WaPo: New Obama Policy Bars THOUSANDS of Lobbyists

[ProSense]

WaPo:New Obama Policy Bars THOUSANDS of Lobbyists

by calchala

Apparently President Obama has, through Norm Eisen, the ethics advisor for the WH, barred THOUSANDS of Lobbyists from lobbying the federal government.

Change we can believe in: Lobbyists Barred from Lobbying Federal Agencies

Obama appears to be setting a very bright line for his administration and the difference between the administration (which he has power over) and Congress could not be more stark.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts.

The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.

The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.

Lobbyists say they are being unfairly demonized by the WH through this measure and doing this is nothing more than scoring points for the White House. Well, as one commenter noted in the comments section for this article, HOME RUN!

[ClarkUSA]

1. Bookmarked to fling in the hateful faces of the idiots who keep insisting Obama is a corporate Dem.

K&R :)

[FrenchieCat]

3. they won't comment other than to say it is not close to enough,

and they want all that they demand, and they want it now.

Until all banks are nationalized, and then closed down for business,
and then all of the money left in the government are given directly
to the people, nothing short of that will do, period, end of story.

See, with an all or nothing attitude,
the advantage is that the goal post doesn't even have to get moved....
it's just set up all the way in left field at the very start....
in otherwords, if the impossible doesn't happen, then all else is a massive fail.
Black and White is not the Right way of thinking exclusively.

[SoFlaJet]

51. Hey FC, Ever Wonder Why...

all these anti-Obamaites are even allowed here? Isn't this supposed to be DEMOCRATic Underground? Wasn't there something, somewhere written in to the rules about constant anti-dem rantings? Where are the tombstones? We need to get rid of these RalphNaderRonPaulDennisKucinich pie-in-the-sky-ers. They are doing their worst to ruin this place.

[bertman]

65. Yeah, great idea SoFlaJet. Purge everyone in the party who doesn't worship President

Obama. As a Democrat for more than 40 years I reserve the right to criticize any Democrat, including the President, for any reason I deem appropriate.

Sorry, but that's how democracies work. Maybe you should join the Republican party. They're big on exclusion for not hewing to the party line.

[SoFlaJet]

74. We saw this same kind of stuff during the primaries

when it became increasingly clear that there were people pretending to be democrats but were only here to rabble rouse. They were sorted out in time and tombstoned. When supposed democrats do nothing but criticize the party's leader then they shouldn't be here. How long do you think they'd be allowed to do it in every thread on Free Republic? When 'democrats' threaten to work against our party's best interest by going rogue and saying they're going to do whatever it takes to defeat democrats then they have no place on DU. Go start your own website Called Discontented Democrats and take the Naderites, Kucinichers and Ron Paulies with you. We don't need you here.

[jgraz]

95. Once again, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold are all Democrats

There are plenty of Democrats that are also real progressives and earn the support of the base. Is your problem that we're just not sufficiently worshipful of Dear Leader?

[bertman]

124. Thanks, but I believe I'll just stay here and express my opinions--whether they piss you off

or not.

:)

[ClarkUSA]

85. lol! The "Obama Hasn't Done Anything In 10 Months" crowd are always moving goalposts, aren't they?

<< if the impossible doesn't happen, then all else is a massive fail>>

That's all they've got. When it comes to facts about Pres. Obama, they remind me of birthers who refuse to
admit the existence of Obama's birth certificate. Facts are ignored or disputed with pure rhetoric. If all
else fails, attack the messenger(s).

[jgraz]

4. "fling".. interesting word choice there.

Assuming the WaPo steno pool has the story right, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Of course, we still need to deal with the lobbyists Obama put in his cabinet and the ones he keeps inviting to the White House.

Let's just hope this doesn't go the way of the big CEO bonus cuts you guys were crowing about a few months ago. Whatever happened to that? :shrug:

[polichick]

8. Exactly - why ban them from advisory boards but not from the WH guest list? nt

[ClarkUSA]

18. Apples and oranges much? They can have 5 minutes w/the Prez but not to directly influence policy.

I'm fine with it. Any American group rep can do the same. It doesn't mean anything sinister, which is why the WH guest list is transparent
which wasn't the case with Clinton or Bush II (and even earlier).

[polichick]

19. Simple hypocrisy - didn't work for other presidents; doesn't work for this one. nt

[ClarkUSA]

20. Bullshit. No other president has set such stringent rules as this one. CHANGE as promised.

:)

[polichick]

21. LOL - Billy Tauzin at the WH over and over again sure is big change! nt

[ClarkUSA]

26. He has a right to be there as much as someone from the Sierra Club. Both sides have lobbyists.

But neither sides' lobbyists will be sitting on any advisory boards while President Obama is in office.
I for one am glad to see this CHANGE from previous presidencies.

:)

[jgraz]

33. Yes, let's make sure we're fair to "both sides"

Remind me again: which side is our president on?

[ClarkUSA]

38. What's wrong with that? Or do you want him to be like BushCo and bar one side from even "visiting"?

<<Remind me again: which side is our president on?>>

He's on the side of the Lily Ledbetters of this country as well as the union workers at GM and Chrysler, to mention just a few.
He's also on my side, because if he gets HCR passed, my family and friends won't have their COBRAs cut off next year and
be unable to get health insurance due to their pre-existing conditions. I could go on but I doubt you are listening with an
open and honest ear, so I'll stop now.

[jgraz]

42. Sure, what's wrong with our president siding with the corporations against us?

After all, that's what we all voted for. :puke:

[ClarkUSA]

46. More fact-free anti-Obama rhetoric? Is that all you've got? You should write for Counterpunch.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

59. You're the one who said there's nothing wrong with being fair to both sides

Even when one of the sides is made up of corporations with ZERO standing in the Constitution.

You know that part where you wiggle your fingers and slap your keyboard? You really should pay attention to what comes out when you do that.

[ClarkUSA]

84. There is nothing wrong with hearing out both sides but the OP isn't about that, is it?

Your red-meat rhetorical attempts at distracting from the positive Obama OP has failed. :)

[27inCali]

55. he cut middleclass taxes

spent billions to create jobs.
assistance programs to help people keep their home.
big tax rebate for families buying their first home.
new regulations on credit cards and banks.
giant investments in technology and infrastructure.
if he can get a HCR bill to sign, my family will actually be able to get insurance this year.

these things are all very real to me, my family and lots of people like me and it is helping us tremendously -and that's in about 10 months time -the promise of all the good things that can be done is the next three years really makes me scratch my head when people like you start in on their Obama-is-a-corporate-hack screed. It's like you WANT failure.

It's as though people like me and the desperately needed help we recieved means nothing to you if it doesn't fit into your pre-concieved notion that Obama is an asshole.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Exactly.

As you can see, this poster is not interested in facts and denigrates all Obama supporters for daring to
think the Prez is doing a good job for the past ten months.

But we know better. :fistbump:

Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace

Order the closing of Guantanamo Bay

Prohibit use of torture

Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed

Obama Sets Bold New Principles for U.S. Energy, Climate Policies

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 or FERA (PDF)

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (Kerry-Lugar includes funding for Obama's global poverty initiative)

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

End of 22-Year Discriminatory Travel Ban

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act

Stopping Conflict-related Sexual Violence Against Women and Children

The UN, Women & Girls

New policy steps towards Cuba

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia

Strategy to address the international nuclear threat

For the Media: "30+ Reasons Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize"

Russia on Nobel Peace Prize: Obama thawing 'second cold war'

World Reaction to Obama Winning the Nobel

Turkey, Armenia sign historic accord

Why the Stimulus Worked

Green jobs for real people: The story behind the recovery numbers

Obama's Plan: Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation (PDF)

Requiring Strong Supervision And Appropriate Regulation Of All Financial Firms (pdf)

Strengthening Regulation Of Core Markets And Market Infrastructure (pdf)

Strengthening Consumer Protection (pdf)

Providing The Government With Tools To Effectively Manage Failing Institutions (pdf)

Improving International Regulatory Standards And Cooperation (pdf)

House Panel Moves Derivatives Toward Obama’s Proposal

FACTBOX: Major U.S. financial regulation reform proposals

Obama says Senate bill on tax havens would stop abuses

Statement by President Barack Obama on House and Senate Introducing Legislation to Crack Down on Overseas Tax Havens

Obama to chair historic U.N. council nuclear meeting

G20 to Become Forum for Global Economic Cooperation

Next comes Obama's budget, health care reform and more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8730317&mesg_id=8730317

[boppers]

72. The "both sides" point is where the argument has problems.

There are more than two sides. Many more. Properly, proportionately, representing many sides fairly is what is needed.

[Cha]

22. They can't be bothered with details

when they feel a good whine coming on.

