just wait a few more years, there won't be shit left for anyone, and you'll be happy then because everyone else will be in the same boat.

Then why is U.S. debt to G.D.P. 30% higher than Canada's? A country, who by your estimation, should already be in the meat grinder. Liberal leaning as it is.

Because we shoulder most of the costs of your defense?

is that white or right class? so once again obama gets a get out of jail free card?

there goes the neighborhood

ouch!

No you do not. You pay more for defense than the next 15 countries combined because you choose to. Eisenhower warned you that that was going to happen. You don't actually believe that defending Canada's population is a main subject of conversation for the Joint Chiefs or Congress when they are talking about military spending. We spend One dollar per capita on our military for every three dollars per capita that you spend on yours. You do not spend more to protect us. You spend more to protect your Empire.

You were touting how well your economy is doing and I was pointing out one of the reasons why.

I should have clarified my comment. It is hard to quantify how much Canada saves on defense by being the neighbor of the US or by being in military alliances in which the US bears the majority of costs. Undoubtedly, there is a cost benefit to Canada from the relationship.

Undoubtedly. But don't pretend that's why you do it. And if you cut your military budget in half you would not be in any more danger from the rest of the world than you are now. And we still would not spend any more money on our military than we already do. Our economy does not do well because of what you spend on your military. It has no effect on our economy whatsoever. Our economy does well because we lean to the left. We did not have sub prime mortgages because we have regulations. We do not have protests in the streets because we keep conservatism in check. Not conservatism as we see it. Our federal government is conservative right now. Has been since 2006 and will be until 2016. No what we keep in check is insane American style conservatism.

No illusions as to why we do it.

You write: "if you cut your military budget in half you would not be in any more danger from the rest of the world than you are now." I believe that statement to be conjecture for the most part. However, I would hope that you are correct.

If the world was a more unstable place for Canada (for whatever reason), then certainly Canada would spend more to defend itself.

Your economy does better because you can spend less on defense.

Our economy does not do better because we spend less on defense. Our economy does well because we do what American Conservatives say a country shouldn't.

You do what American Conservatives say a country shouldn't ........like spending less on defense?

For the record I love Canada, have spent my tourists dollars there from east to west, and thank her for her friendship. I had the privilege of living in NS (outside Peggy's Cove) and loved every minute of it.

A countries economy is not conditional to defense spending. It is based on economic policy. Like whether or not you deregulate banks and then watch them fail. As a matter of fact, we could match your per capita defense spending with the surplus we have in our unemployment program alone. And we would still have a surplus in there. You spend what you spend on defense because you choose to. And the lobbyists love it.

The US economy is entirely defense spending dependent.

Canada's political leaders for the most part have been much more logical and responsible than many of our political leaders, including Bush, and certainly the Ass Clown Obama. I highly doubt, and I would not wish this in the fine Canadians, that if our ASS CLOWN was the leader of Canada, he would not be allowed to run up the debt that he has here, or say and do any of the other dumb assed things he pulls here. We got what we deserve, because there were enough idiots to vote for him in 2008, but he'll be packing his ass back to Chicago next year. Your present administration is very good, mine is worse than a fat assed kid being told to mind the candy store and to make sure none of the candy is taken.

LMAO. Come on!!!!! Canada's a great nation in many ways, they send troops with us, they always do, they fought their ass off in WW2! If you go there, it looks the same as it does here, but it's cleaner, more orderly, much better food in the grocery stores, and more realistic in many ways, except for their attempts at Socialisim, which the movement has been underway for several years now to turn back. We need leadership here that has the sack to to turn back Obama's Socialism and debt. :)

I agree, but add to that empire, oil for Europe! What's up with that?!?!? Our ass clown is against the pipeline for ONLY ONE REASON, he wants those dumbassed Enviro freaks to support him in the election. He could care less about the US or Canadian economies.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The Canadian electorate has been faced with the prospect of the things that go on in the U.S. before. A man named John Tory tried to win the Premiership of Ontario on a platform of privatization of health care and public funding of faith based schools. He was so soundly rejected by the Canadian voters, he did not even win his own riding (the equivalent of a district in America). Any notion of American style lobbying has no chance here. We even rejected letting Rupert Murdoch set up shop in Canada by overwhelmingly protesting the Conservative's, yes the Conservative's, attempt to end our truth in media laws. We do not allow deregulation. I have been trying to say all along that it is our Liberal leaning socioeconomic policies that have protected us from the things that are now causing the economic and political problems facing the United States. It may well be that the way we do things could never work for the United States, after all we have a parliamentary system with at least 5 different active political parties. Some are stronger than others, but the official opposition to the Conservative government that we have had since 2006, and will have until 2016 is now the New Democratic Party. This is the first time they have been in such a position of power. Opposition to the Conservatives has traditionally fallen to the Liberals, but Canadians didn't see it that way in our last federal election. Our systems may be different, but it's our Liberal leaning that has protected us. This statement should get some interesting feedback.

I have no reason to argue with that.

I'll hand it to you sir, good points and certainly something to ponder. That being said, as you pointed out, it won't work here, and I'll do everything in my power to make sure it does not!

Well said! Wish we had more sanity as you have in our system.

When you get to the site, go to their search bar and enter "Corporations Pay More to Lobby"

Rebuild a true democracy! Huzzah!

we just need to get more folks to shit in public parks

im with you. so do we base it on the tea party or occupier movements or both?

YEAH!!! Anarchy rules! But, whoz gunna be in charge, and whoz gonna decide whoz gunna be in charge, and then, won't they become the violent and vain?!?

Yeah, we'll all be much better off when we become a nation of despondent indigents, which is what the Communists/Democrats want, because then we'll all drink the koolaid and vote for them over and over again! We'll all be on the funny farm then.

I agree with your sarcasm. It looks like there is nothing free about it anymore.

Unless you are one of the Takers, then your food, medical care, rent, child's birth and education, etc., are all free. So, when we become a nation comprised of all Takers, we'll all be "free", but there won't be any more Givers paying the way for all of us Takers, and the whole thing will come down, which is what the Communists/Democrats want anyway.

All they need to do is illegally assemble in a public park, live in a box, lay in their own and others' feces, and they will have all the free speech they want. There's still free speech in America; whatchu talk'n 'bout?

Why is it, that everybody that does not think like a Republican and their supporters is a Communist? It was the same thing with Roosevelt. He did things the Republicans, the right wing and the monied interests didn't like, so they called him a Communist. The problem for that way of thinking is the things he did led to 50 years of American prosperity. I wonder if the things that the Democrats are trying to do now, the things that are causing the Republicans, the right, and the monied interests, to call them Communists, would accomplish another 50 years of American prosperity if the Republicans, the right and the monied interests would just get out of the way? Like they they had to be forced to do by Roosevelt in the 30s.

Would it be illegally assembling if the right wing was doing it? Did you know that over 80% of lobbyists represent corporations and industry, and only 1% represent the American worker. That's how much speech the American worker gets in Washington. Why does the right keep falling back on the proven lies about the O.W.S. and 99%? I guess it has a lot to do with the overwhelming evidence that the right are lairs. Just how does one illegally assemble in a public park? Your belief that only the right should be called the public is showing. Why should the protests of 3,000 Tea Partiers be taken seriously, but 30,000 of the 99% are just filth in the street? I would think it has a lot to do with the right not liking the message. The right, being dead wrong, yet again.

Because Mr. Stoner, the filth that come from the less than 1% of Americans who made up the OWS collective bowel movement were in clear violation of statutes, but as with all unstable Leftists, they just don't care about the rule of law.

LMFAO. Wow dude, check your history, not revisionist history, ACTUAL history. WW2 ended the depression, and Roosevelt was a communist, his good buddy was Stalin, he just did not think Stalin was going about it the right way, so Rooselvelt called it the "new deal", was his Great Society scheme. As far as your wonderment over what the communists are doing now and if the record breaking spending, debt and federal regulations will cause 50 years of American prosperity, send me some of what you are smoking pal!

Economies started to recover by the mid 30s. U.S unemployment rates started to drop by 1935. Annual U.S. G.D.P. began to rise by 1934. Corporate greed led to the Great Depression. Just like Corporate greed led to this economic downturn. Both were caused by America and the rest of the world has paid for it. Roosevelt took office after three straight Republican Presidents. What kind of shape was the country in when he took office? Obama became President after a Republican President who took office with a budget surplus left behind by a Democrat. What kind of shape was the country in when Obama took office? Democrats cleaning up the messes left behind by Republicans is an American tradition.

Ipsos says half of all Americans identify with O.W.S. movement. 70% of Democrats identify with them. If 70% of Democrats identify with them, but half of all Americans do the same, then some of those that identify with the O.W.S. must be Conservatives. Unless you think 70% of Democrats makes up half of all Americans.

And the lobbyists for those corporations come from both parties.

It's interesting that that same 70% can't see the 1%er with his wall street ties that runs our country. They think he is somehow not a 1%er, or that he is, at best, an enlightened 1%er who could provide needed change if only it weren't for those obstinate, unenlightened other 1%ers that he has to work with.

The 1%ers deliberately refuse to figure out how to solve the rubik's cube and the majority of the people buy into the rhetoric that only one side or the other is to blame. The 1%ers profit from the ignorance and willingness of the people.

Corporate greed led to this depression? Hardly pal. Look back at the history of the EDA, signed into law by Carter, and vamped up by Clinton. Banks were forced at gun point (federal fines and pressure) to grant mortgages to minorities who had no way or intenion to pay them back. In turn, the tax payer was left holding the bag by underwriting many of those loans. The EDA, being a Leftist program, CERTAINLY was not reflective of "corporate greed". It's always good to check your facts.

I have no doubt that 70% of "democrats" identify with OWS, that's not a shocker since OWS stood for Socialism, anti-capitalism, and taking from the Makers to give to the Takers, but to your claims, one must be careful when saying that half of Americans "identify" with OWS. Certainly, the vast majority of Americans would agree with some of the points that a few of the people who spoke at the OWS gatherings expressed, but merely agreeing with a point or two does not mean that the majority of Americans "identify" with OWS. Last I checked, the vast majority of Americans, well over 99%, don't shit in the public parks, rape women they don't even know, and assemble without the required permits that every city has to conduct public assemblies. So, while it's clear that the despondent class, and anti-American way crowd certainly identify with OWS, they do not reflect the majority!

Wait, I'm confused, let's be accurate; the "1%" refers to those who made up the OWS bowel movement, because they certainly do not represent the other 99% of us, or the 53% of us who actually pay federal income taxes. I'll bet not one crap filled pants OWS demonsrator ever paid a dime in federal income taxes.

If we use the simple OWS definition of a 1%er (i.e. someone making or being worth more than "x" amount of money), then the differences between the two parties and who is on which side of the 99 vs 1 equation is muddied.

where do you get your numbers jim? thousands of protesters descended on the nation's Capitol for April 15 tax deadline protests as activists offered up a new "Contract From America" aimed at using the winning formula of the 1994 Republican revolution while also developing a direction for the burgeoning movement.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/tea-party-protesters-descend-dc-new-c...... 700 Wall Street Protesters Arrested, How many TEA Party protesters have been arrested? ZERO. And the media and their leftist masters claim WE are the uncivil ones promoting violence....

Of course any person not dumber than a box of rocks knows that the leftists are infinitely more violent in their protests and movements. History certainly is on our side in this argument. its the setting up camps in the parks that is illegal

hes canadian so he tends to side with socialism

jim, youre being unfair. if youre going to talk about the economic downturn you must also include obamas failed policies. the problems lay within both parties so give credit where credit is due.

Well I was starting to wonder about him, that explains it, he does not understand the situation here, or US history for that matter. His comment about half of Americans identified with the flea baggers really made me ask, WTF?!?! Hey Jimbo, those filthy, anti-capitalists are not "Americans".

This does not surprise me at all. When the poll numbers were higher for the flea baggers, the media was talking them up every chance they got, so it would be expected that those uninformed and with cranial-rectal inversions would think that since the "news" media likes the flea baggers, they must be good! So, when the "news" media stopped talking them up, it would also be expected that those same slack jaws that said they supported the flea baggers are now saying they don't! There's always a group that moves with the winds, and that's what caused the shift.

Can you imagine what the ratings for the Tea Party movement would be if the "news" media covered those meetings with the same positive light that they put on the flea baggers?!?

maybe ill defecate in the shrubs at my next tea party rally and see if the reviews go up

blissfully ignorant. sometimes i wonder if it would be a better option

If reality is applied, there is nothing muddy. The flea baggers certanly did not represent 99% of America, and the 1% that is considered the evil, greedy rich is actually part of of the 53% of us who pay federal income taxes. I'll side with the 53% since I'm one of those, over the Takers who make up the 47%. It was the flea baggers who were standing on the outside looking in, but all they were doing was smearing their crap on our windows. They accomplished nothing at all, hopefully many of them are still suffering from the illnesses they caught from playing in each others feces while living in their 1960s era communal "settlements"!

LMAO. I think I'll take a dump in front of the Democrat party headquarters in my fine city and see what happens! They don't mind a 'lil fececs, their brains are filled with it anyway.