Money – Barack Obama went to New York Thursday and blamed lobbyists, greedy businessmen and complacent Washington politicians for creating "an ethic of greed" that led to today's foreclosure crisis.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
TGrass3001
asolious
MacBookForMe
Pretko
clownloach1
keira.darin
infiniteseo
pagfostano
jelatonasci
gerastados
Emmanuel70
dodoklauncek
ccnatraining
canine25
humemacdonald
muhairi8
maneetion
donnall
Progressive Bum
tomboy501
berkeley
BillieMaxer
hurrytimer
argonaut2
obabahiwii
Endoscopy
brettsinger
schristoforides
lbrogan
flyonthewallzz
icono1
ConquistadorForLife
bluetexasvalley
sumptuousdigs
kissykissy
MyWayOnNow
miklkit
CoolCrazyStuff
Zmajcheus
quiescence
willowwoman
kungfoodcu
dstargel
annoDomini
dylanroberts
325)
FTA:
Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign pounced on the mixed images evoked by Obama's New York schedule.
"According to the standard set by the Obama campaign, it looks like Sen. Obama will have a hard time cracking down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises," said Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign spokesman.
But Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, fired right back.
"Today's event was a general fundraiser in a room paid for by our campaign and attended by people from varied backgrounds who are committed to changing the tone of our politics รข;; and rejecting the kind of tactics that the Clinton campaign is now embracing. Any suggestion that this was a fundraiser hosted by the mortgage industry is laughable," he said.
Good for Bill Burton! You Go BB!
I don't hear you saying anything so no worries there....but personally I am sorry you forgot what site you're on, try this www.foxnews.com
The better question is, how much longer will ignorant conjobs continue to bitch and cry about poor people (while bending over enthusiastically for Big Oil) before they realize no one really gives a CRAP what they think is "socialism"? That, is the more meaningful question, I think. ;-P
It's odd to me that RepugnantCons don't consider handing out billions of dollars to needy corporations whose CEOs and CFOs pocket 90% of that money and then cycle it back to BushCo (or will post-BushCo) as being socialism or welfare.
Dionys, lately I've taken to keeping a copy of the DSM IV handy when I post on Propeller. I use it either to confirm which characteristics of a particular mental illness certain neocon posters are exhibiting as well as to confirm that *I'm* actually reading some of the shocking idiocy I see and haven't slipped into the abyss of insanity myself. I'm not joking. Some of these people are positively schizoid.
So much of neocons' actions runs counter to their rhetoric that it's inconceivable to me at times that they don't realize how transparent their true motives are. How does one, for instance, justify spending trillions of dollars to keep their country safe AND pay scientist to spread misinformation on global warming so that they can continue polluting the planet with abandon? How does one begin to reconcile those two mindsets?
"I've taken to keeping a copy of the DSM IV handy when I post on Propeller."
So, what is your mental disorder? lol
LOL Oh, libsR... Relax. I understand perfectly why you might have thought my remarks above were directed at you but I can assure you --no one needs to consult a manual to figure you out.
;-P
Meso: So much of neocons' actions runs counter to their rhetoric
Gosh I was thinking the same thing about the Leftist,! You know we are for the monorities, until they pose a threat, then we turn into nasty racist. What sort of mental illness is that called in your lil book?
"Gosh I was thinking the same thing about the Leftist,! You know we are for the monorities, until they pose a threat, then we turn into nasty racist. What sort of mental illness is that called in your lil book?"
--um, Mr. Slate "Hussein" please do not lecture me about "nasty racists" after your comments regarding Wright. You and (any conjob) should be thoroughly embarrassed and ashamed of yourself for even going there after this past week. Your comment is an insult to the 90 percent plus black electorate and all other minorities who vote for "Leftists." You wingjobs just keep on trying to convince african americans they lack the smarts to know they are being taken advantage of by the Democratic party. That'll do WONDERS for race relations and endearing them to the GOP. Of course, people who elected Bush (he worst disaster to hit this country in history) twice have impeccable judgement, right? ROTFLMAO
They cant see that because they are holding out hopes that they will be rich one day. I think the right of this nation is jam pack with crazy people...they cant see a problem with an Oil company taking 6 billion of out taxes and making 1/4 profits of 10 billion and not having to pay that back. BTW the money you think is the governments is actually the peoples money, I cant see why there is a problem with them spending it on the very people they got it from. Or are you worried that the Mexican will get it?
1/4 profits of 10 billion and not having to pay that back
So the 3.2 trillion dollars the government spends comes from?
The tax payers...and if there is doubt about my post look up the info on oil companies, try Biz.yahoo.com it's all there! those companies don't pay as much taxes as the people. I am sick of this crap the bulk of the taxes collected in this country comes from the workers not the corporations. They all have shelters I know I own one!
Don't you know how it works? Most of the taxes are paid by the rich (who own business), do your research, a very few % pays most of the tax bill, the middle class pays the rest.
Business passes on any tax they pay to the consumer. If you get your wish it would mean you paying more for the product.
I know what it is your saying though. Your mad because business makes a profit, which sometimes is very high and I too wished that they would give their 'clients' a break when things are tough. But from what you, Hillary, and other have said; you want to just 'take' their money, which is unlawful.
I bet you think that BUSH sits there all by himself and allows all this to happen or rather makes it happen because he hates you and loves his rich counterparts.
Remember, presidents do nothing more than sign things that are put on his desk, all purse stings, bills and laws are done by Congress, that is where you're ire should be directed, not the president.
From what I 'm gleaning from you, you want some sort of limit on what any individual or company can make? Do you really think putting shackles or limits on business, employees or entrepreneurs is wise?
"are you going to take the word of a socialist..." (as if we don't live in a hybrid Capitalist/Socialist society)
Much better than to continue with the Crony capitalism and War for Profit of the Republi-Cons. That's what we'll get if McBush gets elected. Opps, did I say McBush, I meant McCain.
Oh please. Bush is a puppet. NO ONE pulls Cmdr. McCain's strings.
Urm... Are we still talking about the same John McCain who was against waterboarding before he was for it, against Bush's criminally irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy before he was for them and against rounding up and deporting undocumented immigrants before he was for it? Yeah, he's quite the little maverick. ROTFLMAO
And they have the nerve to say Kerry waffled! The repubs have given a whole new meaning to the word/
"well if he is soooooo smart, why can't he 'rap up the Dem. nod?"
Because some voters are smarter than others.
Or some aren't.
Lack of capitalism?
Enron, Adelphia, MCI, Bear Stearns, Countrywide and numerous
other of your pals who you support blindly can shove their any your version of capitalism up you ass!
You are a fool..hence the negative votes.
You add no suggestion, you just continue to be their apologist and you have no clue..
Come back when you have something to add.
(which means you shouldn't come back)..
(while we're stuck with you we can tell you how stupid you sound)
You are amongst the very few apologists left and there are no more feeble excuses. You're the bad guys! Hope you enjoyed the raping and pillaging of our economy!
Let them eat cake!! Right?
Lassez faire capitalism as Bush envisioned it has been tried 3 - 4 times in the past in national and world economies. It has been disastrous each time. Please go study your history of economic theory and policy. You are simply too uneducated it seems to know better.
WOw, that's some statement coming from a couple that makes about a million dollars a year,,,,, all those OTHER greedy people should be ashamed!
It takes balls when you are rich to see the wrong and speak up, but that wouldn't be the point that gets through to you. I have said here before I don't pay enough taxes for the money. Bill gates has said this, Waren Buffet has and even Rosie Odonal has. I know you find it hard to believe but true Americans want to see our country do well first not the rich.
DO you know just how little those on the Hill pay in taxes? Lawyers in the know,,,,
Yeah it's easy to SAY we need to pay more taxes,,,, show me proof that they walk the talk
Blackaceretum, apparently you didn't get the memo. It's ok for right wing mega churches to make their clergy multimillionaires but those of us on the left don't have a right to be wealthy while also advocating for those towards the lower end of the economic spectrum.
Meso, those Mega Churches give 1,000 times more to the poor than those you how in high regards.
"Meso, those Mega Churches give 1,000 times more to the poor than those you how in high regards."
--slate, you on the right love to slam Al Gore for not having a solar powered toilet or an exercise bike powered toaster oven or whatever but you don't hold yourselves to the same standards. Let's go with your "1,000 times more" figure for a moment. Why are people who are supposed to be ministering to the poor, the sick, and the disabled given the green light to get rich but Al Gore isn't?
Anyway, how much is "1000 times more" relative to what mega churches spend on Lear jets and Bentleys for their clergy members? Are they giving til it hurts or are they simply skimming crumbs off the top for the poor while giving themselves a pat on the back and collecting a fat paycheck?
AL GOre?
LOL you forgot the starving children and national health care talking points.
N2N-
Before you get too excited, "Clinton has received $122,160 from Bear executives. Obama collected $40,925 and presumptive GOP nominee John McCain pocketed $66,800."
We need campaign finance reform.
walden - The best proposal i heard of is to let anyone donate what they want, but it has to be made public within 5 days, and a list has to be available at all times.
Klarissa I disagree. I think they need to take it back to their own pockets. Then the media wouldn't get fat and make us pick their chosen for President. If money is given It must be a small amount, no corporations, no movie stars ect. Limit it to $500. each person only. To let the people see what the cast is . Have debates only. I don't want any of them kissing my baby and in return not have to kiss their as& to know what they stand for.
If you limit it, a way will be found around the limit, which is the problem now.
And, you have to police it.
No donations allowed. Period. Of any sort. That's the only solution because for the most part the majority of Senators and Representatives (not to mention the P and VeePee) are paid more by corporations than by the American public. So who do you think they really work for?
That would create a government of the rich and for the rich, even more than today. The contest would already be settled as Romney vs. Clinton.
