Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Obama seemed to do fine with campaign contributions from regular ole folks like us.
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.
While it only speaks to 2004.Obama seemed to do fine with campaign contributions from regular ole folks like us.
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,29
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.flair for the dramatic much?
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.
Interesting
![]()
http://secular.org/content/2012-presidental-candidate-scorecard
Paul deserves an 'F' for church & state separation though.
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.
How would this be monitored though?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.
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.
How would this be monitored though?
Sen. Jim Demint got schooled by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. At the end of the interview, Demit was literally trying to run off the stage. Can't wait to watch the whole interview.
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.
Interesting
![]()
http://secular.org/content/2012-presidental-candidate-scorecard
Paul deserves an 'F' for church & state separation though.
"Hey I'm gonna give you $50,000 tomorrow"
"Okey dokey"
Sen. Jim Demint got schooled by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. At the end of the interview, Demit was literally trying to run off the stage. Can't wait to watch the whole interview.
Wow, there really is no better example of all that's wrong with Republican ideology than this one (okay, fine maybe there's more but this one's a contender fo sho):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ition-for-dumbest-state government?via=blog_1
Maximum of 2,500 dollars. If a situation like that occurs, and they are found out, fine them 5,000 dollars.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, wow.
nice constructive criticism bro!
Romney looks like the best candidate to me... Love the Gingrich/Santorum/Perry/Bachmann unholy quadruplet.
$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.
$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.
While it only speaks to 2004.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
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.
So, corporations ARE people ...
Wow, there really is no better example of all that's wrong with Republican ideology than this one (okay, fine maybe there's more but this one's a contender fo sho):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ition-for-dumbest-state government?via=blog_1
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
Freudian slip. Actually, he would have been a better president if he was a dictator. Wouldn't justify it in the least, but still...overthrow? Obama is a dictator or what?
Right. But at least we wouldn't be carpet bombing brown people, amirite? Guys? Guys? Yeah, I know. :-/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.
Alright, so I'm against this.
However the government should never ever EVER give money to a political candidate. That sounds like the worst idea ever. Instead of working to get money, and gain the trust of the people, you just get money thrown at you. What is to stop a lot of people from running then?
There is something to be said for hard work.
Why shouldn't people have to work hard to gain campaign contributions?
Right. But at least we wouldn't be carpet bombing brown people, amirite? Guys? Guys? Yeah, I know. :-/
But weed dudeRight. But at least we wouldn't be carpet bombing brown people, amirite? Guys? Guys? Yeah, I know. :-/
But even if I accept the hypothesis that you need to pay taxes to feel ownership in society (which sound insane to me, but that's for another time) it still doesn't make sense.
Is there something magical about federal income tax?
Sales tax or payroll tax don't grant you some of that game skin?
And what about one of the million other taxes that most people don't pay, do they have no ownership?
...in 2010, the conservatives in Arizona's government had the brilliant idea of selling off the state capitol and a bunch of other buildings to private companies, then leasing them all back in order to keep using them.
...the state capitol buildings in question were sold for $81 million.
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...Citing the state's upcoming 100th birthday, Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday asked lawmakers to buy back three buildings at the Capitol that were mortgaged off two years ago to balance the budget. The move will cost the state $105 million...
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...