PDA

View Full Version : Is Obama soaking up all the Dems money leaving other Dems high and dry?



genglandoh
06-02-2012, 11:09 AM
It seems to me that the other Democratics will have a hard time getting money for their elections because

1. Obama is having many fundraisers leaving little room for other Dems
2. Obama has decided not to give any money to Congressional Dems.
The normal amount is about $30 Million.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/obama-team-no-campaign-cash-for-congressional-dems/1
3. Obama is not giving any money to the WI recall election.

I think this will affect the Senate and House races.

What do you think?

David W Pratt
06-03-2012, 12:47 PM
So much for his "spread it around " comment in the last campaign.

Tom Montgomery
06-03-2012, 02:23 PM
I think he's a bad man.

What do you think?

LeeG
06-03-2012, 03:18 PM
I don't feel like thinking

genglandoh
06-04-2012, 07:25 AM
So much for his "spread it around " comment in the last campaign.

Obama is still spreading our (taxpayers) money around.
He just does not want to spread around his (campaign) money.

I think this will hurt the Dems running for the House and Senate.

skuthorp
06-04-2012, 07:37 AM
The amount spent on political propaganda in your election campaigns is almost criminal considering what other needs there are in your society. And unfortunately the press secretaries and unelected 'advisors' are creating the same problem here.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 07:47 AM
I think this will hurt the Dems running for the House and Senate.

Does this make you happy or does this make you sad?

genglandoh
06-04-2012, 07:52 AM
Does this make you happy or does this make you sad?

Being a small Government Guy I am happy when big Tax and Spend Dems do not get elected.

ccmanuals
06-04-2012, 09:10 AM
You prefer the big tax and spend repubs?

Phillip Allen
06-04-2012, 09:14 AM
I see a couple of bilge rats swinging the topic (and the hounds) off the scent... who woulda thunk?

Concordia 33
06-04-2012, 09:19 AM
You prefer the big tax and spend repubs?


I think those (Democrat and Republican) that tax and spend are the problem. Let's have a smaller and learner government first and then see home much we need to tax the citizens. Right now the practice is to add new government employees and programs and then tax up to the new spending. Not the best way to guarantee that all taxes are well spent. Perhaps we should put the GSA in charge of a cost saving program :D

ccmanuals
06-04-2012, 09:23 AM
I think you are describing a sympton. IMHO the problem is we have elected people to congress who are not "men of good will" that would put country before politics.

Phillip Allen
06-04-2012, 09:26 AM
I think you are describing a sympton. IMHO the problem is we have elected people to congress who are not "men of good will" that would put country before politics.

you get the 'Duh' award for today! :)

while I'm at it, do you think the usual posters on politics would put the country's interests ahead of their chosen political favorites? I think not

ccmanuals
06-04-2012, 09:39 AM
you get the 'Duh' award for today! :)

while I'm at it, do you think the usual posters on politics would put the cuntry's interests ahead of their chosen political favorites? I think not

I'm gonna have to return the Duh award back to you for that one. :)

Phillip Allen
06-04-2012, 09:52 AM
:) .

bobbys
06-04-2012, 01:41 PM
It seems to me that the other Democratics will have a hard time getting money for their elections because

1. Obama is having many fundraisers leaving little room for other Dems
2. Obama has decided not to give any money to Congressional Dems.
The normal amount is about $30 Million.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/obama-team-no-campaign-cash-for-congressional-dems/1
3. Obama is not giving any money to the WI recall election.

I think this will affect the Senate and House races.

What do you think?.

Indicative of a narcissistic personality but I only pretend to be a Psychologist/roofer

ljb5
06-04-2012, 01:59 PM
Being a small Government Guy I am happy when big Tax and Spend Dems do not get elected.


I think those (Democrat and Republican) that tax and spend are the problem. Let's have a smaller and learner government first and then see home much we need to tax the citizens. Right now the practice is to add new government employees and programs and then tax up to the new spending. Not the best way to guarantee that all taxes are well spent. Perhaps we should put the GSA in charge of a cost saving program :D

Looks like some people are in denial.

Taxes are way down.

Government employment has decreased since Bush was in office.

Concordia 33
06-04-2012, 02:10 PM
Taxes are way down.

Government employment has decreased since Bush was in office.

