|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 21 2015 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On January 21 2015 06:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's not unusual for a politician to leverage political popularity to make a buck. After Clinton left office he made a boatload on speaking engagements ($100+ million). After his unsuccessful presidential run, Al Gore joined a private equity firm and made a few hundred millions. So there's definitely some money to be made there. I have to imagine though that a successful term in office is much more lucrative that an unsuccessful run. Edit: there are also a lot of big organizations out there scooping up money for Democrats. I doubt their admin expenses are zero either + Show Spoiler + I am not talking about successful politicians -- even Gore was a Senator and then a Vice President. I am talking about pure griftters like Huckabee/Cain/Palin and they dont target big organizations, they target the vast, angry, GOP underclass. The vast Democrat underclass is targeted by more traditional scams like pyramid schemes or cash checking or title loans. Nice list though: Because 501(c) organizations do not disclose their donors, contributions to those groups are not included here, except in cases where the group discloses voluntarily, super useful. Oh look, evil billionaire Tom Sawyer donated 10x of the Koch Industries. What are you asking? I doubt Cain makes much off of email advertisements. Is this an evil conservative conspiracy thing?
I am asking why Republican presidential primary is now a big business for failed 10th tier politicians who then turn around and proceed to suck out the marrow from the poorest Republican voters and why Stewart didnt examine that instead of re-treding for the 100th time that Republicans hate coastal city dwellers and 'over educated Ivy league' types.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Key elements of the economic proposals President Barack Obama will outline in his State of the Union address Tuesday appear to be aimed at driving the debate in the 2016 election on income inequality and middle-class economic issues, rather than setting a realistic agenda for Congress.
Obama's calls for increasing taxes on the wealthy, making community college free for many students and expanding paid leave for workers stand little chance of winning approval from the new Republican majority on Capitol Hill. But the debate over middle-class economics is looking critical for the coming campaign.
"Inequality_and especially the growing opportunity gap_have become the top litmus test of seriousness for 2016," said Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist who has discussed inequality issues with the president and his advisers. "The entry ticket for the presidential sweepstakes is that you have a policy — some policy — for dealing with this issue."
Indeed, potential Republican candidates Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have been talking openly about income inequality and the need to give lower-earning Americans more opportunities. On the Democratic side, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren appears intent on keeping the party focused on a populist economic agenda, even if she doesn't plan to run for president herself.
As the nation's attention increasingly turns to the 2016 election, the Obama White House is making clear that it still wants to set the terms of the economic conversation.
"I think we should have a debate in this country between middle-class economics and trickle-down economics and see if we can come to an agreement on the things we do agree on," White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."
The president's advisers argue that's a debate they have won previously, including in Obama's victory over Romney in the 2012 presidential campaign and the fiscal cliff fight with Congress that led to the raising of George W. Bush-era tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.
Source
|
On January 21 2015 07:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2015 06:57 Sub40APM wrote:On January 21 2015 06:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's not unusual for a politician to leverage political popularity to make a buck. After Clinton left office he made a boatload on speaking engagements ($100+ million). After his unsuccessful presidential run, Al Gore joined a private equity firm and made a few hundred millions. So there's definitely some money to be made there. I have to imagine though that a successful term in office is much more lucrative that an unsuccessful run. Edit: there are also a lot of big organizations out there scooping up money for Democrats. I doubt their admin expenses are zero either + Show Spoiler + I am not talking about successful politicians -- even Gore was a Senator and then a Vice President. I am talking about pure griftters like Huckabee/Cain/Palin and they dont target big organizations, they target the vast, angry, GOP underclass. The vast Democrat underclass is targeted by more traditional scams like pyramid schemes or cash checking or title loans. Nice list though: Because 501(c) organizations do not disclose their donors, contributions to those groups are not included here, except in cases where the group discloses voluntarily, super useful. Oh look, evil billionaire Tom Sawyer donated 10x of the Koch Industries. What are you asking? I doubt Cain makes much off of email advertisements. Is this an evil conservative conspiracy thing? I am asking why Republican presidential primary is now a big business for failed 10th tier politicians who then turn around and proceed to suck out the marrow from the poorest Republican voters and why Stewart didnt examine that instead of re-treding for the 100th time that Republicans hate coastal city dwellers and 'over educated Ivy league' types.
I wouldn't call 2 email ads per month to 360K subs 'big business'. Sounds less successful than the 'Food Babe'.
|
Yeah emails!
. Filings made public this week show that Cain's campaign committee has used $100,000, collected from donors, to pay Cain's own company for thousands of these booklets written and self-published by Cain.
This kind of reminds me of how O'Reilly buys an undisclosed amount of his own books to boost his sales numbers. I'm sure he didn't use any campaign funds to pay for traveling for his book tour either...
|
Five years ago this week, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited amounts of corporate spending in political campaigns. How important was that decision? At the time, some said criticism of the decision was overblown, and that fears that it would give outsize influence to powerful interests were unfounded. Now, the evidence is in, and the results are devastating.
To coincide with the decision’s fifth anniversary, eight public interest organizations—the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Demos, US PIRG, Public Campaign, Justice at Stake, and the Center for Media and Democracy—have simultaneously issued reports that demonstrate the steadily growing influence of money on elections since the Court’s decision. Their findings show that the case opened the spigot to well more than a billion dollars in unrestricted outside spending on political campaigns, by corporations and individuals alike. It has done so at a time when wealth and income disparities in the United States are at their highest levels since 1928. Increasingly, it’s not clear that your vote matters unless you’re also willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to support your preferences.
Some of this money has come directly from the kind of corporate money at issue in Citizens United. But much more of it has come from other kinds of funding made possible by the Court’s decision, whose rationale undermined expenditure limits across the board, not just for corporations. Take the 2014 midterm elections. Just eleven closely contested Senate races tipped the balance and allowed the Republicans to regain control of the Senate for the first time since 2006. In eight of the ten states for which data is available, outside groups outspent the candidates themselves, by many millions of dollars. In North Carolina, for example, outside groups spent $26 million more than the candidates did. With these kinds of numbers, elected politicians may feel as beholden to such groups as to the people who actually voted for them.
The Supreme Court’s Billion-Dollar Mistake
|
|
|
Think it's going to be moderately funny to see which standing O's from democrats the republicans put their old guy scowl on for.
|
|
|
|
|
Well that statement will piss off John McCain for the next month.
|
|
|
Republicans must be downright furious to hear how well the country is doing.
|
Boehner almost looked like he mouthed the word "Fuck" when Obama suggested the tax credit for child care.
Marsha busy trying to beat McCain's score in candy crush lol
|
Again no Republican applause for daycare benefits, or paid sick leave. That's on national TV folks.
|
Boehner wiping his nose while Obama talked about sick leave, and equal pay will be everywhere.
|
It's like a good old fashioned duel. The Republicans threw down the gauntlet, now Obama's setting the terms of the fight.
|
TWO Republicans just stood and applauded with Community College plan.
|
I guess Obama doesn't want to discuss the particulars of how big oil and loose Fed monetary policy are the driving forces behind his "middle class economics."
Also, Boehner's face is as red as the flag behind him.
|
Boehner finally stands when the first and second lady were complimented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/big%20orgs.PNG)
