- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 29, 2012 at 7:44 pm #602021
JanSParticipantJanuary 30, 2012 at 2:56 am #746594
DBPMemberFrom 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.
January 30, 2012 at 3:00 am #746595
JanSParticipanttrue, 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?
January 30, 2012 at 3:15 am #746596
clark5080ParticipantYou 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.
January 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm #746597
365StairsParticipantSo…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…
January 30, 2012 at 10:25 pm #746598
HMC RichParticipantAre 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.
January 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm #746599
JanSParticipantThere’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.
February 1, 2012 at 2:30 pm #746600
redblackParticipantwe 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.
February 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm #746601
kootchmanMemberAnd 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.
February 2, 2012 at 12:18 am #746602
JoBParticipantkootch…
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.
February 2, 2012 at 12:43 am #746603
JanSParticipantFebruary 2, 2012 at 2:29 pm #746604
kootchmanMemberHe 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.
February 2, 2012 at 5:14 pm #746605
JoBParticipantkootch..
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
February 2, 2012 at 8:22 pm #746606
kootchmanMemberNot 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 !!!
February 2, 2012 at 8:24 pm #746607
365StairsParticipantWe 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.”
February 4, 2012 at 4:35 am #746608
JanSParticipantand then there’s this…can you say “out of touch”?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/02/03/gingrich-santorum-trash-planned-parenthood/
February 4, 2012 at 5:00 am #746609
SmittyParticipantHow 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.
February 4, 2012 at 5:19 am #746610
JanSParticipantand 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?
February 4, 2012 at 5:33 am #746611
SmittyParticipantSo 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.
February 4, 2012 at 5:42 am #746612
JanSParticipantKomen 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.
February 4, 2012 at 5:53 am #746613
SmittyParticipant“Unless everything is just about abortion, and then that’s just very sad.”
That is exactly right. I am glad we agree!
February 4, 2012 at 6:00 am #746614
JanSParticipantand 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…
February 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm #746615
SmittyParticipantCutting 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.
February 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm #746616
JanSParticipantso..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)
February 4, 2012 at 7:24 pm #746617
JoBParticipantSmitty…
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 ;->
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.