• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Record Spending On 2012 Elections By GOP Groups

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist


"Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives -- including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November's elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups' internal operations. That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections - twice what they had been expected to commit. Just the spending linked to the Koch network is more than the $370 million that John McCain raised for his entire presidential campaign four years ago. And the $1 billion total surpasses the $750 million that Barack Obama, one of the most prolific fundraisers ever, collected for his 2008 campaign...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.​
Click to expand...


Holy **** that is a **** ton of money! I expect the same **** from Obama. But dear god! This just adds into my feeling that democracy in the US is for sale. And the politicians are almost puppets on a string from these ****s

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
​
 
both sides equally guilty.

i don't like the way the system is set up, but i'm not sure how we can change it when SCOTUS has determined that money = speech.
 
Didn't Obama raise one billion dollars last election? I think the OP's outrage is about 4 years behind.
 
X Factor said:
Didn't Obama raise one billion dollars last election? I think the OP's outrage is about 4 years behind.
Click to expand...

obama raised 3/4 of a billion in 08,the bad part about it was he didnt ditch the public funding to get money until towards the end,at the rate he was funded in 08,he could have easily pushed 1.5 bil plus if he had started early in the game instead of promisingto use public funding only.
 
The record campaign spending is mainly due to the relative closeness of the 2012 political contest(s) and to the dire consequences of maintaining the current borrow and spend nonsense that passes for a federal "budget". The current DC financial situation is unsustainable, yet neither the spending cutters nor the tax raisers can get a solid majority, so NOTHING gets done now.

What is driving this massive borrow and spend binge are morons in DC that will neither cut federal spending nor raise federal taxes to pay for it. These DC morons have decided (realized?) that they will be re-elected, for the most part, by keeping all gov't programs intact (plus COLA adjustments) and not raising anyone's taxes. That way they get the votes of those getting gov't assistance and those that have had their taxation frozen at a rate they feel "good" about.

To far too may people, the national debt is simply an abstract concept. While they understand personal debt, like a home mortgage, that may be 3 to 5x what their annual income is, they view national debt basically the same way, so it is "no big deal" to them (at about the same as 6x annual income). Unlike that personal mortagage debt, however, the national debt is neither secured by an asset nor is it getting smaller over time, in fact, federal finances (you can't really call it a "budget") are allowed to spend 40% more, every year, than its tax income covers. That is like a worker making $100K spending $140K every year, it is completely unsustainable.

We have two distinct groups of voters in this nation now; 1) those that get direct gov't assistance, work for the gov't (federal, state or local) and those that primarily do business with gov't and 2) those, outside the first group, that pay the bulk of the federal taxes and depend totally on the private economy. These groups are almost exactly the same size now as far as voter representation, putting our nation in a dangerous situation where neither gov't spending cuts nor tax increases are politically possible without tipping the balance to favor the other half; so we "compromise" and simply borrow and spend.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Holy **** that is a **** ton of money! I expect the same **** from Obama. But dear god! This just adds into my feeling that democracy in the US is for sale. And the politicians are almost puppets on a string from these ****s

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

I thought the Republican party was the party of fiscal restraint. So much for that.
 
Phys251 said:
I thought the Republican party was the party of fiscal restraint. So much for that.
Click to expand...

Hey, they're spending money freely given to them, just as the Dems are doing. It's like a business, it's a voluntary relationship. That's different than spending tax money that people are obligated to pay. The notion of fiscal restraint deals with the latter.
 
Hey, politicians don't come cheap. :mrgreen:


It's all part of the game. Both parties do it. Nothing new.
 
Phys251 said:
I thought the Republican party was the party of fiscal restraint. So much for that.
Click to expand...

There is one drastic difference, what the Republicans are doing is donating their own personal money. Interesting how you connect a person spending their own money with spending taxpayer money. But being you made that connection, Obama has raised the national debt by 6 trillion in just 4 yrs. Democrats not the party of fiscal restraint.
 
wbcoleman said:
Doesn't Proctor & Gamble spend more money promoting Pampers?
Click to expand...


I really don't know. But how does Proctor and Gamble's advertisng budget relate to political campaign contributions?

I think buying influence with a political candidate is not in the same arena as advertising your business products. Maybe you don't. I'd be interested in how you see the two relate. Thanks.
 
Fantastic! Let them spend, spend and spend some more. Good for the economy. /s

Have yet to cast my vote based on campaign ads. Sadly though some do.
 
Born Free said:
There is one drastic difference, what the Republicans are doing is donating their own personal money. Interesting how you connect a person spending their own money with spending taxpayer money. But being you made that connection, Obama has raised the national debt by 6 trillion in just 4 yrs. Democrats not the party of fiscal restraint.
Click to expand...

But much of that money comes from corporations, which could have passed it on as savings to their customers.

And please let the Obama debt half-truth die. He inherited from Bush a $1.3-trillion deficit, which he has stabilized even in the midst of a painfully slow recovery.
 
What I think is sad is that to be elected you must spend that kind of money :shrug:
 
digsbe said:
What I think is sad is that to be elected you must spend that kind of money :shrug:
Click to expand...

And it's only gotten far worse since Citizens United.
 
Here's something I don't think many people are taking into consideration during all these SuperPAC campaign spending debates...

If the economy is doing so bad and investor confidence is so low and the wealthy - the real so-call "job creators" - are suppose to use their money to grow their businesses, WHY ARE SO MANY WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS DONATING MILLIONS TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS instead of putting that money back into growing and expanding their businesses?

The answer is simple: Millions of dollars are being wasted trying to win over one political candidate over another all so that the walth-class can influence economic policies. (See post #5 which hit the nail squarely on the head on this point!!!)

But while crony-capitalism is busy kissing up to the politicians, the middle-class continues to struggle trying to make ends meet. Meanwhile, SuperPACs not only continue to muddle the issues making it more and more difficult to decern fact from fiction, the truth from the lie, they're also drowning out the voice of the People. It's no wonder people are starting to call for a 3rd-party candidate with no ties to either party to get into the presidential race. Democracy? More and more I'm beginning to thing it left this country several years ago.
 
Redbeard said:
Fantastic! Let them spend, spend and spend some more. Good for the economy. /s

Have yet to cast my vote based on campaign ads. Sadly though some do.
Click to expand...

How is spending millions on campaign ads good for the economy? The consumers don't win a thing from this partisan mudslinging on either side.
 
Phys251 said:
But much of that money comes from corporations, which could have passed it on as savings to their customers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and union money, which could be left in members pocket to buy more goods and services, you know the working class.

And please let the Obama debt half-truth die. He inherited from Bush a $1.3-trillion deficit, which he has stabilized even in the midst of a painfully slow recovery.
Click to expand...

Nice try, Bush increased the national debt by 5 trillion in 8 yrs, vs, Obama's 6 trillion in just 4 yrs. Obama has increased the national debt higher and faster then any president before him. Further under Obama, he has the privileged of being the first president to have our debt downgraded.
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
Yeah, and union money, which could be left in members pocket to buy more goods and services, you know the working class.
Click to expand...

To elect officials that won't screw over the working class. It's called an investment. :)

Nice try, Bush increased the national debt by 5 trillion in 8 yrs, vs, Obama's 6 trillion in just 4 yrs. Obama has increased the national debt higher and faster then any president before him. Further under Obama, he has the privileged of being the first president to have our debt downgraded.
Click to expand...

Brush up on your math skills and we can then debate this.
 
Phys251 said:
To elect officials that won't screw over the working class. It's called an investment. :)
Click to expand...

And to elect officials that won't allow unions to screw over the tax payer, is also called an investment.


Brush up on your math skills and we can then debate this.
Click to expand...

Nice try, I never figured you would take that one on. I understand, facts are hard to stomach sometimes.
 
it's funny to me how they spend FAR more on getting elected then they will make while they are in office. aslo IF they were sooooo concerned about the defict they could put all the $'s spent on the election into a pool and use IT to help pay down the debt.
 
majora$$hole said:
it's funny to me how they spend FAR more on getting elected then they will make while they are in office. aslo IF they were sooooo concerned about the defict they could put all the $'s spent on the election into a pool and use IT to help pay down the debt.
Click to expand...

The $ they spend to get elected does not come out of their wallet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom