Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Obama seemed to do fine with campaign contributions from regular ole folks like us.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing
- Thread starter Invisible_Insane
- Start date
- Status
Top equity firm predicts 2.5% GDP growth for the year. Says that US manufacturing will enter a long cycle of rebound.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I'm always puzzled about the "decline of U.S. manufacturing." We build a shit ton of things in this country when you think about the multiplier effect of factories building this for that and so forth.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
we need to bring the steel industry back to Buffalo, NY, that would help this state a lot.
Putting that action into the hands of the government alone is a horrible idea, not only is it not feasible to give all of that money out to a unknown number of candidates, but the amount you would have to give them to be fair would be staggering. Not to mention the qualification process would be a mess.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person giving a campaign contribution, money, and volunteering both help.
Its my money, and I'll support what ever candidate I want to with it.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
The Librarian
Banned
The fuck? We're discussing the future and direction of our country; many in which whose lives depend on getting moneyed interests out of our politics.
A lot of people die each year because they don't have health insurance; many go bankrupt from medical costs even though they have insurance. People have lost their wealth from recklessness on Wall Street.
So, no, when it comes to prevent people from dying from a lack of adequate health insurance, or people losing a substantial amount of their savings from a stupid few, the risk of which could be severely reduced or eliminated if we get money out of politics, I don't think I'm being melodramatic.
rohlfinator
Member
We (as a country) could get by with spending massively less on campaigns than we do now.
I live in Iowa and leading up to the caucus, literally 90% of commercials were campaign ads. Nobody needs that in order to be informed. We probably don't need 20+ debates leading up to the primary. We don't need 24/7 news coverage for months on end.
Honestly I have no idea how to estimate the cost of publicly funding a campaign, but I imagine it's one of those numbers that would be dwarfed by about one day of our military budget.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Interesting
http://secular.org/content/2012-presidental-candidate-scorecard
Paul deserves an 'F' for church & state separation though.
Romney looks like the best candidate to me... Love the Gingrich/Santorum/Perry/Bachmann unholy quadruplet.
TV commercial time could actually be completely free. ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc, do not own the spectrum. It is something owned by the citizens of the US, and we grant them the right to make a profit using it. If we wanted to say that they need to give us, the government X amount of hours for the use of public services such as election commercials, they would have to oblige. Obviously we'd still have to film and direct the commercials, but that's really a drop in the bucket compared to what the networks charge to show it.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
Dax, I'm all for fixing those things!
If we get rid of PAC's and Super PAC's and make it individual contribution only with a max of 2,500 dollars we are fine.
That would cut down spending drastically.
If we get rid of PAC's and Super PAC's and make it individual contribution only with a max of 2,500 dollars we are fine.
That would cut down spending drastically.
How would this be monitored though?
A27_StarWolf
Banned
why should we have to monitor it?
Make any contribution over 1000 anonymous to the candidate. Send any money over that amount to the government, and the government will distribute it anonymously to that candidate. See the government can help in this situation.
That way Americans can retain the ability to donate money to a candidate.
Fuckin awesome. Can't wait. Without getting into any spoilers, what topics did they discuss?
GillianSeed79
Member
I was actually kind of pissed when back in '08 I endorsed my $1.00 (yes, one dollar) federal tax return check and sent it to the DNC or whatever Obama's fundraising arm was. I know they couldn't actually cash it, but the thing that annoyed was they sent it back to me. It was a gesture you dolts.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Interesting
http://secular.org/content/2012-presidental-candidate-scorecard
Paul deserves an 'F' for church & state separation though.
Ah good, no reason I can't vote for Romney now.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
Maximum of 2,500 dollars. If a situation like that occurs, and they are found out, fine them 5,000 dollars.
I feel like the good stuff always happens the days I have to work late. Can't wait to watch tomorrow.
Hahah, what the fuck. These stories of governments selling off crucial things is both hilariously stupid and sad as hell.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, wow.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
nice constructive criticism bro!
$5,000 isn't a fine to someone that wants to corrupt politicians. It's a transaction fee. If you were going to do a fine, at least make it double whatever they gave the candidate.
Frank the Great
Banned
some of A27's ideas have merit. i'm pretty sure anonymous donating has proven in other countries to have at least partially reduce the amount of money in politics. this would be a clearly constitutional thing we could do right now to help improve the situation. much easier than an amendment implementing public funding.
it would not have any substantive positive affect on the system, it would simply discourage people from donating. they did a story about this on the radio a while ago and it was interesting. basically, donors (especially large donors) are much less willing to give to candidates if they do not think their money will influence policy. by making all funds first go into a "black box" fund administered by the government, and then anonymously handed out to designated candidates, it would seriously discourage corruption.
it is not a solution but it would be a step in the right direction, imo.
it would not have any substantive positive affect on the system, it would simply discourage people from donating. they did a story about this on the radio a while ago and it was interesting. basically, donors (especially large donors) are much less willing to give to candidates if they do not think their money will influence policy. by making all funds first go into a "black box" fund administered by the government, and then anonymously handed out to designated candidates, it would seriously discourage corruption.
it is not a solution but it would be a step in the right direction, imo.
jamesinclair
Banned
Place conspiracy hats on head!
