In theory, which group would be better at reducing the power of lobbying: Tea Party or Progressives?

Also raising minimum wage hurts small businesses for the same reason. Increase taxes on corporations... hurts small business.

Supercompanies can work on razor thin margins.

Not all regulation is bad, yet nobody wants to talk about a gray area. In my opinion, Republicans don't really push a platform of stopping the expansion of government. Libertarians seem to push shrinking government in an extreme and unrealistic manner. This is why I believe we need to focus on amending term limits so we can get fresh minds into Washington that can focus on policy rather than their careers. The politicians today on both sides don't serve us.

 

The conversation is about corporate lobbying only, not which systems have worked through history. How do we weaken the influence of corporations when it comes to shaping policy?

I'm not advocating shrinking government like a libertarian. Don't you think the government has expanded enough since 9/11? For all the continuous blunders. We saw the rise of multiple massive (and duplicative) departments and the death of NASA as we knew it. Do we really want to give the government more?

It just seems counterintuitive and ignorant to think that government expansion is gonna stop corporations. Pushing 100% employment (through government work programs) is insane and against American values. We're not supposed to rely on our government for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! We're not socialists!

 

I believe that the theory is to shape more policy on the state and local levels. Spreading the power around more gets more done rather than having to cut through so much red tape for funding. Also voters at the local levels can get very specific in their cities and towns as to how they want their leadership allocating funds. Again this is all in theory and there's corruption at every level.

One could argue that states who hold values the opposite of what is being imposed on them at the federal level are more emboldened to call for secession when they have no voice and no power.

 

It's all good I think you set up excellent framework for discussion.

The problem with this argument is that morality is subjective depending on culture. Considering how multicultural we are, it would be wrong for a certain group to enforce their morals and beliefs on everybody else. This is why we have separation of church & state where we have the protection of and from religion.

I do believe that the general welfare of the people should be a major goal of the government. I also believe that the people have a right to vote for and protect their own self interests. I see nothing wrong with rallying and voting against people who will put into place policies that hurt an individual's ability to put food on the table for his family.

I remember the very day when the Tea Party started rallying. I was working in court houses in the TX hill country. I was in the middle of my normal rounds of title research and there were a bunch of anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-religious wackos holding signs in front of every court house I went to that day. I don't believe that these people were rallying for materialism, obscene profits or wealth inequality. They just see things much differently from you.

The people may not be savory, but it's not like the Fed rights vs. State rights debate is anything new.

If these people understood the true meaning of pure conservatism, they would know that religion doesn't belong in politics. You're right that this is hypocrisy. This is my main gripe against the right. You can't have constructive discourse when your line of argument is based on and quoted by scriptures that the opposing side doesn't follow. With that said, it's ok to use majority moral views as a skeletal structure of policy.

Looking at recent history at "where does the money go":
Where has the money gone? Clinton's budget surplus disappeared the second those towers fell. We started two wars and expanded the powers of the federal government. Bush failed to heed the most important lesson of Vietnam and the most important lesson of the fall of the USSR. You don't preemptively attack nations and you don't enter into prolonged military conflicts (especially in the middle east).

I don't blame Obama for following his campaign promise of removing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course now we have the rise of ISIS and return of the Taliban. Sometimes presidents just inherit very tough foreign and economic climates. The gripe I have with Obama is that he has pushed the envelope and expanded the power of the executive branch, thus overriding the checks and balances of the judicial and legislative branches. You can claim that he had to act because of obstructionism... but it still sets a precedence.

So based on the combination of Bush/Obama central government expansionism, we see that the money went into military spending and the companies that benefited from war. We have the continued rise of super companies in food, agriculture, tech companies, and the for profit university systems. We saw private insurance companies ensure their survival through Obamacare. We also saw continued expansionism in government.

Here's a list of the largest contributors to compare to what I listed above:
2008: http://www.opensecrets.org/PRES08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
2012:https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638

So basically our money went into:
1. Military system that shifted it's policy of being defenders to being that of a country not afraid to preemptively strike if our leaders deemed necessary.
2. Supercompanies that have a systematic advantage over smaller companies.
3. A sector that pounced on a political opportunity when a party had a supermajority.
4. Allowing universities to continue their tuition increases at the expense of today's students.

Future: How can we change it?
There are some factors that naturally change lobbying over time. First, the only companies/sectors that lobby are the ones that have the money to do so. For example, when oil/gas prices are very low, you don't see much contribution from a large variety of oil and gas companies.

Promoting an alternative to the companies and institutions that shake us down is another way to see change. We've seen this in the healthcare market with the rise of private emergency rooms. They have a function in that they provide people with a much cheaper alternative to emergent care. It shouldn't cost 10k to set/cast a broken arm. I know Sanders has talked about making college tuition free, but I think there is a better way to address the earning power of universities rather than letting the government write massive checks to them instead of students.

Lastly, we need to enforce the checks and balances of the executive branch when it comes to military action. We need to shift back into the times where preemptive strikes aren't an option. This is the one issue where many fiscally conservative people are hypocritical. You can still have a strong national defense without the crippling federal spending.

 

You're right in that what I typed was incredibly simplistic and incomplete. I was hoping to get more in-depth here for a well-rounded and fact based point of view.

I will clarify and agree that lobbyist seek to change or maintain policies for their own benefit.

It's tough to take two extremes and debate which one is better. They can both address/fix the same problems, but in very different ways.

I don't think that there's a perfect ideology. We know that in every system, there will always be abuses, injustices and fraud. We can look at China. Their government is one of the worst when it comes to abusing it's own people in exchange for advancing their economy.

This is why it's important to see who is funding which candidates and to live in a manner that doesn't promote the lobbyist's goals. You can see in my post above the largest contributors (to the winner) in the last 2 presidential elections. There's much more transparency now to see who is funding every single person in power.