Big, evil industries funded Dems more than Republicans

[DangerBoy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 91623.html

I think I'll have to finally agree with Player that corporations are evil

[john9blue]

I don't think anyone here wants corporate control of our government. It's just that not all of us were informed enough to understand that both parties are roughly the same when it comes down to it.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/big-evil-industries-fundedwhich-party-106891623.html

I think I'll have to finally agree with Player that corporations are evil

Yes, but, Obama has so much conviction in his beliefs that certainly he turned down the fat-cat polluters money...

Yeah, I'm sure Obama turned the money down. That one time Obama said he would ban lobbyist or something.....yeah....

No way Obama took the money! Those guys are just right wing Jerks. JERKS!

[Timminz]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/big-evil-industries-fundedwhich-party-106891623.html

I think I'll have to finally agree with Player that corporations are evil

Yes, but, Obama has so much conviction in his beliefs that certainly he turned down the fat-cat polluters money...

Yeah, I'm sure Obama turned the money down. That one time Obama said he would ban lobbyist or something.....yeah....

No way Obama took the money! Those guys are just right wing Jerks. JERKS!

Who are you quoting, and from where?

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think anyone here wants corporate control of our government. It's just that not all of us were informed enough to understand that both parties are roughly the same when it comes down to it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/big-evil-industries-fundedwhich-party-106891623.html

I think I'll have to finally agree with Player that corporations are evil

It looks like that was a list of money donated directly to the various campaign funds, but its hard to say since there are no references.

In this campaign, very little money went that way and a LARGE percentage of it was for supposedly "issue-oriented" ads, that only "off-handedly" mention any particular candidate. So, basically, there is a reason that appeared in the Opinion section and not the news section of that newspaper.

I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

[saxitoxin]

I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

Incorrect.

It's necessary you believe that for your worldview - that is, your frantic assertions that the Republican-branch of the One Party will herald a special interests dictatorship - to remain stable. Ergo, you view an assertion like that as simple common sense that doesn't require any verification or investigation and can be flippantly tossed out, just like the statements in my signature.

The Democrat-branch of The One Party benefited from uncoordinated expenditures (527-group funding) versus the Republican-branch of The One Party at a rate of roughly $80M versus $60M. Meanwhile, the three non-whorish parties (Green, Libertarian and Constitution) got a paltry $500K in 527 benefits.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=F

None of this is some great secret. It's all quite public information. It's just easier for people to feel good about themselves by pulling a Democrat lever and dreaming that the syphilis-ridden prostitutes behind that lever are actually puritanical angels standing-up for workers and gays and kittens.

[PLAYER57832]

I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

Incorrect.

It's necessary you believe that for your worldview - that is, your frantic assertions that the Republican-branch of the One Party will herald a special interests dictatorship - to remain stable. Ergo, you view an assertion like that as simple common sense that doesn't require any verification or investigation and can be flippantly tossed out, just like the statements in my signature.

The Democrat-branch of The One Party benefited from uncoordinated expenditures (527-group funding) versus the Republican-branch of The One Party at a rate of roughly $80M versus $60M. Meanwhile, the three non-whorish parties (Green, Libertarian and Constitution) got a paltry $500K in 527 benefits.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=F

None of this is some great secret. It's all quite public information. It's just easier for people to feel good about themselves by pulling a Democrat lever and dreaming that the syphilis-ridden prostitutes behind that lever are actually puritanical angels standing-up for workers and gays and kittens.

Reread what I said. Direct donations were equal. Indirect advertising was not.

[saxitoxin]

I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

Incorrect.

It's necessary you believe that for your worldview - that is, your frantic assertions that the Republican-branch of the One Party will herald a special interests dictatorship - to remain stable. Ergo, you view an assertion like that as simple common sense that doesn't require any verification or investigation and can be flippantly tossed out, just like the statements in my signature.

The Democrat-branch of The One Party benefited from uncoordinated expenditures (527-group funding) versus the Republican-branch of The One Party at a rate of roughly $80M versus $60M. Meanwhile, the three non-whorish parties (Green, Libertarian and Constitution) got a paltry $500K in 527 benefits.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=F

None of this is some great secret. It's all quite public information. It's just easier for people to feel good about themselves by pulling a Democrat lever and dreaming that the syphilis-ridden prostitutes behind that lever are actually puritanical angels standing-up for workers and gays and kittens.

Reread what I said. Direct donations were equal. Indirect advertising was not.

I think you need to reread what I said. I was talking about uncoordinated expenditures (or "indirect advertising" as you say).

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, saxi, your link shows a huge difference in receipts in favor of Democrats in 2004; however, in 2008 it was roughly even. What do you think accounts for such a huge difference in the 2004 figures?

[PLAYER57832]

In 2010 it changed significantly, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling. Before that they were fairly even.

[saxitoxin]

PLAYER57832 wrote:I will have to dig up some real data on the percentages. Roughly, the amount contributed to the candidates directly was fairly even. The amounts given to the new groups was very much weighted toward the right wing.

once again:

527-Group Uncoordinated Expenditures (in Player speak "indirect advertising from the new groups")


http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php?filter=F

[Night Strike]

In 2010 it changed significantly, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling. Before that they were fairly even.

All it did was bring companies to the same levels as unions. And what's worse is that unions are spending money that they forced from their members, while companies are using their profits to push their political opinions. And you still think companies are the problem in this scenario?

[saxitoxin]

In 2010 it changed significantly, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling. Before that they were fairly even.

All it did was bring companies to the same levels as unions. And what's worse is that unions are spending money that they forced from their members, while companies are using their profits to push their political opinions. And you still think companies are the problem in this scenario?

I'd say that corporations are the - or at least a - problem. Any organizational donation is problematic since organizations, by their nature, are amoral - neither moral nor immoral. Only humans can have morality; organizations cannot. Amoral political donations breed amoral decision-making.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that corporations are giving to Democrats - either directly or indirectly (via 527-groups ["indirect advertising from the new groups" in Player's ill-informed nomenclature]) - to Democrats more than Republicans. And that, in turn, doesn't change the fact that the Republicans are every bit as wicked as the Democrats, just not as well funded.

[Juan_Bottom]

First off, this doesn't look right. Democrats got tons of money in years that they lost badly elections? Do "gifts" of vacations and such count?



Secondly, could the large donations to Democrats be to stop NeoCon's economic plans? For example Bush's brilliant plan to de-value the dollar to somehow increase sales of American goods. Perhaps businesses didn't like that? Who's got the reasons for this? So far only player has offered anything.

And you still think companies are the problem in this scenario?

"Companies" are always the problem, since they've got the money to donate to influence politicians and the public. I haven't got a dime for that. And the more you de-regulate them, and privatize everything, the more money they get.
Newseek is carrying an article this week about how the Insurance companies used the Democrats to vote-in a health care bill that they (the insurance companies) wrote themselves, and now are using the Republicans to repeal just the parts that Democrats added that they (the insurance companies) don't like. What an interesting cycle of manipulation.

[Phatscotty]

In 2010 it changed significantly, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling. Before that they were fairly even.

All it did was bring companies to the same levels as unions. And what's worse is that unions are spending money that they forced from their members, while companies are using their profits to push their political opinions. And you still think companies are the problem in this scenario?

I know unions do this first hand. At the latest softball tournament, my union coordinator tried to convince me that voting democrat was the way to go, and when he could see I was shocked and surprised and he caught me off guard (I was gonna buy a can of pop...) and he moved on to the next person without even blinking.

I returned and got into it with him....yadda yadda.....anyways, that's my experience from about 2 months ago

[BigBallinStalin]

Secondly, could the large donations to Democrats be to stop NeoCon's economic plans? For example Bush's brilliant plan to de-value the dollar to somehow increase sales of American goods. Perhaps businesses didn't like that? Who's got the reasons for this? So far only player has offered anything.

I've interpreted this to mean that you disagree that devaluing the USD would increase sales of American goods. To be more specific, I think that they engaged in such a policy to increase the sales for American exports, since a lower value for the USD would drive down the price of American goods for other countries.

Of course, inflation hits American consumers the hardest, so such policies really suck. BUT ANYWAY, please continue on.

[Juan_Bottom]

To be more specific, I think that they engaged in such a policy to increase the sales for American exports, since a lower value for the USD would drive down the price of American goods for other countries.

That was their goal;
But I think that there is a huge problem with this because, de-valuing the dollar doesn't equate to de-valuing the product. If cheap dollars mean cheap products then we should all be driving Russian cars... & I've heard a bunch of economists (*I swear that they are all liberal-socialist) say roughly this same thing.
But somehow what his strategy did do was cheapen the cost of buying American manufacturers for foreign competitors. They didn't line up to buy our goods, they lined up to buy our factories. This is what I imagined the American businesses could be protesting by donating to the Democrats.


*I mean the real kind of socialists not the Republican's boogy men.

[Night Strike]

Newseek is carrying an article this week about how the Insurance companies used the Democrats to vote-in a health care bill that they (the insurance companies) wrote themselves, and now are using the Republicans to repeal just the parts that Democrats added that they (the insurance companies) don't like. What an interesting cycle of manipulation.

Newsweek is WAY late to the game regarding the first part.....conservatives have been making this claim ever since the insurance mandate was included in the law. Yet the Democrats continue to claim the insurance companies are evil while they massively expand their power.

[Juan_Bottom]

The messed up thing is that they all three blame each other, while simultaneously all co-operating. I don't blame people for not knowing who to believe in anymore. I don't even... I just... gah....

[saxitoxin]

Newseek is carrying an article this week about how the Insurance companies used the Democrats to vote-in a health care bill that they (the insurance companies) wrote themselves, and now are using the Republicans to repeal just the parts that Democrats added that they (the insurance companies) don't like. What an interesting cycle of manipulation.

Holy Jesus, Ol' Saxi has been saying this for the last three months on here! Do a search "saxitoxin" + "pig Obama" + "whore media" + "health insurance mega corporations" or some variation of those.

UHC and Aetna didn't shovel money hand over fist into Obama's campaign coffers just because they had a sudden surge of consciousness. Ralph Nader didn't call for the health bill to be voted down and then write this 18 months ago -

Never much of a fighter against abusive corporate power, Barack Obama is making it increasingly clear that right from his start as President, he wanted health insurance reform that received the approval of the giant drug and health insurance industries. Earlier this year he started inviting top bosses of these companies for intimate confabs in the White House. Business Week magazine, which proclaimed recently that “The Health Insurers Have Already Won” reported that the CEO of UnitedHealth, Stephen J. Hemsley, met with the President half a dozen times.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182009.html

- because he was spitballing ideas.

Nader's flunky Matt Gonzalez and the Green Party didn't turn-out last month to help Ron Paul at his rally in downtown San Francisco for (A TEA PARTIER! ) John Dennis because they all woke up and decided the Green Party thing hadn't worked out and they were going to flip to the radical right.

The US has 2 Left Wings, the first is the corporate-backed pro-Warfare State Democrat Party. The second are the scattered remnants of a minority who have flocked around Nader to make their last stand, seeking to cooperate with non-institutional, anti-corporate rightists like the Paul's despite the booming din of the corporate-backed media injecting lies into citizens minds. Most people aren't in the streets or active beyond voting, reading the corporate media, posting on message boards or attending Viacom marketing events. They're the dullards who defend the Democrats.

Three years from now, the only change for Player57832 will be that she will be legally obligated to buy health insurance at $2,000/month even if it means she has to sell her car, mortgage her house to zero, empty her life savings, drain her kids college funds and take a third job. She will be made into a destitute wretch all thanks to the Institutional Democrat-Republican Party she sought so loyally to serve. Her eligibility from pre-existing conditions will be assured thanks to a pool she'll pay for herself through increased sales taxes on food and diapers. And she'll be left wondering what happened, frantically tuning to NPR to find out.

sheeple