You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Campaign-finance reform? What campaign-finance reform? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Campaign-finance reform? What campaign-finance reform?


sunndoggy8
08-29-2002, 03:26 PM
[i]Bush Breaks Fund-Raising Record

Thu Aug 29, 5:12 PM ET
By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

President Bush ( news - web sites) blazed new records in raising campaign cash Thursday as events in two states - his 49th and 50th fund-raisers of the year - pushed his total to nearly $110 million and provided fresh evidence that money is the oxygen of American political life.

Republicans once accused Bill Clinton of trading presidential prestige for political donations. Now the GOP controls the White House, and Bush is cashing in on his cachet, too.

"The commander in chief has become the fund raiser in chief. And not just this president, any president," said Art English, a political science professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock who watched Clinton rise from the state house to the White House.

At Thursday's fund-raising events, Bush collected $1.1 million for three GOP candidates in Oklahoma and Arkansas. That was on top of at least $108.7 million raised earlier at events in some 20 states and the District of Columbia, according to Associated Press tabulations of figures released by the White House and the GOP campaigns. Two events alone brought in a record-breaking $30 million apiece.

Just in the last month, while using his Texas ranch as a political base, Bush raised money in 11 states - seven of which are vital to his re-election prospects in 2004.

His numbers far surpass Clinton's at this point in his presidency, and establish Bush as perhaps the nation's most prolific political money man.

With control of the House and Senate at stake, "The president is going to help elect those who will help implement his agenda," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

In Clinton's home state, Bush was the main attraction at a $500-a-plate fund-raiser for Sen. Tim Hutchinson ( news, bio, voting record), who is seeking re-election in a competitive race against Democrat Mark Pryor.

It's one of the nation's most-watched campaigns in the battle for control of the Senate.

In Oklahoma, Bush raised $500,000 for gubernatorial candidate Steve Largent and Sen. James Inhofe ( news, bio, voting record), who is seeking a second full term. Republicans paid $1,000 for a chicken-and-beans lunch and to hear Bush promote his domestic and war policies in almost the exact words he uses at every fund-raising event.

"It is time to defend freedom," Bush said.

"Amen!" came a shout from the crowd.

In 2000, Bush became the first presidential candidate to turn down federal matching money in the primary season. He raised more than $100 million to finance the race on his own.

Bush is likely to bust the caps again for his 2004 re-election bid, and Democratic presidential hopefuls are already studying whether they can raise enough money to follow suit.

Escalating costs of polling, travel, consultant fees and, especially, TV advertising has created an unquenchable thirst for campaign cash.

"President Clinton ( news - web sites) saw the advantages Republicans had in technology and the ability to raise money and he became obsessed in getting Democrats in the game," English said. "President Bush understands that a lot is at stake in the congressional elections so he's working hard, as Clinton did, to make sure his party isn't left behind."

Making matters worse, leaders of both parties are scrambling to raise millions of dollars in "soft money" - unlimited, unregulated donations - before those contributions are restricted under a new campaign finance law.

Taxpayers foot most of the bill for Bush's trip, because the White House organized a brief policy event after scheduling the fund-raiser. He announced that Arkansas is one of five states getting a total of $2.4 million to develop pre-college classes.

"One person can make a difference, and I hope you do," Bush told high school students who welcomed him with cheers and shrieks.

Earlier, in Oklahoma, Bush was greeted at the airport by Largent, who spent more than $1.5 million to win the GOP nomination Tuesday d

TheMojoPin
08-29-2002, 07:26 PM
HOOOORAY!!!

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

HordeKing1
08-29-2002, 09:07 PM
As Time Magazine pointed out this week, it's ironic that Bush, a person from a filthy rich family, tries to pass himself off as a man of the people.


<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

blakjeezis
08-29-2002, 09:12 PM
To be fair, King, an overwhelming majority of federal politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are filthy rich. It's not just Bush. They all try and pass themselves of as men of the people. It's a neccessary part of the campaign process. Would anyone vote for Johnny Moneybags if he said, "I have got more money than you'll make in your entire life, and am completely out of touch with the woking man. Vote for me."?

