West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(136 posts)

Candidates - we need to pay attention - Part deux

Started 3 months ago by JanS
Latest reply from elikapeka

JanS
Member Profile

http://www.truth-out.org/romney-collects-more-donations-five-biggest-banks-all-other-candidates-combined/1327760394#.TyU8xSQ_oeg.twitter

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

From the linked article:

Employees at the five largest U.S. banks by assets, including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., had given Romney about $600,000 through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the most recent filings available from the Federal Election Commission.

Six hundred grand? —Big deal. That's not much for a Presidential race. Romney makes several times that amount in a year, doesn't he? And it's not like banks have to bribe him to do their bidding anyway. He'd do it for free. He's openly opposed to regulating big banks, as the article points out.

So where's the scandal?

But . . . while we're paying attention, we should pay attention to this (also from the article):

So far, the financial industry has made 69 percent of its donations in the presidential race to Republicans, a trend that, if it continues, “would mark the most skewed to one party the spending has been in more than two decades.”

OK, so what that tells us is that, notwithstanding the recent trend, the big banks usually give money to both Republicans AND Democrats.

And what does that tell us?

–Well I don't know what it tells you, but it tells me that banks are generally pretty happy with our current two-party system. They seem to get what they want no matter who's in office.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

true, true..

what I thought more interesting today, and obviously shows how I feel about things is...Newt Gingrich, on speaking about his poor showing in the Thursday evening debate said.."You can't debate with someone who is dishonest". He meant Romney. Maybe he should be looking in a mirror?

Posted 3 months ago #
clark5080
Member Profile

You can count Dwight Pelz in on this also
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017363709_truthneedle29m.html

I am kinda getting tired of both parties just wish these guy's would start telling true facts.

Posted 3 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

So...just regurgitating main stream NBC info here...estimated $24 million spent on attack adds so far...both Candidate against Candidate and Party against Party...

Who can possibly get (understand enough to make a decision) the real facts on any of these ads?

Does it not trouble anyone - especially law makers - that the majority of campaign contributions go to spreading lies and hatred in our country - built on the exact opposite?

What the hell is our country coming to that aspiring & actual presidents perceive they have to, get to, want to, spend more on attack ads than many of their possible voters will ever make in their lives?

Ads should be run on what the candidates position is and what they will do...any information to the contrary about other candidates is baseless drivel.

Get with the program and show us some human integrity and regard for real values!

Signed...Naive American...Wishful Thinker...and Hopeful that Real Change continues...

Posted 3 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

Are not most of the attack ads coming from Super Pacs? I think some of them are from the respective campaigns, but I have been hearing the worst are from the SuperPacs.

One thing, the fact check sites and people are going to get busier and busier.

Part of me wants to learn more about these groups but part of me just wants them to go away.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

There's a big part of me that wants the candidates to tell the SuperPacs to jump, if you get my drift. Tell them in no uncertain terms that the ads are not welcome, and to not do it. No endorsements, etc. I know that's naive wishing, but, if the candidates were so against the ads, they'd be more vocal about it. Otherwise I'm thinking they agree with the SuperPacs.Kinda all makes my stomach turn...that whole "corporations are people" thing.

Posted 3 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

we also have to address where the money is going.

corporate media is enamored with campaign fund raising, because most if it goes right into their pockets. which is why you'll never, ever hear any big media pundit advocate limiting campaign contributions. citizens united v FEC was the best thing that ever happened to them.

talk about redistribution of wealth...

ironically, without the same levels of cash that superPACs have, people who want campaign finance reform - or even want to talk seriously about campaign finance reform - have no way to disseminate their argument on a national scale.

i'm glad obama understands campaign fund raising. trying to complain republicans' corporate fund raising away would be futile and stupid. i'm not saying it's right; i'm just saying i'm glad that the democrat in the presidential race knows how to play the game.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

And Obama is raising 1 billion from where? Occupy? He is still the crown king of banking money and his special interests fund raisers. The man has two 35K per plate dinners in one day! Ya think those folks are motivated by altruism? It goes both ways Jam... and it's dueling dollars and competing fairy tales. Corporations are as much people as Occupy is, as unions are, as is MoveOn.org etc. etc.etc.... look at the Wisconsin election... swamped with tens of millions of union dollars... most of it out of state. So, corporations with vested interests in doing business should be restricted from bundling to get their message out? The only sour grapes this election cycle is republicans are going to outspend democrats cause' they are better funded... this time. Last time it was Democrats who got the dough. They crushed McCain in sheer dollar volume. Our turn.

