|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 26, 2008 0:56:32 GMT -5
sez you. We'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 26, 2008 5:49:40 GMT -5
sez they Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will "eventually" raise taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 29, 2008 8:03:52 GMT -5
Obama does support nuclear power and would allow offshore drilling if it is bundled in a bill that supports renewables. Look at the candidates campaign contributions from the energy sector and it will tell you what kind of energy policy we will get with each of them. I think we all can guess what those contributions look like. Offshore drilling will not help our energy security problem if we continue to export that oil, as we have done in the past. Yes, we can use that oil domestically. But, we have about 2% of the worlds oil reserves and use 25% of the worlds oil. Where is the other 23% going to come from (I'll give you one guess)? We can "drill baby drill" but will still have to import baby, import. Barack Obama (who supports poor/lazy people) has raised more money than any candidate in the history of our country and the average contribution to his campaign is $80. His campaign budget is probably larger than the budget of the state of Alaska. I did see he raised that much after going back on his word on taking public financing . McCain would have raised far more but was honest and stuck to his promise. The lie Obama tells about the average donation is disproved on factcheck.org or the center for responsive politics. Obama is a typical politician not an agent of change. Hmmm............ Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations Contributions Reviewed After Deposits By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02 Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited. The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations. In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor. The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions. "They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in," said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. "I think they've made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn't outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront." The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet. Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest. "I'm pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you'd find we're doing very well," said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. "I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud." The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election. Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. "That's an error," she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card. When asked whether the campaign takes steps to verify whether a donor's name matches the name on the credit card used to make a payment, Obama's campaign replied in an e-mail: "Name-matching is not a standard check conducted or made available in the credit card processing industry. We believe Visa and MasterCard do not even have the ability to do this. "Instead, the campaign does a rigorous comprehensive analysis of online contributions on the back end of the transaction to determine whether a contribution is legitimate." Juan Proaño, whose technology firm handled online contributions for John Edwards's presidential primary campaign, and for John F. Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004, said it is possible to require donors' names and addresses to match those on their credit card accounts. But, he said, some campaigns are reluctant to impose that extra layer of security. "Honestly, you want to have the least amount of hurdles in processing contributions quickly," Proaño said. Sen. John McCain's campaign has also had questionable donations slip through. Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's communication's director, said that "no organization can fully insulate itself from these problems. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions from fraudulent contributors like 'A for You,' 'Adorable Manabat,' 'The Gun Shop,' and 'Jesus II' and hundreds of anonymous donors." But R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said security measures have been standard in the GOP nominee's fundraising efforts throughout the campaign. She said she was "flabbergasted" to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards. "Yes, a gift card would go through the same process as a regular credit card and be subject to our same back-end review," the Obama campaign said in its response to questions about the use of such cards. Campaign finance lawyers said there is a long history of debate within the FEC about how to ensure that donors use their own credit cards. Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. "The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it's not, send it back. That's what the statute requires," he said. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Oct 29, 2008 10:47:29 GMT -5
Pre pay cards are not completely anonymous.
For many who have been shut out of bank accounts and credit cards, this is a good option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 29, 2008 11:33:57 GMT -5
With as much money as he has coming in, i imagine it's a nightmare trying to make sure its all legit. They do seem to be trying though and the FEC don't seem too concerned. Considering many of Obama's target audience may be people who rely on pre-paid cards, then it makes sense that he accepts them.
It's hard to really give the article much weight either way without knowing -
a) how many non-legit dollars they have received, and,
b) how much of that they have refunded.
If they're scrubbing most of it, then there is no issue. I assume the FEC is on top of it though. They;re non-partisan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Oct 29, 2008 12:33:33 GMT -5
That article also says that the McCain camp had "questionable" donations slip through. So, what is the point? Leave it to the post to target Obama for something that both candidates are guilty of! The NY times would have none of that!!  |
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Oct 29, 2008 13:07:03 GMT -5
"I did see he raised that much after going back on his word on taking public financing . McCain would have raised far more but was honest and stuck to his promise.
The lie Obama tells about the average donation is disproved on factcheck.org or the center for responsive politics. Obama is a typical politician not an agent of change. "
Did I miss something? I thought that both politicians were using private funds for their campaigns? McCain would be an idiot to run on public financing if Obama isn't since the public financing is so much less than what they can legally raise privately.
I don't agree with all the money that is thrown at political campaigns and would have been happy to see both politicians use the public funds, but in this day and age more money, equals more air time, equals better chance at getting elected. (Unfortunate!) If only they would give equal air time to both politicians for free...
Anyways point being can someone verify that McCain is only using public funds as the quote above implies. I thought there was some huge scam with him using those in the primary and then also using public funds, and I have to imagine that with what some of those funds are going to in the campaign they would have to be private funds from RNC donators otherwise the public would be in an uproar about some of the uses of their money. I did a quick search but couldn't find a definitive answer either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 29, 2008 14:42:12 GMT -5
The whole idea of public funds limiting candidates is fraudulent anyway. McCain takes the $86 million of taxpayer money (the whole idea of tax payer money going to this is insane to me), then he is free to use what he already had banked, plus he can use whatever the GOP had in its war chest. There are other loopholes that exist that i dont understand that allow him to raise more cash too....but the bottom line is this.
So far, as of the 20th October. Obama has raised $603 million, and spent $470 million of it. Outrageous right? Especially since McCain supposedly took the $86 million package and is limited to it right? Wrong. What republicans seem to be glossing over is the fact that McCain has raised $358 million, and spent $262 Million of it. How is this possible if he supposedly took the public financing that limits his spending? I'll tell ya how, it's because the system is a joke.
Plus, he's hardly the honest dude who kept his promise when Obama didn't. Back in February he tried to get released from the system, but was told too bad. So, if McCain had had his way, he would be doing exactly what Obama has done.
So lets not get carried away with the idea that McCain is somehow poor, and limited to $86 mil. He's not. Compared to Obama he has way less, but thats because Obama recognised early on that he had the ability to raise way more at the grassroots level, and he has. Is Obama somehow at fault because he was savvy enough to realise he could do this? I actually like that he's not using tax payer money. Why should we involuntarily subsidize their election campaigns?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 30, 2008 17:28:40 GMT -5
No problem with using those kind of cards I use them myself. I just noted that no one knows for sure where Barack is getting this huge influx of money.
Any thoughts as to why he will not release his medical records and birth certificate? Seems a bit strange to me. I know I cannot even get my drivers license renewed without showing mine. Again a free pass from the press for BHO. But they know that Joe the plumber is late on his taxes.
Also why does this middle class number keep changing? First it was $250,000 before you got taxed, last night in the infomercial it was $200,000 and if you listen to Joe Biden who they have now locked in a closet to shut him up it is $150,000. How can you believe him when the number changes so often?
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Oct 30, 2008 19:08:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 30, 2008 21:00:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 30, 2008 21:36:08 GMT -5
The guy lost me when he talked about trickle-down actually working, and saying that liberals want old people to die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 30, 2008 21:41:27 GMT -5
The truth hurts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 30, 2008 21:56:05 GMT -5
No Jack, it doesn't. Any econ major will tell you why trickle down doesn't work, nor is Obama looking to tax the wealthy any more than they were taxed under Clinton when they were doing WAY better than they are now. But we've covered this already....although you have 5 more days to recycle the argument and throw it out again pretending its new and hasn't been debunked! Does Sunday work for you? As far as liberals wanting old people to die - 1) thats morally reprehensible, and im offended you would think that. Seriously dude, you think we want old people to die? I've heard a lot of bullshit from conservatives in this campaign, but thats just ridiculous, and anyone that believes that is an idiot. 2) If thats the case, why do liberals work so hard to protect social security (indeed, implement it in the first place!), as well as support initiatives to help medicare and medicade? I'm still speechless that you think liberals like me, and liberal leaders like Obama want old people to die. You think we wish death on people?!!?! Good God man, get a grip! |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Oct 30, 2008 22:55:29 GMT -5
The GOP already had a little credibility problem. The constant barrage of rumors and fear campaign is just weakening this parties image even more.
It is too bad. I once really respected McCain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 31, 2008 6:55:46 GMT -5
GOP has a credibility problem? Cmon Charlie. Look at Baracks tax increase issue alone it is a constantly moving target. And while I won't belabor the birth certificate issue and the fact some think it is a fake why did he not just release it immediately? Not to mention going back on his campaign funds promise all his questionable associations, etc...... there will be no change with Barack just more Chicago politics and on the job training.
Rob I don't think you want senior citizens to die but I am amused by your hysterics which is a tactic the liberals in govt have used for a long time. Please don't be offended I don't think he speaks of every liberal on the planet when he makes a comment I believe was not meant literally but was meant to communicate a message that says don't think all this bullshit talk by politicians about taking care of you from cradle to grave is true.
You seem to really be stuck on trickle down not working maybe that is all the liberal professors teach anymore. I don't know what your answer is but I know taxing the rich so they don't spend their money which creates jobs is not the answer. As President Kennedy said, "a rising harbor raises all ships". Clinton luckily was kept under control by the Republican congress who forced welfare reform on him and kept him from raising taxes further than he did. I think Bill Gates did more for our economy than Bill Clinton. Big government is not the answer to our problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on Oct 31, 2008 7:54:55 GMT -5
Two words:
"Colbert bump"
|
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 31, 2008 8:16:49 GMT -5
Yeah i do react over the top a little sometimes Jack. It's just that ive heard so many insane charges against Obama and the left from the right this election season that i can hardly believe some of it anymore.
Socialist
Marxist
Baby killer
Old people killer
Muslim extremist
Not American
etc etc
It's just stupid at this point, and everyone is catching on to it. Republicans are becoming a huge joke.
As far as trickle down, we've talked about it, and i've explained why your assumption is incorrect....so we'll just leave it alone. But the Economist AND the Financial Times have endorsed Obama. Couple of Marxist rags.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkD on Oct 31, 2008 8:19:49 GMT -5
I soooo can't wait until next Wed. I'm lookin' forward to not reading and hearing the same old B.S. over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
I've reviewed the ballot, did a little homework, and I know exactly who and what I'm voting for on Tuesday. I'll be about 65% to 35% in favor of one party over the other (I'm normally about 50-50 when it shakes out).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 31, 2008 11:10:02 GMT -5
Yeah i do react over the top a little sometimes Jack. It's just that ive heard so many insane charges against Obama and the left from the right this election season that i can hardly believe some of it anymore. Socialist Marxist Baby killer Old people killer Muslim extremist Not American etc etc It's just stupid at this point, and everyone is catching on to it. Republicans are becoming a huge joke. As far as trickle down, we've talked about it, and i've explained why your assumption is incorrect....so we'll just leave it alone. But the Economist AND the Financial Times have endorsed Obama. Couple of Marxist rags. Socialist and Marxist I agree with, the abortion debate is not one to start here but he has extreme stances on it which are not debatable, but my big deal against him is his lack of experience, his statements about "talking to terrorists" that show a lack of understanding of keeping us safe, and his record that shows he is a tax and spend liberal of significant magnitude that in combination with the liberal leadership of our representatives will put a hurting on this country for a long time to come. When you look at who is running the show for the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank etc..... I wonder what the consequences could be with them unchecked. Scares me man. |
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 31, 2008 12:12:46 GMT -5
Extreme stance? You mean, by simply leaving the 35 year old law alone?
I get being concerned with a lack of experience - that was GWB and it didn't work out well for us. But some of the countrys best Presidents have been guys who didn't have 'experience'. Lincoln, JFK, T.R., FDR....
Since it almost seems like a lock that Obama is going to win this, you might be pleasantly surprised by him Jack - if you give him half a chance. Or i might be bitterly disappointed....either way, i think we should hold off on judgment until he's actually had a go of it. I'm optimistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by JenCollister on Oct 31, 2008 15:17:46 GMT -5
[quote/]and his record that shows he is a tax and spend liberal of significant magnitude that in combination with the liberal leadership of our representatives will put a hurting on this country for a long time to come. When you look at who is running the show for the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank etc..... I wonder what the consequences could be with them unchecked. Scares me man. [/quote]
Well, at least they would pay for what they spend unlike the past regime. Record debt cannot be a good thing for us as a nation. Next thing you know, China will annex California in repayment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Oct 31, 2008 16:54:43 GMT -5
NO! Don't give them California! Give them Alaska, or Texas, or something!  |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 31, 2008 17:43:45 GMT -5
[quote/]and his record that shows he is a tax and spend liberal of significant magnitude that in combination with the liberal leadership of our representatives will put a hurting on this country for a long time to come. When you look at who is running the show for the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank etc..... I wonder what the consequences could be with them unchecked. Scares me man. Well, at least they would pay for what they spend unlike the past regime. Record debt cannot be a good thing for us as a nation. Next thing you know, China will annex California in repayment.[/quote] Correction - You and me and others who pay taxes will pay for what they spend. And debt will go through the roof with his spending plans. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 31, 2008 17:54:34 GMT -5
Extreme stance? You mean, by simply leaving the 35 year old law alone? I get being concerned with a lack of experience - that was GWB and it didn't work out well for us. But some of the countrys best Presidents have been guys who didn't have 'experience'. Lincoln, JFK, T.R., FDR.... Since it almost seems like a lock that Obama is going to win this, you might be pleasantly surprised by him Jack - if you give him half a chance. Or i might be bitterly disappointed....either way, i think we should hold off on judgment until he's actually had a go of it. I'm optimistic. I think you know what I mean by extreme Rob and it has nothing to do with leaving a 35 year old law alone. I am not going to open that can of worms though. Do you mean JFK the Trickle Down proponent? The one who said a rising harbor raises all ships? I agree he was good but lets not forget his inexperience almost resulted in nukes flying. Probably not a problem with Obama. He would just call them up and suggest they have a nice conversation about why we should just all get along. FDR - I won't go there. |
|
|
|
Post by MarkD on Oct 31, 2008 19:26:18 GMT -5
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
|
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Nov 1, 2008 1:51:51 GMT -5
JFK was a great man, but wrong about trickle-down. I'm sorry, but anyone that argues supply side economics (trickle down) actually reaches those who drive the economy (middle/lower class consumers) is out of their minds. If you want to believe it is up to you. Although there are still people that think the earth is flat i suppose. As far as nukes; JFK delivered one of the most significant blows to the soviets in the entire cold war. Domestic policy aside, the dude totally outplayed the russians, and was only close to the button because they forced it on him. The fact that he found a way out, while still coming out on top only speaks to his supreme judgment in the face of pretty crazy circumstances. If he was a republican i'd say the same thing....you should too. Not everything is partisan mate.
You "won't go there" with FDR? Hope SS isn't part of your retirement plan Jack. He's a whole nother can of worms....but a great President none the less. We're lucky the challenges we're currently facing are but a shadow of what that dude had to deal with.
We're what? 4 days out. I know I'm not changing your mind at this point (like i ever had a chance!). Enjoy voting for McCain. I just hope that no matter who wins....you give the winner a fair shake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Nov 1, 2008 17:08:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Nov 1, 2008 22:11:13 GMT -5
Funny video. But I am more impressed by the ability to put the video right in the message box. Pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Nov 2, 2008 19:04:20 GMT -5
|
|
