|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 2, 2013 19:48:02 GMT -5
The democrats get 10 times more? I don't think so. Take a look at this chart, it comes from the source that you linked to, the funding looks pretty even to me. Either way, the system stinks to high heaven. Democrats 42.9% Republicans 47.1% It doesn't add to 100% because a lot of the splits don't, either. Some segments donate nearly exclusively to the big two, others spare some cash for (I guess) various third parties. If you disagree with the math, take it up with OpenOffice "calc". It took care of that, for me!  EY, it's not even relevant to the discussion at hand. This is a chart that shows donations by sector, not by special interest group. And it's limited to the current election cycle which is only halfway over. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 2, 2013 19:48:45 GMT -5
The NRA donates to any politician that supports gun rights. In some states, that's a Democrat. Max Baucus basically decided to retire because he had to oppose Obama's gun control efforts that followed Sandy Hook, or face the wrath of his constituents. When he did, the administration, probably through the party, showed a little wrath of its own. Probably he was told he'd be primaried. Obama hates it when people disagree with him; right now he's putting pressure on insurance companies not to complain about Obamacare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 2, 2013 19:50:32 GMT -5
The NRA donates to any politician that supports gun rights. In some states, that's a Democrat. Max Baucus basically decided to retire because he had to oppose Obama's gun control efforts that followed Sandy Hook, or face the wrath of his constituents. When he did, the administration, probably through the party, showed a little wrath of its own. Probably he was told he'd be primaried. Obama hates it when people disagree with him; right now he's putting pressure on insurance companies not to complain about Obamacare. All Dems in Ak are NRA members for sure |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 2, 2013 20:02:22 GMT -5
That's a lot of words to actually say; yes, the Conservatives also dislike it when the organization buying the politicians is one they oppose, but are perfectly happy with it when the organization is one they support. Of the top twenty spenders, 1989 - 2012, the following is true: Their total is $876,515,582. Of this, Democrats received $620,942,300 (71%), and Republicans received $165,442,466 (19%). These special interest groups spent 3.7x as much purchasing Democratic influence as purchasing Republican influence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 20:09:11 GMT -5
The NRA donates to any politician that supports gun rights. In some states, that's a Democrat. Max Baucus basically decided to retire because he had to oppose Obama's gun control efforts that followed Sandy Hook, or face the wrath of his constituents. When he did, the administration, probably through the party, showed a little wrath of its own. Probably he was told he'd be primaried. Obama hates it when people disagree with him; right now he's putting pressure on insurance companies not to complain about Obamacare. All Dems in Ak are NRA members for sure Wow, Moses, speaking of "alties;" you're sounding a bit like RC at the moment, I pray I'm wrong!   |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 2, 2013 20:09:48 GMT -5
That's a lot of words to actually say; yes, the Conservatives also dislike it when the organization buying the politicians is one they oppose, but are perfectly happy with it when the organization is one they support. Of the top twenty spenders, 1989 - 2012, the following is true: Their total is $876,515,582. Of this, Democrats received $620,942,300 (71%), and Republicans received $165,442,466 (19%). These special interest groups spent 3.7x as much purchasing Democratic influence as purchasing Republican influence. That surprises me. Generally, Republicans are better at this stuff. It would be interesting to see them broken down in categories of who is giving what to who. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 2, 2013 20:15:46 GMT -5
A lot of those top spenders are labor groups, who contribute little to Republicans. If anything, the amounts they spend should make members question their dues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 20:16:53 GMT -5
All Dems in Ak are NRA members for sure Wow, Moses, speaking of "alties;" you're sounding a bit like RC at the moment, I pray I'm wrong! You didn't know? Moses is really LadyLuck. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 2, 2013 22:40:07 GMT -5
Wow, Moses, speaking of "alties;" you're sounding a bit like RC at the moment, I pray I'm wrong! You didn't know? Moses is really LadyLuck. Lose the past DadM! |
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Nov 3, 2013 2:50:37 GMT -5
I'd venture to suggest that it's a serious problem, period. I'd agree. Unfortunately, the people who could fix it are the people least interested in fixing it. So it will continue until the end of the United States, whenever that is. 2008 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 12:34:50 GMT -5
You didn't know? Moses is really LadyLuck. Lose the past DadM! Hey- I could have been DadM again! But I've been HotDiggity for so long... It is odd how much your politics have changed, Ladyluck!! |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 12:41:23 GMT -5