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch...

Obama is only the crowned king of bank money if you assume no bank money comes from the financing industry or from wall street...

and you ignore the current stats.

if it looks like Obama is going to win, the banks will get on board in a hurry ...

but until that happens, he is not the one raking in the funds...

today's release of stats on superfund spending tells a much different story than yours.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

Dirt...I love dirt ! :D

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

He is still the reigning monarch of special interest money. He keeps the title until it is taken away. Which will probably happen this election cycle. I take great delight in the proverbial turn of the worm. It's our turn. Jobs. Jobs... Jobs..... I see Jan layoffs were 39 per cent higher this month than the same period last year. The agony never ends... four years of this misery is enough.

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch..

Obama only became "king" of the special interest money when special interests figured out that he was likely to win the election and wouldn't be beholding to them when he assumed his office.

then they couldn't wait to get on the bandwagon and buy access.

so what exactly does that say about the candidates who get that money from the get-go.. like Romney? that big business has assured access?

that says a lot about which worm you back.

as for those job numbers

you must define jobs as any employment...
like the right to work states that have seen a steady drop in their median wage

even so... who exactly do you see providing the minimum wage jobs if Obama is somehow defeated?

The service sector only flourishes when there is a robust middle class that consumes services.

if it isn't good business it isn't going to fly.. is it?

get a grip kootch...

you can rant all you want

but when professionals found themselves overqualified for the only available jobs and underemployed at best...
the kool-aid went sour.

the golden kids have had their toys taken away...
and they are smart enough to figure out who did it.

Most Americans don't think America's rosy future lies in making America a third world country.

only the 1%
and the 1% wannabees

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Not true at all JoB......more wishful thinking. What HAS increased is the cost of supporting state and county governments... since there is no real impact on private industry which is not unionized. The cost of government is the only escalating cost in non RTW states. The Federal Reserve calls full employment 5.2 per cent. 4 year college graduates, even with the "soft" degrees, are currently below the 5.2 per cent rate. Talk about a third world economy... spending 40% more than you take in as revenue, and a national deficit that is 100% of GDP... that my dear is Banana Republic numbers... Honduran economics. Promise everything to everyone...run out of money? No problemo ... print more!!! Borrow More!! oh yea... blame the Yanqui devil too !!!

Posted 3 months ago #
365Stairs
Member Profile

We all put our foot in our mouth's from time to time...but when candidates for presidents do it...it is pretty funny....Taken in or out of context...ol' Mitt dug a little hole with "I'm not concerned with the very poor.."

"We have a safety net" for the very poor, Romney told CNN's Soledad O'Brien on Wednesday. "If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich; they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90%, 95% of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."

2011: Trump 'impressed' with Romney

Trump: Romney a 'small business' guy

Romney battles out-of-touch image

Romney taking heat for 'poor' comments Pressed by O'Brien, Romney noted that the poorest Americans have access to food stamps, Medicaid and housing vouchers.

"You can choose where to focus," he said. "You can focus on the rich; that's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor; that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans."

Romney later insisted that his words were taken out of context and reiterated the full context of the quote, which was meant to stress his focus on the middle class.

"You've got to take the whole sentence, (or else) it sounds very different," he said. "We have a safety net for the poor. ... If there are people that are falling through the cracks, I want to fix that."

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

and then there's this...can you say "out of touch"?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/02/03/gingrich-santorum-trash-planned-parenthood/

Posted 3 months ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

How is being against killing a baby "out of touch"? Sorry, but the 3 percent figure is a joke, regardless of your views. It's 3 percent of all services rendered. It is closer to 40 percent if they were honest.

Why people would boycott a cause dedicated to saving women's lives because that same group opposes killing future women(and men) boggles the mind.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

and you know this because? the numbers, I mean...please quote a source. Now..why do you think that Komen reversed itself? Honestly...we have different views on abortion, it seems. You, being a guy, really are at a disadvantage, aren't you? I have carried a baby inside me (now 31 years old). But..she could not live outside my body for a very long long time. We will not get into exactly what day here, that's not the point. NO, I could never have an abortion on consent. That doesn't mean that I think it should be outlawed. I believe it's a choice. And right now it's legally a choice, and that's simply the way it is. It is NOT murder.

Gingrich and Santorum can feel anyway they want to about it, but Komen reversed itself because of money, pure and simple. Planned Parenthood is widely supported, and they realized the mistake they made and corrected it. They bowed to the wishes of many, many people. They are not dumb. But Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum don't give a flying fig what the populace wants, desires, needs. That's where they are out of touch.