[polichick]

23. Funny how you just ignore the stream of lobbyists visiting the WH...

It's not whining to point out the hypocrisy - but it is delusional to ignore the lobbyists who shaped the healthcare bill.

[ClarkUSA]

27. That's their right. Or do you want liberal interest groups' lobbyists to stop "visiting" too?

:rofl:

[Cha]

28. I trust President Obama much more than I do any anonymous

posters who always zero in on whatever shit they percieve to not meet up to their fucking standards.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Amen to that, sister.

:fistbump:

[ClarkUSA]

29. The "Obama is a corporate Dem" propagandists have a hard time with facts, don't they?

Too bad for them we have plenty of facts to FLING at them.

The WH is determined to bring major U.S. financial regulation reform:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE59R4YT20091028?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441&sp=true

Pres. Obama is pushing Senate Democrats to close offshore tax havens: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59Q3EP20091027

:fistbump:

[Cha]

31. Thanks for more news on what Pres Obama is actually

doing instead of what negative posters read into every single freakin' thing.

:fistbump: Hell yeah.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

36. lol! My facts are backed up w/sourced links while you offer only anti-Obama supporter rhetoric.

:)

[jgraz]

40. fling fling

White House Resists Opt-Out, Pushes Trigger
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/sources-white-house-pushing-back-against-senate-public-option-opt-out-compromise.php

White House capitulates to the Drug Industry
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/white-houses-bad-drug-deal


Wow, I so glad that the lobbyists are leaving ... now. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

43. Month-old news story featuring unnamed sources does not a fact make.

Nor does red-meat rhetoric from Mother Jones. Sorry, but is that all you've got? I'll take Reuters and Washington Post any day over
"multiple sources" that go unnamed (one month ago, no less!) and the same shit, different day biased Kucinich-lite crap from Mother
Jones.

[jgraz]

45. Glad to see you've got your corporate news sources all lined up

I now understand why you have the perspective you do.

[ClarkUSA]

47. Reuters and WaPo have more credible reporting than Mother Jones and "unnamed sources" hands-down.

Getting back to the point of the OP, I'm glad that Pres. Obama is doing what no other president has ever done and made his advisory
boards off limits to lobbyists, unlike Presidents Clinton and Bush. :)

[jgraz]

60. Prove it.

You're allegedly into facts. Show me where WaPo and Reuters have done better reporting than Mother Jones. Prove it.

[ClarkUSA]

81. lol! Why should I? It's an obvious given for any unbiased observer who values facts over rhetoric.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

97. It's an obvious given for a center-right corporate apologist

Any left-leaning (or honest) media critique holds the Washington Post in contempt.

[ClarkUSA]

99. Rhetorical attacks aside, tell us how many Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism has Mother Jones won?

Washington Post's Pulitzer Prizes since 2000:

2006 Dana Priest The Washington Post
For her persistent, painstaking reports on secret "black site" prisons and other controversial features of the government's counterterrorism campaign.

2008 Staff The Washington Post
For its exceptional, multi-faceted coverage of the deadly shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, telling the developing story in print and online.

2009 Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post
For his eloquent columns on the 2008 presidential campaign that focus on the election of the first African-American president, showcasing graceful writing and grasp of the larger historic picture.

2008 Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post
For his insightful columns that explore the nation's complex economic ills with masterful clarity.

2003 Colbert I. King of The Washington Post
For his against-the-grain columns that speak to people in power with ferocity and wisdom.

2006 Robin Givhan of The Washington Post
For her witty, closely observed essays that transform fashion criticism into cultural criticism.

2003 Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post
For his authoritative film criticism that is both intellectually rewarding and a pleasure to read.

2000 Henry Allen of The Washington Post
For his fresh and authoritative writing on photography.

2006 David Finkel The Washington Post
For his ambitious, clear-eyed case study of the United States government's attempt to bring democracy to Yemen.

2000 Carol Guzy, Michael Williamson and Lucian Perkins The Washington Post
For their intimate and poignant images depicting the plight of the Kosovo refugees.

2008 Gene Weingarten The Washington Post
For his chronicling of a world-class violinist who, as an experiment, played beautiful music in a subway station filled with unheeding commuters.

http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat

[jgraz]

102. You really like worshipping who you're told to, don't you?

Does it give you a tingle up your leg?

At any rate, your mind is clearly closed. So here's the same story from your beloved Washington Post.

Obama's 'trigger' stance irks the Hill

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/26/obamas_trigger_stance_irks_the.html


Oh noes! Time to throw the Washington Post under the bus!! Too bad about all those Pulitzers. :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

105. Out-of-date news stories aside, you still haven't answered my question. Gee, I wonder why?

Could it be that Mother Jones is a knee-jerk red meat joke publication with not a single journalism award to its name?

Yeah, probably.

And I love that the OP proves that President Obama isn't a corporate Dem.

:)

[jgraz]

108. Because your question is a lame attempt to get out of an argument you're losing

And anyone who calls Mother Jones a "joke publication" is just broadcasting their colossal ignorance. You may want to extract yourself from this conversation before you're embarrassed further.

[ClarkUSA]

109. That's funny. Anyone who quotes Mother Jones and "unnamed TPM sources" is a joker at heart.

:rofl:

[Cha]

16. Oh, there's got to be something for you to whine

about.

[jgraz]

30. "whining": known to adults as "participatory democracy"

Sorry if we're harshing your Obama buzz.

[Cha]

34. And you're fucking insulting..

"Jesus, you guys are like a battered spouse. You can get punched in the mouth a dozen times, but one wilty bouquet of milquetoast policy and all is forgiven."

It's not bringing me down..President Obama will lead and internet whiners will whine. Simple.

[jgraz]

37. Glad we're understanding each other.

[Cha]

39. I understand that you serve no purpose other than to

insult Obama supporters.

[jgraz]

41. Of course. Because facts are insulting to you

Especially if they threaten your presidential binky.

[Cha]

44. No, this is insulting to me..

"Jesus, you guys are like a battered spouse. You can get punched in the mouth a dozen times, but one wilty bouquet of milquetoast policy and all is forgiven."

[ClarkUSA]

49. You have yet to offer one fact. Perhaps you mistake hateful rhetoric for "facts"?

:puke:

[jgraz]

70. I've never mistook your rhetoric for facts.

Now hypocrisy, that's another story. Don't tell me Mr. "Bookmarked to fling in the hateful faces of the idiots" is now whining about "hateful rhetoric".

[ClarkUSA]

86. Did my original reply hit a nerve? Are you going to scold me for using the word "fling" again?

:eyes:

[jgraz]

93. Nice dodge

Sorry, but you're still busted as a hypocrite.

[ClarkUSA]

100. lol! Yeah, I hit a nerve alright. BTW, the OP proves that Pres. Obama is not a corporate Dem.

No amount of hateful anti-Obama rhetoric can change the facts. :)

[jgraz]

101. Such crap. He banned ALL lobbyists -- corporate AND public interest

In terms of a net loss to corporate power, it's a wash. And, of course, if it goes the way of his CEO pay limits, he'll back down the minute any of his contributors protest.

[ClarkUSA]

103. So what? That's fair. And it's revealing how positive Obama CHANGE = "crap" to you.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

107. Equating corporate interest and public interest is a far-right meme

And a sure sign of a corporatist. Congratulations on finally coming out.

[ClarkUSA]

110. Twisting my words now? You're more full of red herrings than a penguin at feeding time.

My saying it's fair to ban all lobbyists from sitting on advisory boards (to do otherwise would be to act like BushCo) is not "equating corporate interest with public interest".

:rofl:

[jgraz]

111. And now we play the "who me? I never said what i just said" game.

Wow, you're hitting all the sophist high spots.

[ClarkUSA]

112. You made a false accusation to distract from the OP's positive CHANGE message.

Please kick this thread again.

The more you reply, the more people will see how President Obama is keeping his promise to stop business-as-usual.

Thanks for helping DU Obama supporters so much today!

:hi:

[jgraz]

113. And we have ANOTHER change of subject

That's three arguments you've lost. Let's hope that's enough for today.

[ClarkUSA]

115. lol! Your logic is as flawed as your Counterpunch rhetoric. But please keep kicking this great OP.

We Obama supporters thank you. :hi:

[27inCali]

56. you don't have any facts

you have rhetoric and pre-concieved notions.

if Obama starts acting like a corporate hack and pushing shit that hurts middleclass people, I'll be the first to call him out. But he hasn't, he's helped us as much as anyone could given the monumental corruption in our gov. right now.

his power is limited anyways, I'm sure if he had dictatorial powers, things would be a lot better right now, but he doesn't.

[jgraz]

71. You haven't read his financial reform proposal, have you?

if Obama starts acting like a corporate hack and pushing shit that hurts middleclass people, I'll be the first to call him out.

You have to first inform yourself on basic current events. Go read his financial proposal and get back to me.

[ClarkUSA]

88. Bullshit. There's good reason why the banking industry and the Chamber of Commerce is fighting it.

Red herrings are your specialty, I see.

[jgraz]

92. Name one "reform" in the package

You haven't read a thing. You just watch the corporate media and do what they tell you.

Keep flinging.

[ClarkUSA]

106. The following eight specific reforms include links to the related Obama administration bill

<<You haven't read a thing. You just watch the corporate media and do what they tell you.

Keep flinging.>>

Unlike you, I do more than insult people and spew anti-Obama rhetoric 24/7:


SYSTEMIC RISK/RESOLUTION/BANK SUPERVISION:

* Obama administration and House Financial Services Committee on October 27 unveiled new draft legislation to set up systemic risk council, empower regulators to manage and shut down large financial firms that threaten economic stability and require industry to foot the bill for FDIC resolutions. Bill would close U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision, take over steps to streamline bank supervision.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/presstitleone_102709.shtml


EXECUTIVE PAY:

* Obama administration bill would give shareholders more "say on pay," like House measure.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/tg_218IX.pdf


STUDENT LOANS:

* Full House on September 17 approved bill, supported by the Obama administration, to revamp student loan industry.
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/legislation/StudentAidandFiscalResponsibilityAct.pdf


CAPITAL AND LIQUIDITY STANDARDS:

* Obama administration, like many governments worldwide, wants financial firms to hold more capital to absorb losses when times are tough.
http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/regulatoryreform/07222009/titleVI.pdf

* Capital standard oversight central to systemic risk/resolution authority bill proposed by administration.
http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/regulatoryreform/07222009/titleVI.pdf

* Similar proposals in September 25 G20 summit accord.
http://www.g20.org/Documents/pittsburgh_summit_leaders_statement_250909.pdf


SECURITIZATION:

* Administration proposal calls for issuers of asset-backed securities to face new reporting requirements and keep at least 5 percent of performance risk in loans they securitize. http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/regulatoryreform/07222009/titleIX.pdf

* Transactions would be more standardized, compensation of securitizers would be linked to long-term performance.
http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/regulatoryreform/07222009/titleIX.pdf


You were saying? :)

[jgraz]

114. A perfect example of your blind worship vs any hint of critical thinking

* Administration proposal calls for issuers of asset-backed securities to face new reporting requirements and keep at least 5 percent of performance risk in loans they securitize.

You really have no idea what this even means, do you? Cuz if you did, you'd be fucking embarrassed to call attention to it.

Let me explain it. I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

A 5% hold-back on securitized loans is less than the amount that banks held prior to the collapse. This effectively reboots the secondary loan market that drove the economy into the dirt. It's a total capitulation to the banksters and a slap in the face to taxpayers. They aren't even trying to hide it. They just expect most people are too stupid to know the difference.

And, in some cases, they're right. Way to support the team! :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

116. Is that all you've got? And you have yet to credit the WH with the seven other reforms I outlined.

Gee, I wonder why? It couldn't be because they're all good ideas, right? :eyes:

<<A 5% hold-back on securitized loans is less than the amount that banks held prior to the collapse. A 5% hold-back on
securitized loans is less than the amount that banks held prior to the collapse. This effectively reboots the secondary loan
market that drove the economy into the dirt. It's a total capitulation to the banksters and a slap in the face to taxpayers.>>

The WH has a duty to save the economy and free up lending rather than satisfy the Counterpunch crowd's desire to let the
banks go under so as to welcome another Great Depression with oh so much purity of principle. :sarcasm:

[jgraz]

117. Now you're plagiarizing the New York Times? You do know about Google, don't you?

The continued disarray in debt-securitization markets (which in recent years were the source of roughly 60% of all credit)
is making loans scarce and threatening to slow the economic recovery. The securitization markets are dead. The gov't. is
supporting them but it’s unclear what will happen when the gov't. extricates itself. Many of these markets are operating
only because the gov't. is propping them up. Given the imperative for securitization markets to fuel bank lending, we
won’t have meaningful economic growth until securitization markets are re-established. That's why this reform measure
is important.

Compare to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/business/economy/07shadow.html?_r=1

Ha. I knew you weren't nearly smart enough to even understand that paragraph, let alone write it yourself. So you stole it (from the freaking NYT no less) because you didn't trust your own wittle brain to keep up. How pathetic can you get?