Lose the past DadM! Hey- I could have been DadM again! But I've been HotDiggity for so long... It is odd how much your politics have changed, Ladyluck!! I am no lady and my luck is sketchy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 12:43:48 GMT -5
Hey- I could have been DadM again! But I've been HotDiggity for so long... It is odd how much your politics have changed, Ladyluck!! I am no lady and my luck is sketchy. HA! Do you know who Ladyluck is?? She makes redleg appear left of center. So I was just making a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 12:45:54 GMT -5
I am no lady and my luck is sketchy. HA! Do you know who Ladyluck is?? She makes redleg appear left of center. So I was just making a joke. I think I remember her from before I was banned. She wasn't much of a lady either . |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 3, 2013 15:48:37 GMT -5
That's a lot of words to actually say; yes, the Conservatives also dislike it when the organization buying the politicians is one they oppose, but are perfectly happy with it when the organization is one they support. Of the top twenty spenders, 1989 - 2012, the following is true: Their total is $876,515,582. Of this, Democrats received $620,942,300 (71%), and Republicans received $165,442,466 (19%). These special interest groups spent 3.7x as much purchasing Democratic influence as purchasing Republican influence. Now that we've established that influence peddling is a MUCH larger problem amongst Democrats than it is amongst Republicans, I will submit to you that the reason this is so is that Republicans are far more interested in doing what is right for the entire country, rather than what will benefit labor union leadership and George Soros. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 16:35:24 GMT -5
Of the top twenty spenders, 1989 - 2012, the following is true: Their total is $876,515,582. Of this, Democrats received $620,942,300 (71%), and Republicans received $165,442,466 (19%). These special interest groups spent 3.7x as much purchasing Democratic influence as purchasing Republican influence. Now that we've established that influence peddling is a MUCH larger problem amongst Democrats than it is amongst Republicans, I will submit to you that the reason this is so is that Republicans are far more interested in doing what is right for the entire country, rather than what will benefit labor union leadership and George Soros. So that explains why Republicans seem so honorable and full of integrity. Got it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 17:01:40 GMT -5
I am no lady and my luck is sketchy. HA! Do you know who Ladyluck is?? She makes redleg appear left of center. So I was just making a joke. Neither of them two haven't checked in yet? |
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 3, 2013 19:08:59 GMT -5
HA! Do you know who Ladyluck is?? She makes redleg appear left of center. So I was just making a joke. Neither of them two haven't checked in yet? Missing in action, along with Joe Friday, and davinci. Maybe they were so busy posting that they never read that there was a new forum.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 19:26:26 GMT -5
Neither of them two haven't checked in yet? Missing in action, along with Joe Friday, and davinci. Maybe they were so busy posting that they never read that there was a new forum. Well HST is being his brown eye self over there............. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 3, 2013 19:40:29 GMT -5
Now that we've established that influence peddling is a MUCH larger problem amongst Democrats than it is amongst Republicans, I will submit to you that the reason this is so is that Republicans are far more interested in doing what is right for the entire country, rather than what will benefit labor union leadership and George Soros. I've seen no evidence that Republicans are more interested in doing what's right for the entire country. During the W administration they were mostly interested in doing what was right for big business. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 3, 2013 19:52:17 GMT -5
Now that we've established that influence peddling is a MUCH larger problem amongst Democrats than it is amongst Republicans, I will submit to you that the reason this is so is that Republicans are far more interested in doing what is right for the entire country, rather than what will benefit labor union leadership and George Soros. I've seen no evidence that Republicans are more interested in doing what's right for the entire country. During the W administration they were mostly interested in doing what was right for big business. You make that sound like the worst possible thing in the world. Look, the simple truth is the Bush administration really tried to do quite a bit for the average person. It's true enough No Child Left Behind is a mess, it would sort of have to be coming from Teddy the Drunk, but it was an effort to make education better. Medicare Part D has also helped lots of people. For most of the Bush administration, the economy flourished. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 20:02:24 GMT -5
I've seen no evidence that Republicans are more interested in doing what's right for the entire country. During the W administration they were mostly interested in doing what was right for big business. You make that sound like the worst possible thing in the world. Look, the simple truth is the Bush administration really tried to do quite a bit for the average person. It's true enough No Child Left Behind is a mess, it would sort of have to be coming from Teddy the Drunk, but it was an effort to make education better. Medicare Part D has also helped lots of people. For most of the Bush administration, the economy flourished. That's Bush's fault! Wait...that's good stuff, though...... |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 3, 2013 20:49:19 GMT -5
You make that sound like the worst possible thing in the world. When big business is the only people you care about, individuals don't matter. Not the worst thing but pretty bad. His energy policy was basically: give the oil companies whatever they want. Look, the simple truth is the Bush administration really tried to do quite a bit for the average person. It's true enough No Child Left Behind is a mess, it would sort of have to be coming from Teddy the Drunk, but it was an effort to make education better. It failed completely. Medicare Part D has also helped lots of people. A doughnut hole? That wasn't thought through. For most of the Bush administration, the economy flourished. Fraudulently. Because he was *borrowing* the money for his pointless war with Iraq, all he did was kick the debt can down the alley. He gets no credit on the economy from those who have paid attention. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 3, 2013 21:33:19 GMT -5
You make that sound like the worst possible thing in the world. When big business is the only people you care about, individuals don't matter. Not the worst thing but pretty bad. His energy policy was basically: give the oil companies whatever they want. Look, the simple truth is the Bush administration really tried to do quite a bit for the average person. It's true enough No Child Left Behind is a mess, it would sort of have to be coming from Teddy the Drunk, but it was an effort to make education better. It failed completely. Medicare Part D has also helped lots of people. A doughnut hole? That wasn't thought through. For most of the Bush administration, the economy flourished. Fraudulently. Because he was *borrowing* the money for his pointless war with Iraq, all he did was kick the debt can down the alley. He gets no credit on the economy from those who have paid attention. Great. Now that we've established that Bush's good intentions didn't pan out as expected (nor has any other social program before or after), can we agree that maybe the government shouldn't be trying to help individuals? At least not beyond providing a level playing field? The problem with the economy doesn't have anything to do with borrowing for the Iraq war. In fact, the Iraq war wasn't even a particularly large government expenditure. Direct spending by DoD on the war was under $1 trillion. TARP, by itself, was more expensive. There is an estimate from Brown University that put the total cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan at $6 trillion through 2050. That includes all the interest on the debt, and caring for injured soldiers. The problem with the economy was Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac demanding banks lend mortgage money to people who would never be able to repay it, which caused a housing bubble that collapsed in 2008. This was followed up with the Obama Administration passing Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank which both added significant burdens on the economy in general, and the labor market specifically. And that has prevented the recovery from the housing market bubble bursting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 8:17:55 GMT -5
When big business is the only people you care about, individuals don't matter. Not the worst thing but pretty bad. His energy policy was basically: give the oil companies whatever they want. It failed completely. A doughnut hole? That wasn't thought through. Fraudulently. Because he was *borrowing* the money for his pointless war with Iraq, all he did was kick the debt can down the alley. He gets no credit on the economy from those who have paid attention. Great. Now that we've established that Bush's good intentions didn't pan out as expected (nor has any other social program before or after), can we agree that maybe the government shouldn't be trying to help individuals? At least not beyond providing a level playing field? The problem with the economy doesn't have anything to do with borrowing for the Iraq war. In fact, the Iraq war wasn't even a particularly large government expenditure. Direct spending by DoD on the war was under $1 trillion. TARP, by itself, was more expensive. There is an estimate from Brown University that put the total cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan at $6 trillion through 2050. That includes all the interest on the debt, and caring for injured soldiers. The problem with the economy was Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac demanding banks lend mortgage money to people who would never be able to repay it, which caused a housing bubble that collapsed in 2008. This was followed up with the Obama Administration passing Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank which both added significant burdens on the economy in general, and the labor market specifically. And that has prevented the recovery from the housing market bubble bursting. Seems to me- regardless of party, this is a solid argument for-- Smaller Government. |
|