You may feel anyway you want about abortion, but it's a legal medical procedure. And will remain so for the immediate future. So get over yourself. Komen, if we are to believe them, have stated over and over again that this had nothing to do with the ability of PP to provide abortions. It was supposedly because PP was "under investigation" by someone, for what? we have no idea. It's at best a witchhunt by someone named Stearns in Florida. There really is no official "investigation" on, no paperwork, no anything on it, except that he said he is investigating them. Yeah, that's something, isn't it?

Posted 3 months ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

So now that pp has politicized it do you think Komen will get fewer donations than they would have previously? I do. Pro life groups will now boycott Komen....nobody wins, especially women.

And........because abortion is legal I should "get over it"? Nice. Does that apply to laws against gay marriage as well? I sure hope not.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

Komen politicized it, no matter what they say. They were completely blindsided by people who protested. I am a breast cancer survivor (are you?) , and I am having serious doubts about this organization. as to how they spend their money. This is an organization that has spent a million bucks taking small mom and pop fundraisers to court so they don't use "for the cure" or "for a cure".( the grants to PP was only $600K, although it helped a lot of women get screenings) These were little fundraisers raising money for cancer...lung, ovarian, breast, etc. Yet, Komen would rather these little fundraisers spend what little money they have fighting the big organization in court instead of the money going to where it should. So...they brought this all on themselves. Komen isn't the only organization raising money for cancer.

I'm not here to argue abortion pros and cons with anyone. This isn't supposed to be about abortion in the first place, according to Komen. If pro life people are truly pro life, they won't withhold donations. That might not help women beat cancer. How the hell is that prolife? Or is it just prolife until you're born, and then you're on your own? That makes no sense to me. Unless everything is just about abortion, and then that's just very sad.

Posted 3 months ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

"Unless everything is just about abortion, and then that's just very sad."

That is exactly right. I am glad we agree!

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

and that was my point about Gingrich and Santorum...Planned Parenthood does so much more than abortions..and it's all good. Yet, all that other stuff will fall by the wayside because of the beliefs of those against abortion...a very, very legal medical procedure. It's like cutting off the nose to spite the face...

Posted 3 months ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

Cutting off your nose to spite the face is exactly my point. Why try to kill a group that dedicates itself to saving womens lives because they disargee on one thing?

And for PP to complain about a gift not given is the highest form of presumption and arrogance.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

so..we do not agree after all. Komen may soun d like it dedicates itself to saving women's lives...do you have any idea where their monies actually go? And...who thought of the idea to get rid of Planned Parenthood?

Do you realize that Planned Parenthood is also in the business of saving women's lives, that they are there for the health and wellness of women without means? Do you even care? Or..oooo...they provide abortion, they are bad....is that how it is with you?

Again..as Komen has said..and you hold them to such a high pedestal...this is not about abortion. And isn't political. So...let's remove abortion from this conversation..now what's your problem with PP getting 600K per year from Komen? (The head of Komen gets paid almost that much per year)

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Smitty...

don't kid yourself that abortion is the only target here...

if planned parenthood didn't provide a single abortion they would still be a target because they provide information on family planning and birth control.

the biggest problem with the pro life movement is that politically it has forgotten the women who are a necessary part of the birth process.

the women who pick up the tab when it comes to "saving the baby" at all costs..

especially when those costs include denying them life saving medical care because the organization they get that care from also provides birth control.

I am one of those who chose to cease funding the Korman foundation...

When the Korman foundation stopped concerning itself with women's health and started playing partisan politics, they lost my support.

i don't see anyone trying to kill a group that dedicates itself to saving women's lives...

i see people choosing to save another group that saves women's lives

As a contributor, i get to make that that choice.

no wonder the right wing is so rabidly anti-choice..
give a woman the opportunity and who knows what choices she will make ;->

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

levity...we need levity...this made me laugh so hard I started crying...

http://gawker.com/5791100/watch-stephen-colberts-defense-of-planned-parenthood

Posted 3 months ago #
waynster
Member Profile

Jan the walgreens colonoscopy was great lmao.....Who knows kootch might try it on the poor just to save a tea party buck lol.... after all 90% of planned parenthoods money goes to abortion....wait that wasn't intended to be a factual statement from the senator from arizona....lmao

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Actually Jan you misstate the case entirely. The right has no objection to birth control. Unless a religious doctrine and belief involved is being trampled on by the state ...most conservatives practice birth control as a matter of choice. , The Catholic church has a doctrinal objection, but the church is free association, Catholics don't mandate your enrollment as a parishioner do they? . Conservatives will defend the absolute right of the Catholic (and others) faith to not sponsor and participate in birth control as a matter of religious conscience. It's consistant with our constitutional construct. even in times of national defense or peril we have respected conscience.. witness the military who has respected conscientious objectors throughout our history, despite Supreme Court rulings that conscription is legal, and constitutional. Bet you support that interpretation don't ya? Abortion remains contentious as a matter of conscience. It spans multiple faiths. I can well remember the left of the 60's screaming that abortion was an ethnic genocide...and some black churches still assert this position. Willful termination of a viable human life is what it is. Treating it as elective surgery akin to breast implants or a nose job has the country at about a 50/50 split. We have been down the road of state sponsored terminations of life.... We have mandated it in the past for mental defectives, ethnicity, income class, religious affiliation, orphan status, and for scientific curiousity. Next up? Balance the budget on the force of abortions. Of course we always say it can never happen... until it does happen. While abortion is 3% or 5%..of PP activity (why quibble?) it provides a much larger sum of proportional revenue. Bottom line it's a revenue generator for PP. It's the right thing to allow voices of conscience. 330,000 terminations by PP alone is not a trivial affair that should escape the scrutiny of a society constantly. It may well be the right that preserves reproduction rights.... when a genetic screening reveals a potential inherited trait that would might cause increased insurance expense, or special needs education.. and the state asserts its powers or succumbs to an insurance lobby for a campaign donation.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

Regardless of what you , as a Catholic, believe, abortion is a legal medical procedure. Your opinion has no sway with me, thank you very much. Please quote your source of the number 330,000. Oh, and do you honestly think that women treat abortion like a nose job or getting implants? Seriously? That's moronic at best.

Again..Komen originally said that this was not political, not about abortion (of course, thinking people saw through this sham easily), but if (big IF) what Komen said was true, this discussion should never have even mentioned abortion.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

It is a legal procedure. No one argued that point... I didn't. You eschew the entire argument though, of respecting conscience. Although I find it ironic that the freedom of abortion advocates actually ponied up and donated money for a change..donations up 500% according to PP... instead of relying on federal support. This controversy would go a long way towards being moot if the "pro-choice" advocates supported their principals as well as the "pro-life" groups funded their groups. The federal government would be out of the picture. That would cool the fires a bit. My stats? .. right from Planned Parenthood... as required by law they must release them. Good enough source for ya?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

AborTion services — 3.0 PercenT oF services in 2010
Abortion Procedures 329,445

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

aw, geez, Kootch...do you honestly think we're all just dumb deadbeats who rely on gov't. handouts every day to exist? Do you honestly think that us "liberals" don't give to charities? We put our money (when we can) where our mouth is. It's not exclusive territory for rightwing conservatives.....where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

Pro life? They were willing to throw low income women's healthcare under the bus because of their anti-choice beliefs...so don't feed me the crock that you hand out about pro-life people being all that caring. I don't buy it.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

oh, and while you were looking at that page, did you notice the breast cancer screening stats? Yet...because of the personal views of the now resigned Karen Handel and others, they were very, very willing to let that go by the wayside...now that's really caring about women's health...is it any wonder people objected? Do you not see anything wrong with that? I do.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Not nearly as muh as conservatives. Not even close. Obama .. funny gave 1% to charity and Romney 10%.... great.. soon as PP gets out of the abortion mill business... the objective of about 50% of the American populace the issue goes away.. then they are a health care provider and can generate revenue from everyone... . As long as "only" 3 per cent of the business is abortion, such an anathema to so many a "mere drop in the bucket. the issue can go away. As long as there is a violation of conscience, with public monies, the fight continues.. and I would say from the stats, closures, restrictions, it would be smart cause the right to abortion on demand is losing ground. The right to life coalitions are winning the gound game. Fewer and fewer targets so the fire of the right to life becomes more and more targeted and concentrated. PP is in the proverbial "kill box".. by their own choice. There is no shortage of breast screening exam centers that Komen could fund... there are fewer and fewer termination of life on demand centers. BTY.. I am not a Catholic... go figure eh?

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Here ya go Jan... a liberal on liberals....what we already know...

"I came across an article that appeared in the New York Times called “Bleeding Heart Tightwads” by Nicholas D. Kristof. Kristof, a liberal, goes on to say that liberals tend to be stingy when it comes to giving to charity. I found it to be very interesting and also contradictory to what I originally believed."

http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/

But go ahead and make a comment on spelling or some other issue that deflects the facts. Liberals talk a good game.. conservatives actually do something. Go PP.. if you can pry a few liberal dollars lose... money where the talk is... it would be refreshing news.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I never looked at this as a contest to see who does more. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, we do more , we're better than you. It's all BS, and frankly, is superficial.The most nonsensical stuff turns up in conversations, don't you think? Oh, please, you might give more than me...so what. I, and my friends, give what we can, when we can. I try not to pay attention to what others give, nor am I envious of them, nor do I donate to show that I do more than the next person. But you continue to think however you want. People of all ilks give, and that's what's important.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

Let me put it this way...when we form a donors group for NV, do you think we bother to ask if the donors are republican or democrat, liberal or conservative? Do we keep track of who does more, who donates more time, more money, cooks more meals, spends more time there? No...because it's not important. What IS important is that there are people volunteering to help. It all counts...

Posted 3 months ago #
miws
Member Profile

Jan's post 36 FTW.

I know for a fact, that NV has benefited greatly from the generosity of many of the folks here in the WSB Forums, both conservatives, (including kootch) and liberals.

Annnnnnddddd, that generosity doesn't always come in the form of money, food, or clothes and such. I may be someone providing transportation to another Donor that doesn't drive.

It might be writing the City Council, and/or Mayor to urge them to recognize the Camp as being a legal occupant of the site, and then getting water and other utilities. (I have a hunch that much of that goes on behind the scenes, and readers of WSB, and Camp Residents don't even realize a given person has done so).

Or, it may be simply suggesting to others that post free stuff here on the Forums,or even stuff they are selling; "If you can't sell it, would you consider donating it to Nickelsville?"

It might be posting a needs/wish list, or something else, that supports or benefits NV.

To me, it isn't always the "value" of the Donation, but "the thought that counts". It's about making any contribution that helps out Nickelsville and it's Residents.

Mike

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Let me put it this way... "They were willing to throw low income women's healthcare under the bus because of their anti-choice beliefs" Not so. They are willing to throw PP under the bus. That is a distinction to consider. PP has made a pointed decision to offer abortion in the menu of services. I will give them credit for a principaled decision. They believe it. But half the country doesn't and should not be compelled to subsidize the taking of unborn life. Conservatives are the very backbone of charitable giving, percentage and quantity. A point that should be made. That includes healthcare. I said it was ironic, and it is, that there was according to PP a 500 per cent increase in their funding since the Komen affair.. seems the left can find the money in their own pockets after all. If they love to support the PP group...they should keep up the donations and get PP off the public finance roster. Problem solved. Funny... conservatives have to quote the very public PP documents when liberals want the source of their assertions.... like while only 3 per cent of their services... it does provide 40 per cent of their fees for service revenue. It's all in how you present the data. It's also why 30 second attack ads work... both sides. All they do is whip up the foam..and reinforce preconceived notions... politicians know they have an uneducated electorate that is likely to stay that way. We love being reinforced about our own beliefs.

Posted 3 months ago #
dhg
Member Profile

It would be very unfair to make the liberals support PP when the largest consumers of abortions come from the the very conservative groups.

Don't like abortions? Invest in good sex ed, pass out condoms to teenagers. The very things conservatives refuse to do are the things proven to reduce abortions.

And while we are at it: the director of sg komen should not be paid $5 mil / year. No one at a nonprofit should be pulling down that much.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Oh do show me that data dhg... that is a pull it out of thin air fabrication. Show me the data on that one !!! PP doing political surveys now when offering services, after treatment phone polling.? . oh do tell where this "fact" comes from... some source besides myth. But go ahead...pass out condoms to your kids if so compelled. I will take on the sex education role....for mine, thank-you... it;s my job. Like feeding them, clothing them, educating them, bath time, teeth brushing, bedtime stories... I see the sex ed curriculum in the LA school districts... bondage pictures of 3rd graders by their teachers... no thanks. Some things are just not the purview of the social engineers. Trying to get em young eh?