If you'd actually had the knowledge or intelligence to understand the text you plagiarized, you'd know that this measure in Obama's "reform" package guarantees another bubble and another collapse. Some of the stuff he outlines (in broad non-specifics) could be good ideas if implemented correctly (unlike his faux public option). Some of it is just as disastrous as his securitization proposal. But, what does that matter if you can't even think of your own responses?

Gee, I wonder where you'll steal your next reply from? :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

118. You like making false accusations, don't you? And what about the 7 other reforms I mentioned?

Since I forgot to include the NYT link because I was rushing my reply, I edited my reply to avoid anymore typos.

So what do you think of the other seven reforms I outlined and linked to? Please keep kicking this OP. :hi:

[jgraz]

119. You've got a set on you, I'll give you that

Dude, you copied and then RE-WROTE the text. You didn't "forget a link", you stole from someone smarter and more informed than you. You're stone-cold busted and you still don't have the integrity to admit what you did.

Sad.

[ClarkUSA]

120. What's "sad" is making up stories to avoid answering my question. Moving the goalpost again?

You really don't want to comment on the seven other reforms I outlined, eh? Nor have you responded to my reply to your
predictable criticism of the 5% hold-back.

:)

[jgraz]

125. Wow, you took out the entire plagiarized paragraph. Lucky that I quoted it.

I predict next you'll deny that you ever posted any such thing. No wonder you want to change the subject.

[ClarkUSA]

126. lol! Still at it, eh? Anything to avoid commenting on the 7 other financial reforms that I listed?

Once again, thanks for kicking this positive OP that proves he's not a corporate Dem.

:hi:

[jgraz]

127. Well, I'm a bit short on time today. Could you suggest some publications I might steal from?

It would be a real timesaver.

[ClarkUSA]

131. Hmm... unlike you, I included links to sources other than Mother Jones and "unnamed TPM sources"...

:rofl:

[jgraz]

134. So you're saying I should only steal from mainstream corporate sites?

Thanks. Good to learn from an experienced plagiarist.

[ClarkUSA]

135. Your continued obfuscation is evidence of your lack of credibility on the issues.

Keep kicking this OP. :)

[jgraz]

136. Our conversation on the issues ended when you stole another's work and passed it off as your own

Now I'm just yanking your chain. Which is worth kicking a weak OP.

[ClarkUSA]

138. Prove it. Where and when did I do that, pray tell, Mr. Counterpunch?

:rofl:

[jgraz]

139. Aaannd another prediction comes true

Post 125:

Wow, you took out the entire plagiarized paragraph. Lucky that I quoted it

I predict next you'll deny that you ever posted any such thing. No wonder you want to change the subject.

Are you now denying that you originally included this paragraph in post 116 and then deleted it?

The continued disarray in debt-securitization markets (which in recent years were the source of roughly 60% of all credit)
is making loans scarce and threatening to slow the economic recovery. The securitization markets are dead. The gov't. is
supporting them but it’s unclear what will happen when the gov't. extricates itself. Many of these markets are operating
only because the gov't. is propping them up. Given the imperative for securitization markets to fuel bank lending, we
won’t have meaningful economic growth until securitization markets are re-established. That's why this reform measure
is important.

[ClarkUSA]

140. Your childish antics bore me. How sad that you can't face up to the facts about Obama.

But I hope you keep kicking this OP into the New Year. :)

[jgraz]

141. Answer the question

Did you post that or not? I'm really interested in seeing what your baseline integrity is. It will help me decide whether to believe anything you say in the future.

[ClarkUSA]

142. You're full of it. Now admit that Pres. Obama's has excellent financial reforms in mind.

It's laughable to hear you speak of "baseline integrity" when all you do here on DU is attack Obama supporters and President Obama.
Your obsessive attacks against me are amusing, considering I have offered sourced links for all my facts. Your credibility is shot.

Now kick this OP again. :)

[jgraz]

143. So you're saying you never posted that?

Just want to be clear on the depths of your dishonesty.

[ClarkUSA]

144. Wow... you must have a page open waiting for my replies. Get a life, dude.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

145. You reinforce your guilt with every response

Seriously, just own up to it. You'll feel better.

[ClarkUSA]

146. Is that all you've got? Thanks for kicking this great OP.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

122. FYI to all those interested, more reforms than these eight are at this FACTBOX from Reuters.

This is for anyone who's interested in knowing more about what's going on in Congress now with regards to financial reform:

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE59R4YT20091028

:)

[ClarkUSA]

89. Here are the facts the anti-Obama rhetoric crowd are loathe to mention...

Obama's Plan: Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation (pdf)

Requiring Strong Supervision And Appropriate Regulation Of All Financial Firms (pdf)

Strengthening Regulation Of Core Markets And Market Infrastructure (pdf)

Strengthening Consumer Protection (pdf)

Providing The Government With Tools To Effectively Manage Failing Institutions (pdf)

Improving International Regulatory Standards And Cooperation (pdf)

House Panel Moves Derivatives Toward Obama’s Proposal

FACTBOX: Major U.S. financial regulation reform proposals

Obama says Senate bill on tax havens would stop abuses

Statement by President Barack Obama on House and Senate Introducing Legislation to Crack Down on Overseas Tax Havens

All (pdf) links and more about Pres. Obama's 10 months of other accomplishments here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8730317&mesg_id=8730317

[tomp]

90. his power is limited?

what limits obama's power that didn't limit bush/cheney inc.? with a mere majority bush/cheney, inc got virtually everything they wanted.

of course, the democrats helped bush/cheney, inc, but the repubs won't "help" obama (except in providing cover for obama's failures. obama can say he was obstructed, but in the end the corps get what they want).

obama's ban on lobbyists after he has given away the store is a sick joke.

there is nothing that will get me to vote for obama in 2012.

[Baltoman991]

57. What damn

facts have you produced on these boards? None as far as I can see. Your opinions and those of the blogs you might visit don't constitute facts. Come back when you produce some facts and see if we feel insulted. Until then, happy reading with your opinion hit pieces on Obama. Just remember, they ain't facts, just one mans OPINION.

[treestar]

83. Naturally Ignored cannot find any good even in this.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

50. So nitpicking over my "fling" verb choice = "participatory democracy"! How impressive-sounding!

:rofl:

[jgraz]

94. Oh FFS. Einstein, I wasn't "nitpicking" or "scolding" you. I was laughing at you.

"Fling" is usually associated with what monkeys do with their feces. I can't think of a more appropriate word for what you do on this board.

[ClarkUSA]

104. Sure you were. Funny how you didn't say that earlier when you were called on it by others.

<<"Fling" is usually associated with what monkeys do with their feces. I can't think of a more appropriate word for what
you do on this board.>>

As word associations go, that's revealing insight into your psyche. It's a classic case of projection, actually. :rofl:

[Aramchek]

48. you make my screen taste bitter

[jgraz]

68. Didn't your momma tell you not to put things in your mouth?

[Aramchek]

123. the bitterness coming off of your posts permeates the air itself

[AllentownJake]

10. Someone has a case of the grumpys today

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

52. Says the poster who recently said Obama hasn't done anything right in 10 months...

or is this now the ONLY thing you think he's done right in 10 months? :shrug:

[Enrique]

64. it was a giant headline on the Huffington Post

which has been trashed here as an Obama hate site for the crime of criticizing Obama.

Maybe you're mistaken about the "hateful idiots." Maybe they're just progressives rather than followers of politicians. :shrug:

[MollieBradford]

80. he is a corporate democrat

He got more lobbyist money and corporate money than anyone in the history of American elections. His administration is FULL of lobbyists. He is just making rules for other people that do not apply to him. Reminds me of Bush.

[Teaser]

121. Are yours "flow through?"

.

[MollieBradford]

132. goody

lame snark always makes me laugh... at you, not with you

[mzmolly]

98. Heh.

;)

[bluestateguy]

2. Lobbyist is not an honorable profession

nt

[otohara]

11. Even The Guys & Gals

who lobby for medical marijuana, GLBT rights, homeless and poor?

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/kfountain/

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

130. That's the most ignorant statement I've ever heard.

So it's not honorable to petition one's government? Really?

[optimator]

5. there will be exemptions

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.

[babylonsister]

7. Was was was. This is current. nt

[jgraz]

12. So all those folks are now fired, right?

[Cha]

17. Why should they be fired?

[polichick]

61. Yep - the mixed messages are stunning. nt

[AllentownJake]

6. Good Start

Keep up that kind of work Mr. President.

K&R

[Cleita]

9. One small step and a giant leap forward.

:applause:

[MadMaddie]

13. Say it ain't so!! President Obama keeping his word!!

Nah....because he doesn't follow through on anything! :sarcasm:

Sometimes to accomplish something big you have to take it apart piece by piece to dismantle it.

[ClarkUSA]

54. "Sometimes to accomplish something big you have to take it apart piece by piece to dismantle it."

How refreshingly wise. :thumbsup:

[MadMaddie]

63. Thanks ClarkUSA!!

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

79. You're welcome, Mad Maddie.

:hi:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. I love our president. nt

[BlooInBloo]

15. Shun the non believers.

:P

[boppers]

73. Holy crap, is that a Charlie the Unicorn reference?

The internet is a weird, weird, place.

[Cha]

24. Thanks for news, PS..otherwise

I would not have known..you do a real service around here..you and a lot of others who are so diligent in bringing us some facts on DU.

The corporatemediawhoredom isn't going to do this ..nor is the blogosphere who are only interested in tainted red meat.

[MadMaddie]

25. Interesting Lobbyist Factoids

Washington Post
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101632.html

<snip>
The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.

The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists
<snip>

Here is another view of Reagan and Lobbyist from another DUr
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x476299

[vaberella]

53. K/R. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

58. I still dont understand the lack of fanfare.... wonder why that is? NT

[intheflow]

66. As usual, I read about it on DU almost two months ago.

babylonsister had a thread on this back on October 5th.

It's still wonderful news.

[chill_wind]

96. Oh wow! Thanks for that link. So it is not breaking news at all

but it is for those who missed it then, and agree-- is still good news, as was the original EO.

[and-justice-for-all]

67. I think Lobbying should be banned...nt

[jgraz]

69. Corporate lobbying should be banned.

Someone needs to explain the difference to Obama.

[and-justice-for-all]

77. Well, if it could be that easy...

banning it all would be the only solution really.

[jgraz]

128. It actually is that easy

Corporations have no rights under the Constitution. Government is not limited in any way if they wish to regulate them. Outlawing corporate-funded lobbying should be a no-brainer ... assuming your government isn't already bought and paid for.

[PBS Poll-435]

75. Rec'd

:-)

[Hekate]

76. As another DUer said last night: PONY! I agree: This, folks, is a pony.

:bounce:

Hekate

[LatteLibertine]

78. It will be interesting to see

how it's implemented, what real impact it has, and who ends up "exempt".

It's definitely a good idea and the most wealthy will likely find a way to continue to buy the votes they want.

[Avalux]

82. Now THAT is change I can believe in!

Thank you President Obama, for enacting policy to curb lobbyist influence. :fistbump:

[eleny]

87. Excellent news

K&R

[judesedit]

91. Woohoo!

Thanks, Obama. You're doing a great job!

[NCarolinawoman]

129. When the coal lobbyists "got" to Rahm, we ended up with more devastating mountaintop removal.

Rahm was allowed to over-rule Obama's own EPA.

Unfortunately, it's too late to fix those mountains that have been utterly destroyed. What I would like to know is will this policy of blowing up mountains be reversed now that the coal lobbyists have supposedly been banned.

Will the government finally be able to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the cost of medicine now that the drug company lobbyists have supposedly been banned?

How many other policies, such as kowtowing to the big banks and big agribusiness, will reverse course? Only if I see change in this regard, will this lobbying reform really matter to me.

[ClarkUSA]

133. How was it "more devastating" than mountaintop removal under Bill Clinton and Bush II?

Do you have a credible source for your claim? I have been following this issue and it's a fact that the Obama administration
has halted many mountaintop removal projects due to environmental concerns while BushCo never saw a mountaintop removal
project it didn't like.

[ProSense]

137. Really?

EPA: Pending Mountaintop Removal Permits Would Violate Clean Water Act

EPA Move Strikes Angry Note Among Coal-Friendly Dems

The administration has shown some willingness to gamble. Last month, for example, the EPA announced that 79 pending applications for mountaintop operations will be stalled while their effects on water systems are further reviewed. And last week the agency took its boldest step of the year, threatening to revoke an existing CWA permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Southern West Virginia if the operation doesn’t take further strides to blunt its impact on surrounding waterways. That mine, approved in 2007, is slated to encompass nearly 2,300 acres and bury more than seven miles of mountain streams. EPA has “very serious concerns regarding the scale and extent of significant environmental and water quality impacts,” EPA regional administrator William E. Early wrote to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last Friday. “The collective science strongly suggests that projects similar to the Spruce No. 1 are associated with impairment of downstream aquatic life use.”