Seems to me just a few years ago, those people were being praised since they held the SIMPLE republican majority in check.  Oh how times have changed.  As the other article, I do agree with the final solution, but definitely not with the means, motives or methods.  It is time for the leechs of society like Reid, Boxer, Schumer, Feinstein, et, al. were sent back to the slime covered rocks they crawled out of.  Perhaps if they get the chance, they can actually read the constitution instead of answering questions on it with the "deer in the head light" look that is all to common to those thugs.

How dare representatives of the people look to the people!

Exactly. Senators should know absolutely nothing about the economy or about where the money goes that they spend. They should not have any information whatsoever.

I think MP pay should be linked to other civil servants pay. If the MPs want more money they would have to raise salaries of all civil servants.

Exactly.

[

Misrepresenting here; generally, lobbyists of economic interests do not inform; they misinform, motivated by self-gain.

Thanks for the warning.

No, you are confusing terms people use with the things those terms are used for.

A "lobbyist" is simply an expert one doesn't like.

Hence renaming them "zcars" would solve the problem.

You chose the term "the rotting corporate body of lobbyists" because you wanted the conclusion to be part of your argument so you can easily deflect criticism of your position by pretending that everyone you call a "lobbyist" or a part of a "rotting corporate body" is already acknowledges as a problematic entity by everybody else. That is just not the case.

It's as if I would claim that Obama's communists should not have any influence in the White House. You could say that Obama's advivers are legitimate employees who help the President do his job. But by calling them communists I have already won. I can now simply claim that YOU support Stalin and Mao, since you claim that the communists are needed for Obama to do his job.

The truth is that in order for a democracy to work, organisations that represent people MUST speak up and SHOULD be heard.

Without that, politicians simply make uninformed guesses.

If that is what you want, I still think you are wrong. But I suspect you are using the term "lobbyist" for anybody who advises politicians in a way you disagree with while those that advise politicians in ways you agree with are not the people you mean by "rotting corporate body".

Thanks for the lecture of disagreement. JU is hardly the forum of exactitude, but I did preface my remark with "generally" and directed at corporate economic interests. Surely, I’m not excoriating legitimate political interests from all over the nation, but when a.corporate body spends hundreds of millions to defeat a cause such as healthcare reform there’s reason to be suspicious just as I would be over AFL spending millions on card checkoff when it could be put to better use such as retirement protection. It is not the airing of views that lobbyists have every right to perform, it is the influence peddling of individual congressional members that disturbs me.

As for uninformed guesses, politicians have other routes such as their own constituents and a staff to fine tune an issue.