Congress is working for 400 people.

[Syrinx]

There are 535 voting members of Congress. But under de facto Republican control, they are serving their masters.

400 individual people, 400 people!

A group of four-hundred people have more money than 280,000,000 people put together!

People like the Koch brothers.

And the Roberts Supreme Court says their business interests have not just the same, but even more! rights to free speech than the common citizen.

What is to be done when the government has been paid for in full?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/forbes-400-vs-everybody-else

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. i would mostly agree

but i would go ahead and say 935...they are DEFINITELY in it for their own interests...every...damned...one...of...them!

sP

[KharmaTrain]

2. They Bought It...Deal With It...

That's the message from the beltway. They all got theirs and too bad for the rest. Unless you can feather these Congresscritters nests better than they can, they'll continue to serve those who write the big checks. Next year a House seat will cost at least $2 million dollars, a Senate seat upwards of $10 million (more like $35 to 50 in a big state) and both parties will spend $500 million on the presidential horse races. That money has to come from somewhere and those $25 and $50 checks don't cut it.

Until those politicians see taking corporate money as political poison they're gonna take it, deliver favors and ask for more...

[kentuck]

3. So long as we debate on their terms...

..instead of the people's terms, things will never change. Somebody has to speak for the people.

[Syrinx]

4. I really thought Obama was the guy

Don't get me wrong. I will vote for him. He is infinitely better than any Republican alternative. But I really believed he would be the transformational candidate. It has not turned out that way.

[Tx4obama]

5. Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for only a short period of time

Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009 and Senator Kennedy died in August 2009. It takes 60 'yes' votes in the Senate to invoke cloture! We need to vote in more Democrats in order to give Obama a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and to take back the House!

[Fumesucker]

6. By now almost everyone knows that it takes a simple majority to set Senate rules..

At the beginning of session..

The filibuster could have been modified to actually require an effort or eliminated altogether had the Democrats wished for that to happen.

Clearly they preferred gridlock.

Next excuse for doing things to benefit the wealthy, please.

[Bragi]

8. I totally agree!

The lack of a 60 per cent majority in the Senate is a lame and unsatisfactory excuse for Obama's failure to accomplish much of anything in his first term (beyond a watered down health reform bill, the benefits of which won't be felt until two years after the next election!)

Are we supposed to forget that after the 2008 election, the GOP was discredited and on the ropes, and pundits were speculating on how many elections, if not generations, it would take for them to rebuild?

I personally don't think Obama lacks the desire to be transformational and bring about change. However, he clearly lacks the needed political skills and determination to do so.

(Insert obligatory "everyone should vote for him because he's better than any GOP alternative" phrase here.)

[NorthCarolina]

7. Not just Congress, but all three branches of Government are working for the 400.

There are very few peoples advocates in the halls of DC, and those few that still exist are marginalized at every turn.

[liberal N proud]

9. That is because most Americans can't afford a congressman