Posted 3 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

of course conservatives give more money to charity. as a demographic, conservatives have more money to give.

in other news, water is wet.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Huh? Tell that to Soros, Gates, Buffett, now there is a trifecta ... et al. They are taught to give as part of their conservative tradition could also be a reason. Are you suggesting redblack that a fundamental requirement to financial success is to be a conservative? You may actually have a valid point. Welcome aboard! Live long and prosper you closet right winger! If ya read the article redblack... as a percentage of giving conservatives far outperform liberals. Even if they have more as you seem to think...on a one to one basis they give more. The article rated the states as a percentage of income.... irregardless of actual wealth. Poor conservatives donate more readlly than rich liberals... Alabama and Mississippi conservatives donate more of their income than Seattle!!!!! Liberals are stingy. The voice of more as long as someone else pays for it!!!! Look at the data redblack...

Posted 3 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

wow. soros, gates, and buffet. you got me there!

any others? drop some hollywood bigwigs' names, maybe?

which way do you want it? do liberals give more?

Obama .. funny gave 1% to charity and Romney 10%

the simple fact is that romney has about 1,000 times the net worth of the obamas. so pretending that willard gives more out of the goodness of his black little heart instead of the overwhelming magnitude of his wealth is disingenuous, at best.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Michael Franks... Heritage Foundation

"Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats."

read that redblack? left wingers are tightwads.

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Romney has given 10 per cent of his wealth all his life...so... ya think the Obamas who ARE in the 1% are good to go with 1%... how do you live with the inconsistancy? You are the one who stated conservatives have more of the wealth.that's why they give more.. and gosh..the data says that ain't so. They give more because they are more generous.

This was your statement...and it isn't fact

"of course conservatives give more money to charity. as a demographic, conservatives have more money to give."

Since ya asked though.. if the liberals who have more, and matched the giving of conservatives who "out give" by a factor of over 120 per cent... whew...we could solve a lot of problems. Catch up with conservatives... there is a worthy challenge!!! Imagine more than doubling charitable giving without a single increase in taxes!!! Maybe we could shame the shameless. ..Alabama outranks WA. OR, MA, DE, CA in generosity.....

http://geocommons.com/maps/2050

Posted 3 months ago #
dhg
Member Profile

Fox distorts the news a tad. If you use the same math calculations on Romney and Obama tax returns, the first family gave more

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201290004

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

No they got taxed more...voluntary giving... that which comes from personal choice, not government confiscation.. Romney gave more and has done so routinely ... all his life. He tithes. Media Matters eh? Oh hell.. I am going to quote The Heritage Foundation to death... at least I quoted and sourced a liberal.

Where are those stats that conservatives use abortion services the most? I do so want to see them dhg.. I showed you mine...you show me yours.

http://geocommons.com/maps/2050

Posted 3 months ago #
dhg
Member Profile

Regarding use of services: Catholics, 24% of the population in America, account for 31% of all abortions; Evangelicals 27% / 18%;

And you think they shouldn't contribute to PP?

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Posted 3 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Nope. The population is an even distribution my stats sourced, for Catholics who use the service in proportion to their population and evangelicals who use it less.... and your stats as interesting as they are..come from PP. ... I still doubt the data. Its PP provided data...But even if so...oiver 50 per cent of the US population does not support abortion.. and that is intolerable to place that assault on conscience. PP should stand on the support of its protagonists and not confiscation from those who vehemently oppose it on ethical conscience. If it has merit... it should stand on its own.

But do take the task on.... as liberal, progressives, write some checks and show your support. Take away the federal funding. For certain the abortion debate is going towards more restriction and more curtailment and as long as it is in the public arena ... it's fair game. A private foundation doesn't have to contend with the battles of the legitimate protest of a public provided service. Abortions are in decline, in part by access to birth control, and in part by there being more restrictions to access which result in more deliberate decision... almost 60 per cent of abortion on demand is for women over the age of 20... sorta past the age of "geez ... how did that happen?"

Posted 3 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

there's no inconsistency. if a guy who makes $100,000 per year gives 1% of his income to charity, i'd call that pretty generous.

a guy who makes $20 million per year giving 10% of his income to charity is someone looking to write off some taxes.

it's a matter of scale. it's easy to yell "romney gave $2 million to charity, and the obamas only gave $1,000! ha! stupid liberal tightwads!" ...if you don't understand the numbers.

interesting take on wealthiest households, etc. i'd like to see the concentration of wealth in the districts and states that you mention, though.

for example, in those wealthy democratic districts, i'm guessing there's greater population density - the nation's population is concentrated in the blue states, after all. then there's alabama, where i'm guessing there's a warren of extremely oil-wealthy oligarchs. in other words, the blue "tightwad" districts probably have more people in the 98th percentile of income-earners, while the holier-than-thou red districts have a few 1-percenters.

Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^