Gas prices manipulated to increase Holiday sales? Lines indicate beginning of holiday period (thanksgiving) and end (Christmas). While winter usually has lower prices, the timing of the drop and increase is oddly convenient. Too convenient.
(prepare for record prices this summer, prices have never been this high in january before. Ever.)
Also, get ready for Fox news to ramp up the "president obamas gas prices" rhetoric starting late April.
Gas prices manipulated to increase Holiday sales? Lines indicate beginning of holiday period (thanksgiving) and end (Christmas). While winter usually has lower prices, the timing of the drop and increase is oddly convenient. Too convenient.
(prepare for record prices this summer, prices have never been this high in january before. Ever.)
Also, get ready for Fox news to ramp up the "president obamas gas prices" rhetoric starting late April.
Romney's religion will hurt him no more than Obama's race. A lot of people thought there would be a lot of people who would vote against him because he was black - and while there certainly will be some and certainly will be some that won't vote for Romney because he's Mormon, it won't be a game changer in the least.
Even at double, some uber rich would be fine taking the hit in order to get influence.
I'd personally say jail time for breaking such a law.
I'd also tie the maximum amount you can donate to minimum wage, if you were going to make a law. So, it wouldn't be $2,500. It'd be something like 1 month's worth of pay at whatever the minimum wage is at the time. That way the law's flexible, and doesn't need to be fucked with all the time because of changing prices. And if people want to throw more money at candidates, then the minimum money made by our country's poorest needs to go up along with it. Means more voice at the top secures more voice at the bottom.
What I find mind boggling is how little money can buy so much influence. Not to drag up Solyndra (the #2 investor was actually McCain supporter) but I think their main investor bundled something like $100K for Obama - and got a $580M grant .... that is some serious WTF shit right there.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
That list is incredibly misleading. Most of that money came from individuals who happen to work for those companies. So his point still stands.
Indeed. The corruptive power of money knows no party lines. Both sides are susceptible to its influence, and that's what makes it such an important thing we have to reform before we let it get too far out of hand and it becomes too late.
RDreamer: Yeah, I like the idea of if we keep donations, tying it to the minimum wage.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Corporations are made of people. There is a clear distinction there. There is a big difference between individuals within a corporation giving money and the corporation as an entity giving money.
This needs to be investigated by the Feds to make sure it really is just incompetence and not some, most or all of the politicians who wrote/voted the initial sell off and now the buy back plan getting a kick back or portfolio boost from the company's that own it.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It increases the weird, out of touch factor though. I don't think Huntsman being Mormon matters much for instance because while he's rich he comes off as a regular guy. Romney seems ungenuine and distant in part due to his religion
Obviously Obama isn't a regular guy you'd drink a beer with either but he still comes off as real, mostly genuine, etc. I really think Romney will just rub people the wrong way and help amplaphy the attacks that paint him as a man with no principles or core beliefs
cartoon_soldier
Member
Romney will be achieving the amazing feat of governing a liberal state as a moderate-liberal, then being a conservative for primaries to back to being a moderate for the GE. WIth recorded statemements of supporting multiple positions throughout his career.
No, Romney is either going to go hard right for the campaign, or he's going to get a very conservative VP. He has to, or else he's going to lose important sectors of his base.
Moderate Republicans haven't won an election in a very long time.
Xdrive05
Member
I'd rather have Romney overthrow Obama than any of the others, even though he's a corporatist, etc. Though on the other hand Ron Paul would at least get a couple of the issues 100% right. Would still prefer Romney just on the principle that he's not fucking retarded on evolution. I mean what fucking century are we living in?
cartoon_soldier
Member
overthrow? Obama is a dictator or what?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I like to think that Romney will have the same amount of trouble a Jewish candidate would (I could seem some conservative demographics having less of an issue), but ironically I think he'll have it worse. It's a shame some people look at the man's religion and use it to judge it. It's despicable and imo opinion Anti-American.
Ron Paul would destroy the United States faster than Osama Bin Laden could in one his best wet dreams he had in Pakistan.
Xdrive05
Member
Freudian slip. Actually, he would have been a better president if he was a dictator. Wouldn't justify it in the least, but still...
Xdrive05
Member
Right. But at least we wouldn't be carpet bombing brown people, amirite? Guys? Guys? Yeah, I know. :-/
How about a series of gatekeepers for the funds. Everyone can get $1000 with x signatures or something, and then further milestones from there.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Plus weed and sports betting for everyone and the burning of the Fed Building!!!
Plus we hire privateers to fight pirates (the later is something he did float...granted you could argue any security contractor is that).
cartoon_soldier
Member
But weed dude
The Librarian
Banned
Newt's ads working in SC? http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/3977
RoninChaos
Member
Kosmo is a dumbass who hates the poor.
Rocket Scientist
Member
I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something really, really obvious here, but are they really about to throw 24 million into the pockets of real estate investors, for free basically? 12 million a year to lease a building you owned two years ago...
Narpas Sword0
Member
This is the typical republican shell game laid bare.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked