And now the Republicans can work on their one-sided socialist agenda and create the perfect wealthfare state.Originally Posted by Mac
And now the Republicans can work on their one-sided socialist agenda and create the perfect wealthfare state.
From caring sharing countries it appears your president has upset the ones who consider themselves the only humans. He cares about all americans. not just clones of the haters
"not just clones of the haters" What a hateful thing to say. Is it true? Is that what our politics is all about - the virtuous, who care about all Americans, against the wicked, who consider themselves the only humans? Who knew it was all a simple moral drama, lifted from a comic book? Now if only Captain Obama, dressed in red, white, and blue leotards, could fly in and impose totalitarian socialism!
If you're from New Zealand, isn't your Parliament led by the National Party, and hasn't the country been transformed into a free market economy over the last 20 years, leading to heightened prosperity for most New Zealanders? Many of us in America long for the days when the US was what New Zealand is now, and hope to get us there soon.
What looks to you from a great distance as concern for all is in fact a concern to rule all, for the benefit of the rulers. Like all would-be ruling classes, it claims to be motivated by compassion for others. Don't be fooled. The only ones Obama helps are government mandarins and those who contract business with them.
I thought the Republicans, the party of no, blocked much of the good they wanted to do? They hardly had their way.
Tugon (two gone)
“Compassion hurts. When you feel connected to everything, you also feel responsible for everything. And you cannot turn away. Your destiny is bound with the destinies of others. You must either learn to carry the Universe or be crushed by it. You must grow strong enough to love the world, yet empty enough to sit down at the same table with its worst horrors.”
Andrew Boyd
I have no authority to say anything at the Eunuch Archive message board.
Last edited by OneBallBoi; 11-04-2010 at 10:00 PM.
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important" -CS Lewis
"CAN'T COMPROMISE" --
wow, what a wrong statement that is... What about the lack of a public option in the Health Care Bill?
How about half of the stimulus bill being tax cuts?
How about 3/4's of the Bush Tax cuts being renewed?
Weren't those compromises?
“They also call it the Winged Isle. Some say it is because the island, if seen from above, would look like butterfly wings. And I do not know the truth of it.” Then, “ ‘And what is truth?’ said jesting Pilate.” From: The Truth Is A Cave In The Black Mountains by Neil Gaiman.
Yes but creating foreign markets for American goods does take a huge retinue. This is one of those business and commerce affairs to see how American Businesses can create markets in India. GW Bush did there huge trips too. The only difference is party affiliation.
We have lots of good things to sell India as it develops from dirt floors to modern cities. India buys our power generating systems, our flue gas cleanup technology, our transmission technology. It buys our computers and our electronics. many things.
AS a business minded political party, Republicans ought to be cheering this trip but since they hate Obama with a blind unreasoning hatred, they condemn everything he does.
And I think calling out pure Obama-hatred is a worthy thing to do. AFter all, diplomacy, foreign trade, export/import and all that good stuff, is good stuff form the nation and Obama-hatred isn't.
Don't you agree?
“They also call it the Winged Isle. Some say it is because the island, if seen from above, would look like butterfly wings. And I do not know the truth of it.” Then, “ ‘And what is truth?’ said jesting Pilate.” From: The Truth Is A Cave In The Black Mountains by Neil Gaiman.
Re: President Obama Gets It
What YOU are paying for is the money that the health insurance folks spent on campaign advertising.
Just look around on the Internet and think about it and then let us know if you have changed your mind. You are thinking just as the insurance companies want you to think because they have lost control of the health care dollar and they want it back...
A-1
__________________
(See the Avatar above)
(OR, Click below)
It's the NEW CONSERVATIVE Body Modification Craze...
.....
They did not spend on the campaign.. You prove it.. They will see increased costs so they have to raise their rates.. Before my insurance DID NOT pay for an annual physical, annual blood work, annual chest xrays, mamogram, colonstomy, bone density scan; on and on, all these preventative medical costs.. I chose a policy that did not pay for the preventative on purpose.. Obama care makes the insurance companies pay for them now. I am from the old school, you go to a doctor when you are sick. I don't want all these preventative things and won't use them. Yet now my insurance is 1/3 more expensive because of them. Obama is going to cost everyone more except those on Welfare.. Bless them, they pay for nothing anyways and have it for life. They get sit home and watch soap operas, drink beer all day and never work a day in their lives..
Last edited by Paolo; 11-06-2010 at 03:46 AM. Reason: Name calling
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important" -CS Lewis
Re: President Obama Gets It
Oh BULLSHIT!!!
Those measures CUT costs, NOT increase them. Furthermore, early detection means the difference between life and death in almost every disease known to modern medicine.
What is it the bible says about "thou fool" and HELL FIRE?
Well, for my favorite poster I will offer you the HELL FIRE that you so justly deserve...
SOURCE...
Note: some of the winners spent more than the losers. Check to see if the Republicans OUTSPENT the Democrats. Follow the money...Outside Organizations – Many Relying on Anonymous Donors – Help Republicans Score Big Gains in Congress
Contact: Dave Levinthal (202-354-0111)
opensecretsballot.jpg
WASHINGTON - The priciest midterm election in U.S. history saw a Republican tide sweep numerous Democrats out of office, as voters anxious about the state of the economy ousted more House incumbents from office than any time since 1948. While several money-in-politics axioms held true, money was not a panacea for embattled politicians.
In only about 85 percent of House races did the candidate who spent the most experience victory on Election Day, a relative low in recent years, according to a preliminary analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Candidates’ spending correlated to success in 29 out of 35 Senate races -- or 83 percent -- that had been called as of Thursday morning.
By comparison, in 2008, the biggest spender was victorious in 93 percent of House races and in 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
Moreover, most self-financing candidates again faltered this cycle. And significant investments from outside groups helped elect more than 200 federal candidates. In two-thirds of races where outside groups spent at least some money on advertisements and other political communications, the dollars spent supporting the winner, coupled with amounts spent opposing the loser, exceeded dollars spent supporting the loser or attacking the winner, according to the Center’s research.
"Those that went to the polls Tuesday showed enormous dissatisfaction with the status quo and voted, once again, for change," said Sheila Krumholz, the Center's executive director. "The money changed too, surging as much as 40 percent over 2006 levels to our predicted $4 billion by cycle’s end. Despite the competitive political climate and the lowest House reelection rate in 60 years, however, the vast majority of incumbents and candidates who spent the most were still reelected."
In districts where winners had been named as of Wednesday afternoon, the average cost of winning a House race in 2010 was $1.09 million, while the average cost of winning a Senate seat was $8.28 million, according to the Center’s research. These figures are based on filings through Oct. 13, meaning the final averages will likely increase after the last reports are submitted later next month.
Among House races that have been called, Republican Chip Cravaack spent the least amount on his path to victory.
Cravaack had spent $160,740 as of mid-October in his upset of 18-term House Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar in Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District.
Republican Mike Lee of Utah holds the same distinction among Senate candidates. Lee spent $1.3 million as of mid-October against Democrat Sam Granato, the chairman of the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Overall, 85.6 percent of House incumbents won re-election in 2010, based on the Center’s analysis of decided races -- the lowest percentage since 1948, when it was 79.3 percent. There was even more fallout this year than in the year following the Watergate scandal, when 88 percent of House members were re-elected. Eleven House races are not included in this analysis because they are undecided or still in dispute.
On par with the election two years ago, 83 percent of Senate incumbents won another term, the Center’s research indicates. However, that number could increase if incumbent Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) edge out their rivals in the two undecided Senate races.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the Senate candidate who spent the most on a successful bid. As of mid-October, McCain had shelled out $32.8 million between his contentious primary against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth and general election challenges.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus, spent more than any other House candidate. As of mid-October, she had spent $8.7 million on her ultimately successful re-election bid.
Candidates such as Bachmann, who have an ideological constituency as well as a geographic constituency, have converted their national reach into serious money," Krumholz said.
Heading into the election, Republican candidates raised about $100 million more than their Democratic counterparts.
All told, Republican candidates for U.S. House and Senate seats raised a combined $858 million since January 2009, compared to $759 million raised by Democratic candidates.
The Democratic national party committees, however, held a hard-money edge against their Republican counterparts.
The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Committee together raised $432 million as of Oct. 13, while the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $370 million as of the same time.
Through Election Day, these three Democratic committees spent a combined $444.6 million while their Republican counterparts spent $402.2 million, the Center’s research shows.
But candidates and party committees weren’t the only ones spending big money this election cycle.
Outside groups, bolstered by recent federal court rulings -- including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission -- spent $293 million on efforts to affect the 2010 midterm election, the Center’s research shows.
These court rulings armed corporations, unions and ideological organizations with the firepower to spend as much as they want, whenever they want on political messages saying just about anything they want, no matter how scathing, misleading or partisan.
Conservative groups held a big edge. Overall, conservative-aligned groups spent $2.07 for every $1 that liberal-aligned groups spent, the Center’s research shows.
This surge of spending contributed to the Center's prediction of $4 billion as the overall cost for federal elections this cycle.
"That's about enough money to buy every resident of Youngstown, Ohio, a new Corvette," Krumholz said. "In practical terms, it means people are inundated with political messages like never before, and many of these messages come from sources that don't even disclose their donors. Think it's voter overload now? Wait until the 2012 presidential election."
The Center’s research also indicates that the amount of money pouring into races from outside groups -- including national party committees -- on ads and other expenditures had a determinative effect on the outcome.
In 203 out of 317 races where outside money was invested, the winners saw outside groups invest more money in messages lauding them or attacking their opponents. Of these winning candidates, 120 were Republicans and 83 were Democrats.
Of the 114 winning candidates who saw less money from outside sources aiding their candidacies, 61 of these candidates were Democrats and 53 were Republicans.
In 11 congressional races, the winning candidates’ spending as of mid-October fell short of the amount outside groups invested strictly in political messages attacking them. Of these candidates, seven were Republicans and four were Democrats.
Factoring in spending by candidates, parties and other outside groups in races where a winner has been determined, the priciest general election race was Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s battle against Republican Sharron Angle. More than $67.4 million was pumped into this race by candidates, parties and other outside groups, the Center found, with $37.7 million spent bolstering Angle and $29.7 million spent to aid Reid.
In the new era of post-Citizens United campaign spending, candidates were increasingly targeted by groups that are not legally required to disclose their donors. Many candidates found themselves on the receiving end of a flurry of ads funded by groups that are legally allowed to accept unlimited sums of corporate and union money, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals.
The U.S. Senate race in Colorado was the top race invested in by outside groups that do not disclose their donors, such as nonprofit organizations that by law should not have a “primary purpose” of engaging in politics but frequently spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on politics anyway. New “super PACs” that disclose their donors, but are legally allowed to accept unlimited donations from corporations and individuals, also spent more in this race than in any other.
In that race, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) narrowly defeated Republican Ken Buck. Republican-aligned groups taking advantage of the new campaign finance landscape spent millions of dollars trying to prevent such an outcome.
Conservative-oriented super PACs, led by the Karl Rove-linked American Crossroads, spent more than $6.9 million on the Colorado Senate race -- out-spending liberal-aligned super PACs nearly three-to-one, the Center’s research shows.
And conservative-supporting nonprofit groups that don’t need to disclose their donors, such as American Crossroads sister organization Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, spent an additional $6 million in the race -- out-spending liberal-aligned nonprofits by more than four-to-one, the Center’s research shows.
Sometimes, despite spending big money, politicians were rejected at the polls.
The House candidate who spent the most but was not favored by voters Tuesday was Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.), who spent $4.8 million as of mid-October.
Republican Linda McMahon of Connecticut holds that distinction among Senate candidates. McMahon spent more than $41 million in her failed Senate bid, as of mid-October. News reports since then have noted that the total now exceeds $50 million.
McMahon, moreover, was hardly the only self-financing candidates to be defeated at the ballot box. Sixteen other self-financing candidates lost Tuesday, while 11 candidates who had invested at least $500,000 of their own funds won. (In many cases, these winning candidates used personal money to buttress donations received from other sources.) Counting 2010 primaries, just 11 out of 58 candidates who contributed at least $500,000 of their own money to their campaigns won the federal offices they had sought.
In all, 58 Republican House candidates and 12 Democrats managed to win their seats despite being out-spent by their opponents. Among Senate candidates, three Republicans and three Democrats each pulled off the same feat.
"Money is critical to politics. But money will never be enough, on its own, to save a candidate carrying a message that voters aren’t buying," Krumholz said.
The chart below shows all 2010 congressional races where the winning candidate was out-spent by the loser. All spending totals are through Oct. 13. House totals include money spent since January 2009, while Senate totals include money spent since January 2005, the start of senators’ six-year election cycles:
Winner---------- Winner Spent---- Loser------ Loser Spent
John Boozman (R) $2,691,375 Blanche Lincoln (D)$11,647,787
Richard Blumenthal (D)$6,232,164 Linda McMahon(R)$41,895,845
Chris Coons (D) $2,337,312 Christine O'Donnell (R) $3,671,053
Kelly A. Ayotte (R) $3,397,934 Paul W. Hodes (D) $4,424,108
Ron Johnson (R) $10,457,482 Russ Feingold (D)$16,249,326
Joe Manchin (D) $2,746,439 John R Raese (R) $5,892,478
Martha Roby (R) $792,506 Bobby Bright (D) $929,977
Mo Brooks (R) $448,887 Stephen Raby (D) $514,572
Rick Crawford (R) $553,895 Chad Causey (D) $1,187,118
Paul Gosar (R) $703,735 Ann Kirkpatrick (D) $1,546,385
David Schweikert (R)$1,097,834 Harry E. Mitchell (D)$2,064,443
Dan Lungren (R) $1,019,524 Ami Bera (D) $2,258,598
Laura Richardson (D) $446,191 Star Parker (R) $1,144,726
Scott Tipton (R) $732,949 John Salazar (D) $1,810,710
Cory Gardner (R) $1,886,190 Betsy Markey (D) $3,056,118
Steve Southerland (R) $827,516 Allen Boyd (D) $3,196,632
Daniel Webster (R) $976,984 Alan Grayson (D) $3,845,117
Allen B. West (R) $4,394,508 Ron Klein (D) $4,820,697
Sandy Adams (R) $683,136 Suzanne Kosmas (D) $2,212,153
Austin Scott (R) $600,554 Jim Marshall (D) $920,209
Colleen Hanabusa (D) $1,743,852 Charles Djou (R) $2,051,904
Raul Labrador (R) $438,272 Walt Minnick (D) $2,039,440
Robert Dold (R) $1,650,124 Dan Seals (D) $2,190,026
Adam Kinzinger (R) $1,282,176 Deborah Halvorson (D)$2,184,097
Randy Hultgren (R) $1,161,980 Bill Foster (D) $3,143,418
Bobby Schilling (R) $659,967 Phil Hare (D) $1,291,023
Todd Young (R) $1,550,090 Baron Hill (D) $1,552,728
Michael Richard Pompeo (R) $1,510,124 Raj Goyle (D)$1,583,701
Cedric L. Richmond (D) $772,099 Joseph Cao (R) $1,540,444
John F. Tierney (D) $611,352 Bill Hudak (R) $628,739
Andy Harris (R) $1,746,039 Frank M. Kratovil Jr (D) $2,131,518
Tim Walberg (R) $997,090 Mark Schauer (D) $2,110,637
Chip Cravaack (R) $160,740 James L. Oberstar(D)$1,798,484
Vicky Hartzler (R) $733,078 Ike Skelton (D) $2,266,599
Alan Nunnelee (R) $1,149,102 Travis W. Childers(D)$1,392,785
Steven Palazzo (R) $503,478 Gene Taylor (D) $602,645
Renee Ellmers (R) $424,164 Bob Etheridge (D) $1,555,456
Rick Berg (R) $1,236,683 Earl Pomeroy (D) $2,883,911
Frank Guinta (R) $1,072,530 Carol Shea-Porter (D) $1,128,822
Charles Bass (R) $798,433 Ann Mclane Kuster (D) $1,787,003
Jon Runyan (R) $946,608 John H. Adler (D) $1,906,421
Joe Heck (R) $935,868 Dina Titus (D) $2,231,413
Timothy H. Bishop(D) $1,990,984 Randy Altschuler (R)$3,124,458
Michael Grimm (R) $900,322 Michael E. McMahon(D)$2,085,694
Nan Hayworth (R) $1,496,460 John Hall (D) $1,745,751
Chris Gibson (R) $1,120,050 Scott Murphy (D) $4,252,785
Bill Owens (D) $2,264,699 Matt Doheny (R) $2,503,828
Richard L Hanna (R) $843,536 Michael Arcuri (D) $1,340,037
Steve Chabot (R) $1,429,314 Steve Driehaus (D)$1,582,247
Bill Johnson (R) $352,369 Charlie Wilson (D) $708,174
Marcy Kaptur (D) $651,054 Rich Iott (R) $1,705,856
Betty Sue Sutton (D) $1,322,765 Tom Ganley (R) $2,379,251
Steve Stivers (R) $1,445,776 Mary Jo Kilroy (D) $2,186,916
Bob Gibbs (R) $867,246 Zachary T. Space (D) $2,068,444
Peter DeFazio (D) $891,456 Art Robinson (R) $929,128
Mike Kelly (R) $884,740 Kathleen Dahlkemper (D)$1,351,704
Michael Fitzpatrick (R)$1,097,929 Patrick Murphy(D)$3,227,154
Tom Marino (R) $517,246 Chris Carney (D) $1,230,918
Louis J. Barletta (R) $795,014 Paul E. Kanjorski(D)$1,733,819
Mick Mulvaney (R) $887,092 John M. Spratt Jr(D)$1,555,755
Kristi Lynn Noem(R)$1,459,672 Stephanie H.Sandlin(D)$1,600,715
Scott Eugene Desjarlais (R) $636,818 Lincoln Davis(D)$940,001
Francisco Canseco (R) $1,111,989 Ciro D. Rodriguez(D)$1,472,879
RandolphBlake Farenthold(R)$319,986 SolomonP.Ortiz(D) $855,086
Rob Wittman (R) $761,024 Krystal Ball (D) $880,370 Robert Hurt (R) $1,614,166 Tom Perriello (D) $2,698,289
Morgan Griffith (R) $568,798 Rick Boucher (D) $2,460,686
Jaime Herrera (R) $792,390 Dennis Heck (D) $1,647,379
Dave Reichert (R) $1,782,753 Suzan DelBene (D)$3,566,013
Reid Ribble (R) $648,447 Steve Kagen(D)$1,450,583
In the hotly contested congressional field this year, only 71 House races and six Senate races featured politicians who drew no financial opposition. In some races, an opponent might have appeared on the ballot, but federal law requires candidates to detail their fund-raising and expenditures if their campaigns raise or spend more than $5,000. In these races, no such reports had been filed.
Candidates who still have money left in the bank after Election Day have a number of options on how they may use it. They may give it to charity, return it to their contributors, transfer leftover sums to national, state or local party committees, give it to other candidates (subject to regular limits) or save it for a future race.
Final campaign finance filings for money received and spent during the last days and hours of the 2010 election will be reported to the Federal Election Commission on Dec. 2, and the Center will continue to update its analysis and website, OpenSecrets.org, with new information as it processes these reports.
"The politicians who were just elected potentially owe their campaign contributors billions of dollars for helping them win," Krumholz said. "When policy-making resumes in Washington, citizens, activists and the media should vigilantly 'follow the money' to ensure that their representatives always remember that voters, not contributors, elected them."
ABOUT THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS
The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Center aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. The Center’s website, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource for campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available anywhere. The Center relies on support from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions, as well as income earned from custom research projects. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses, labor unions or trade associations.
See? You followed Bobover3's leader and jumped over the edge of the cliff ... didn't you?
Now, YOU PROVE that they didn't....
Last edited by Paolo; 11-06-2010 at 03:46 AM. Reason: trying to fix the chart
__________________
(See the Avatar above)
(OR, Click below)
It's the NEW CONSERVATIVE Body Modification Craze...
No I didn't... It outside sources provided this money.. Never once did I see Blue Cross or Blue Shield name appear there. You are making assumption that just are not there... You do not know the true.. As Jesus told me long ago, you always sat the opposite of what someone else says only to create an arguement... You are just a very agrumental person.. Always trying to create a fight.. So in turn, I say it back.. Thou fool cause you certainly are one.. Tough life to life when all you have to do is create agrument over nothing.Oh BULLSHIT!!!
What is it the bible says about "thou fool" and HELL FIRE?
Well, for my favorite poster I will offer you the HELL FIRE that you so justly deserve...
SOURCE...
See? You followed Bobover3's leader and jumped over the edge of the cliff just like a good little lemming... didn't you?
Now, YOU PROVE that they didn't....
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important" -CS Lewis
You paid more for health care because the company couldn't declare childbirth a preexisting condition and not insure women.
you paid more for health care because emergency rooms will not have to overcharge those with insurance for those without insurance.
You paid more for health care because children with preexisting conditions cannot be refused insurance. You know sick kids with cancer and crippled kids and kids with other diseases.
“They also call it the Winged Isle. Some say it is because the island, if seen from above, would look like butterfly wings. And I do not know the truth of it.” Then, “ ‘And what is truth?’ said jesting Pilate.” From: The Truth Is A Cave In The Black Mountains by Neil Gaiman.
So, it sounds like you have ten times the coverage at a third more cost. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Just what did your previous coverage cover? Doesn't sound like much.
I had BlueCross/BlueShield, until they reduced benefits to the point it wasn't worth having. Normally, I would never meet the deductible, and if anything serious happened, I would have been out thousands. And this was before Obama was elected.
There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.
Slammr
Dave, you assume a clear connection between how much money Obama spends on his India trip and an increase in trade with India. That's so far from being clear that, unless you can explain, I'll say it isn't so. The President needs to go on a trade mission to India (although mutual security issues are also high on the agenda), but he does not need to spend nigh on a billion dollars doing so. There is no reason that would affect the results of his mission. I can't believe you even take yourself seriously in saying this. It sounds like deliberate misdirection, of which you're a master.
The issue is how much money Obama should spend visiting India, NOT whether he should go there.
As for Obama hatred, that can hardly be relevant here, since this story didn't even appear in the US mainstream press. Sadly, Obama hatred is neither blind nor unreasoning, but clear sighted and closely reasoned. Are you not being blind and unreasoning when you invent excuses for anything Obama does, no matter how stupid or harmful? Your god has lost his aura. You can't recreate it.
OneBallBoi is getting screwed. Posts that mock his pain for the purpose of excusing Obamacare read as heartless and cruel, not clever. Remember, you might be next. Obamacare was supposed to help. That's why you claim to support it. If it hurts OneBallBoi and millions more like him, then it's not helping. If you're the liberals you claim to be, and not just blind partisans, you have to deal with that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