I think you are all missing the point, our only problem in government is we keep picking the wrong people that is what we have to fix. Not only do we pick the wrong person but we stick with them bush should have never been reelected! The Media doesn't have a hand in our picks, we do, I see GOPers calling for one of their guys to be reelected and that to me is Un-American, they mess up they sit and watch, we should never have a President and a congress of the same party sitting at the same time, that will only get us what we now have. The voters needs to use their brains. I am Voting for Obama because in my view he is lease connected to big business and they are the ruination of our country as it is.
"...we should never have a President and a congress of the same party sitting at the same time, that will only get us what we now have. "
--This is the only part of your post with which I disagree. There is nothing historically comparable to the horrific damage and destruction caused by Bush and the GOP to our world during the last 8 years. I defy anyone to come up with anything even remotely on the same scale. When they weren't destroying our country, they were obfuscating the will of the people. There is so much damage to repair that it will require a couple of generations (at least). If the public feels it can make that happen by voting in an entire Democratic (or Republican) administration, they should be able to do that. Having said that...VOTE them into office. Don't allow them into office via thievery, lies and sleaze.
"No donations allowed. Period."
And who gets to decide which candidates get public financing? The incumbents? It would make it worse.
Neither.
It would never happen, but I think there needs to either be one "general pool" or one pool per party, and every donation goes into that pool. Then, the pool is evenly divided among the candidates when they run. That way everyone gets a fair shot and money doesnt 'buy' the office. Of course, this would have to be accompanied by close tracking on how the funds are used, making sure no one makes off with funds (if they were not serious candidates), etc.
To me this would be much more "for the people, by the people".
did someone 'reject & denounce' your baby??
I don't know. I agree with full disclosure, but I'm not sure the populace can make use of any additional information.
Maybe stop contributions from all businesses and organizations.
Maybe have completely public financing.
Maybe require broadcasters to provide equal time to candidates that show a certain amount of public support.
Maybe prohibit special interest groups from running ads.
Maybe limit lobbyists somehow.
Maybe stop the 527s.
Maybe limit contributions to $1,000 or $2,000 or whatever.
Maybe not allow bundling of contributions.
There has to be some way to let the average person participate and contribute, but prevent special interests from running the show.
oh yeah, THAT wouldn't lead to any corruption, but a totally level playing field as the party bosses got to decide who was worthy to receive funds and who was not.
That's the problem with a "single payor" political system -- who decides? Unfortunately, I think things would end up even more corrupt than they are now, with only insiders having a prayer of winning.
Something should change, though. It makes no sense whatsoever for anyone to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to secure a job that pays $250K per year. Obviously, to spend that kind of money, you have to believe you're going to get more out of it than you're putting in.
my last comment was not to Walden, as it looked, it was to Redline River's suggestion to have a federally funded, no donation, centrally administered fund.
But my point is - there is no decision. Everyone who runs get an equal share of they pie.
Plus, I didnt say "no donation" - donations are accepted, but they go into the "common fund". Sure, that means that special interest can still donate, but they cant really say "I donated X just to you, so you owe me."
Obviously, Im not an expert in politics or finanace, and I dont claim I know the perfect solution, but it seems to be that if its kept equal across the boards, then we would be better off than we are now.
if "everyone who runs get an equal share of the pie", then no one would be likely to get enough to do anything with, because anyone who had the slightest hankering to run for something could throw their hat in. We would be giving a Chris Dodd (never got more than 1.5% of the vote in the likely case that you never even heard of him) the same financing as Hilary and Obama? If it costs nothing to run, people would run on a whim.
But I agree that the system with its two year campaign and special interests needs work.
Walden, good thoughts. But, the current limits have been ignored, and the policing effort is impossible.
If we knew who the contributors were we would know to whom the candidate was obligated.
Maybe the thing to do is to stop any and all corporate contributions. End all union contributions. In effect put a stop to anything that is not coming in from private citizens. broadcasters are already required to givce equal time and political ads are sold at the lowest rate on the card. I would think the ACLU would have a field day with the idea of prohibiting the running of ads by special interest groups.. I can hear them now. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
I agree with limiting contributions to those who can actually vote in elections.
The lowest rate card doesn't matter. The cost of TV advertising is so much, that candidates never can take a break from fund raising. Even after they get elected they continue to raise funds for the entire time they're in office.
My plan would be something more like if you can get more then 1, 2 or 3% of the vote (set the limit where ever) then broadcasters would be required as part of their license to provide blocks of time to candidates. Maybe from 10-2 some Saturday afternoon, maybe a few blocks during prime time, maybe one or two on weekends. It would move beyond debates. Almost like an informercial for anyone that can show that have that 1, 2 or 3% of general interest.
That way all of the ideas and platforms would have equal exposure.
Well that's the thing because of our freedom of speech you can't limit anyones contributions or exclude them from contributing. That would remove their ability to exorcise their freedom of speech. Maybe a better answer would be not to limit the contributions but to limit the amount that the campaigns are allowed to spend. That way they wouldn't have to raise as much money in the first place and it would level the playing field. Not to mention teach the candidates a good lesson on getting the most out of a limited budget which I think we all can agree that is something the people running our government really needs.