I thought you liked facts! :D

The spending by the government has increased! The US works from a baseline budget that assumes approved programs will increase their spending in accordance with approved legislation. In that way, a President can claim spending cuts not by cutting spending, but by reducing the increase. And since we are talking about reduced spending, is it due to the president's budgetary acumen, or the "obstructionist GOP"? The number of government employees are down, but the salries of the existing employees is decidedly up. Except if you are a female government employee who seem to have some pay inequities (see below)

And speaking of facts, you should re-read my post (that you C&P'd) My complaint was that we set the tax rate BEFORE we make sure that our government is spending what is necessary (i.e. tax and spend). Shouldn't we start with figuring out what is necessary, calculating what it will cost, and then adjust the tax rate up or (god forbid) down based on what is needed, not based on what we believe various tax payer segments can afford? For someone that doesn't like posts that omit or ignore facts, you shouldn't misstate mine.


A group of Democrat female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data (http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/5706#) reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference -- Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) -- three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 US Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference -- 41 percent -- was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

The Free Beacon used publicly available salary data from the transparency website Legistorm to calculate the figures, and considered only current full-time staff members who were employed for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.

ccmanuals
06-04-2012, 02:20 PM
LJ was giving you facts. He said "employment." He didn't say spending. Under Bush we saw the largest expansion of gov't employment in our nations history. It has gone down under Obama. ALOT!!

ljb5
06-04-2012, 02:30 PM
I think there are now about 600,000 fewer government employees than there were when Bush left office.

And taxes have not gone up.

Also, I have heard that hundreds of regulations have been simplified or eliminated. Most Republicans probably don't know this.

This seems to be one of those cases of Republicans getting what they want and complaining about it anyway.

Also, I think you're very mistaken about how tax rates are set. Obvisouly, tax rates are set for political reasons, not to fund our spending.

Republicans want low taxes, high spending... and then can't figure out why the deficit is so big. The mind boggles.

Concordia 33
06-04-2012, 02:55 PM
I think there are now about 600,000 fewer government employees than there were when Bush left office.

And taxes have not gone up.

Also, I have heard that hundreds of regulations have been simplified or eliminated. Most Republicans probably don't know this.

This seems to be one of those cases of Republicans getting what they want and complaining about it anyway.

Also, I think you're very mistaken about how tax rates are set. Obvisouly, tax rates are set for political reasons, not to fund our spending.

Republicans want low taxes, high spending... and then can't figure out why the deficit is so big. The mind boggles.

I didn't talk about Republicans OR Democrats I talked about how the government should budget and tax its citizens. If you think it is only Republican politicians that overspend, then it is you that is "very mistaken". I don't care if the person has an (R) or a (D) after their name - I don't work for or benefit from either party's dominance over the other. I just want politicians from both parties that will stop acting like ruling class, and represent the interests of the country and its voters. I don't care how many jobs are cut or added there is tons of government waste, and we cannot figure out how much revenue we need until the waste is cut and we know how much we need to do what is necessary.

As for simplified regulations....How are regulations "simplified" in a healthcare bill with 2700 page?




Don’t bother trying to count up the number of agencies, boards and commissions created under the new health care law. Estimating the number is “impossible,” a recent Congressional Research Service report says, and a true count “unknowable.”
The reasons for the uncertainty are many, according to CRS’s Curtis W. Copeland, the author of the report “New Entities Created Pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The provisions of the law that create the new entities vary dramatically in specificity.
The law says a lot about some of them and a little about many, and merely mentions a few. Some have been authorized without any instructions on who is to appoint whom, when that might happen and who will pay.
Those agencies created without specific appointment or appropriations procedures will have to wait indefinitely for staff and funding before they can function, according to Copeland’s report.
And others could be just the opposite: One entity might not be enough and could spawn others, resulting in an “indeterminate number of new organizations.”
The CRS report cites as an example a minority health provision that “requires the heads of six separate agencies within Health and Human Services to each establish their own offices of minority health.”
Another section, by contrast, says that the Patient-Centered Research Institute “‘may appoint permanent or ad hoc expert advisory panels as determined appropriate.’ How many such panels will be ‘determined appropriate’ by the institute is currently unclear.”
Implicit in the report is a message not to take too seriously the elaborate charts and seemingly precise numbers peddled by Republican critics that are designed to show the law’s many bureaucratic tentacles.
The Center for Health Transformation, founded by Newt Gingrich, recently estimated that the new law created as many as 159 new offices, agencies and programs. Republican staffers on the Joint Economic Committee determined that there were 47 bureaucratic entities.
“Although some observers have asserted that PPACA will result in a precise number of new boards and commissions,” the CRS document reads, “the exact number of new organizations and advisory bodies that will ultimately be created ... is currently unknowable.”
Even in the few cases in which the PPACA set explicit creation dates for organizations, the consequences of missing these deadlines remain unknown.
The legislation, for instance, mandated HHS to establish an Interagency Task Force to Assess and Improve Access to Health in Alaska by May 7, as well as an Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women by May 22.
HHS has yet to appoint members to the breast cancer committee and is currently reviewing nominations, according to HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo. The Alaska task force didn’t hold its first meeting until July 16.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 02:58 PM
Republicans do not tax and spend. Democrats tax and spend.

Republicans spend, borrow, and dismantle.

Concordia 33
06-04-2012, 03:07 PM
Republicans do not tax and spend. Democrats tax and spend.

Republicans spend, borrow, and dismantle.

I think that is pointless hair splitting. you need to look beyond the party and examine the actions regardless of who they caucus with.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 03:18 PM
I do not think it is pointless at all. I have consistently observed that Republican tax-cut-driven deficits are a deliberate long-term strategy to "starve the beast" in order to sufficiently frighten Americans enough that they acquiese to the dismantling of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., as well as to cripple the Federal Government from doing much of anything beyond funding the military.

It has been a successful strategy so far. And utterly irresponsible and cynical, of course.

Concordia 33
06-04-2012, 03:43 PM
I do not think it is pointless at all. I have consistently observed that Republican tax-cut-driven deficits are a deliberate long-term strategy to "starve the beast" in order to sufficiently frighten Americans enough that they acquiese to the dismantling of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., as well as to cripple the Federal Government from doing much of anything beyond funding the military.

It has been a successful strategy so far. And utterly irresponsible and cynical, of course.

Are they really trying to "starve" Medicare and Social Security or could it be that they see that both will run out of money sooner than expected and that the Generations X'ers and beyond will pay the price for the "boomers" to get their Social Security and Medicare. I like Medicare and Social Security, but I I do not want to utilize these benefits at the expense of future generations. Somebody needs to do it. The Senate hasn't approved a budget in 3 years despite their constitutional obligation to do so.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 03:49 PM
The rightwingers who now control the Republican Party are not interested in fixing Social Security and Medicare. All they are interested in doing is to create a political environment in this country, driven by economic fear, that will acquiese to them -- to paraphrase Grover Norquist -- drowning such federal programs in the bathtub.

When people like Norquist, Mitch McConnell, and Rand Paul speak everyone should listen and take them absolutely seriously.

Concordia 33
06-04-2012, 03:51 PM
The rightwingers who now control the Republican Party are not interested in fixing Social Security and Medicare. All they are interested in doing is to creating a political environment in this country, driven by economic fear, that will acquiese to them -- to paraphrase Grover Norquist -- drowning such federal programs in the bathtub.

I don't believe that any more than I believe that Democrats want the US to be a socialist country. You need to look beyond the stereotypes and the party affiliations.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 03:53 PM
If it is not true, how do you explain so many Republicans signing onto Grover Norquist's no-taxes-under-any-circumstances pledge? I not only believe it to be true... I think anyone who does not is naive and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

When people like Norquist, Mitch McConnell, and Rand Paul speak everyone should listen and take them absolutely seriously.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 04:13 PM
Norquist favors dramatically reducing the size of the government. He has been noted for his widely quoted quip: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Journalist William Greider quotes him saying his goal is to bring America back to what it was `up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.`When asked by journalist Steven Kroft about the goal of chopping government "in half and then shrink it again to where we were at the turn of the century" before social security and medicare, Norquist replied, "We functioned in this country with government at eight percent of GDP for a long time and quite well."


As of late 2011, 238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", in which the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."


All but one 2012 GOP presidential candidates, including Mitt Romney, has also signed the pledge.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 04:17 PM
Recently Jeb Bush, to his credit, publicly refused to sign Norquist's pledge. Norquist reacted by publicly accusing Bush of thereby insulting Mitt Romney (who did sign the pledge).

This is no longer our father's Republican Party.

wardd
06-04-2012, 04:21 PM
Recently Jeb Bush, to his credit, publicly refused to sign Norquist's pledge. Norquist reacted by publicly accusing Bush of thereby insulting Mitt Romney (who did sign the pledge).

This is no longer our father's Republican Party.

it's the same as it has been since eisenhower

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 04:26 PM
Correction: Since Gerald Ford.... today's GOP evolved from Reagan and the rightwing of the party. If Barry Goldwater were still alive and politically active the tea-partiers and social conservatives would belittle him as a RINO.

Hank Rearden
06-04-2012, 05:51 PM
I think you are describing a sympton. IMHO the problem is we have elected people to congress who are not "men of good will" that would put country before politics.

Yes, but we're working on getting rid of them. We made good progress in '10, we just need to keep the momentum going in '12.

ccmanuals
06-04-2012, 08:11 PM
Yes, but we're working on getting rid of them. We made good progress in '10, we just need to keep the momentum going in '12.

The problem is those elected in 10 from the tparty were not men of good will. They are not governing with the interest of the people in mind.