<IMG SRC =http://blakjeezis.homestead.com/files/sabretooth.gif>
Thanks to PanterA
<marquee>White people are so scared of blakjeezis</marquee>

TheMojoPin
08-29-2002, 09:34 PM
To be fair, King, an overwhelming majority of federal politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are filthy rich. It's not just Bush.

Which proves my point that if the American public on a whole is too ignorant/stupid/lazy to realize that the Democrats and Republicans have become almost identical, then they deserve the shitty options presented to them at election time.

And come on, "to be fair"? When the other guy is in office, it's too much fun to take easy shots...just ask Clinton...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

A.J.
08-30-2002, 03:33 AM
As Time Magazine pointed out this week, it's ironic that Bush, a person from a filthy rich family, tries to pass himself off as a man of the people.


I feel the same way when I see Ted Kennedy do the same thing -- particularly when he keeps pushing to increase the minimum wage. Like he ever worked a minimum wage job...



<IMG SRC="http://nortonfan.com/shit/greatsig.jpg">
"Got to scrape that shit right off your shoes."

HordeKing1
08-30-2002, 10:02 AM
The point isn't that the overwhelming majoity of politicians are wealthy. Rather it's that Bush actively promotes himself as a common man. (In intelligence he's pretty common - a product of the dumbing down of America).

I don't see how or why you criticise Kennedy for promoting a minimum wage. Of course he never knew from poverty, but at least he's trying to help people. Bush has expanded the PRWOA to cut services to millions of people. Ironically, although this welfare reform (i.e. elimination) legislation began with Reagan but wasn't signed into law until Clinton took office. It's been steadily expanded under Bush.

It would be refreshing to see a president concern himself with whether their constituents could earn enough working full time to be counted above the poverty line.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

A.J.
08-30-2002, 10:38 AM
I don't see how or why you criticise Kennedy for promoting a minimum wage. Of course he never knew from poverty, but at least he's trying to help people


HK -- I criticize Kennedy because he exemplifies liberalism: educated, well-to-do people who think (genuinely or for political reasons) that you can help the poor simply by throwing more money at them.

How many times has the minimum wage been raised in the last 5 years? Each time we're told "it's not enough". Well, why not make it $20.00 an hour? Hell, I'll quit the job I have now and go back to flipping burgers.

<IMG SRC="http://nortonfan.com/shit/greatsig.jpg">
"Got to scrape that shit right off your shoes."

TheMojoPin
08-30-2002, 11:47 AM
How many times has the minimum wage been raised in the last 5 years? Each time we're told "it's not enough".

A quarter, fifty cent, or, God-willing, seventy-five cent raise ISN'T enough. What's the minimum wage now, $5.75? $6.00? That's absurd. Ideally, a minimum LIVING wage is what needs to be researched, but that's just not going to happen. A minimum wage should be "the bare minimum you need to survive on your own with what you are paid by one job." It doesn't mean a ton of money, just enough to own your own shack and shitty car. The current rate isn't even close to that. Having to work three or four jobs to feed your family is just insanity.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

Gvac
08-31-2002, 03:22 AM
Do you know that over 75% of the people in this country currently earning minimum wage are teenagers?

And do you think that jobs won't dissappear if employers are forced to pay a high rate for an unskilled position?

It sounds nice and noble to say you want everyone to earn a nice salary, but it's completely illogical and totally impractical.

And as to the original subject of campaign finance reform, I feel it's a completely Unconstitutional law that limits our rights of free speech.

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/GvacNew.gif>

Another JerseyRich Masterpiece

TheMojoPin
08-31-2002, 09:02 AM
Teenagers may be the bulk of minimum wage earners, but at the bookstore I run, the majority of new applicants are recently fired tech and dot.com workers who are just desperate for some kind of cash flow. Most are married, and many have at least one child...hence why a living wage would be ideal, because then Mr. teenager can earn what little he "needs" while living with mom and dad and getting everything paid for, while the guy with the young bride and new family can get JUST ENOUGH to get by without having to work three jobs.

Minimum wage should be $8.00. It needs to respond and change in terms of inflation and the economy around it. Sure, teenagers may be earning most of it, but all of it by far. Even if 25% of minimum wage is being earned by non-"teens", given the number of people depending on minimum wage to live 25% is still a massive number. And many of those teens could easily have awful home situations, where there money is helping feed the other kids, dad could be gone, mom could be sick, who knows? NOBODY could live off of $6.00 an hour. It's absurd.

Of course, some people are still going to stand by this inane, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps shit", but come on. Yes, obviously, many people are going to have to work a fulltime job and a parttime job, or maybe even two full jobs, but the lengths many people have to go to just to survive is insane. I have people working for me who get about 4 hours of sleep at best and maybe an hour or two at home. It's insane.

Besides, by raising the minimum wage, you would actually pull people off welfare and lower crime. By keeping minimum wage so low, why are people going to feel the need to get of social services or welfare when they can almost make the same piddling salary for doing nothing. And as for crime, well, numerous urban studies have shown that it breaks down to a simple fact: people have more money, they're far less likely to turn to crime, whatever it may be. The money's there, and then some, it just needs to be slid around a bit.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

Recyclerz
08-31-2002, 03:07 PM
Anybody really interested in this topic should read Nickel & Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. (She is a successful author/academic.) The book is about her experiences working at low paying jobs and trying to live on just what she earned without supplementing the benjamins from her real life. Eye-opening & thought-provoking. IMHO <P>

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

Gvac
08-31-2002, 05:40 PM
I agree that people need more money in their pockets. I say instead of raising the minimum wage, we should say that anyone earning it should have to pay ZERO taxes.

I'll bet everything I own the liberals would NEVER go for such a plan.

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/GvacNew.gif>

Another JerseyRich Masterpiece

HordeKing1
08-31-2002, 05:48 PM
GVAC - I'm sorry but your figures are not accurate.

1999, is the year for which the last figures were completed. The data from subsequent years are still being analyzed and peer reviewed.

Among full time workers age 16-24, just 10.2% earned the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. 12.3% of part-time workers earn the minimmun wage. (Karger & Stoesz, 2002, p. 129)

Almost 90% of those who earn minimum wages are ABOVE the age of 24.

A minimum wage earner working 40 hours a week earns just $10,712 a YEAR. Im sure I don't even have to mention that this falls many thousands of dollars bellow the minimum poverty line for a family of 3 (which in 1999 was 13,920 - a somewhat deceptively low figure as many poor families have in excess of five kids.)

The 2001 U.S. Poverty Standard awards families of five with income below $22,029 per year the dubious distinction of belonging to the class of acknowledged impoverished. Since so many people are earning the minimum wage, they continue to fall deeper and deeper into the poverty hole.

Can you live on this money? I followed the example of Barbara Ehrenreich referred to above and tried to live at (not below) the federal poverty standard for one week. Remember that this is over $10,000 above what a person earning minimum wage earns. There was just no way we could do it. Even if we cut all food and starved we wouldn't be able to meet housing costs, utilities and other basic staples.

Where does the minimum poverty level come from? In 1938, Mollie Orshansky who worked for the department of Agricultrue undertook a massive project to determine how much families of different numbers and locale need to purchase food. The first "low cost estimate" was intended to ensure a nutritionally adequate diet. The second estimate was an economy food plan costing only 75-80% of the basic low cost plan and intended for "temporary or emergency use when funds are low." The low cost plan did not satisfy nutritional requirements. Nonetheless, the low cost plan was adopted into the poverty level standard which is still in use today. Once Orshansky arrived at this number she essentially doubled it and allocated that money for payment of all non-food expenses. This approach is quite puzzling as the Department of Agriculture figures resulted from the scientific application of numerous criteria. The non-food budget covering the balance of expenses has no such scientific foundation, nor does it appear to be based on any scientific inquiry.


The minimum wage is woefully below the inadequate amount needed to be at the poverty line. (In itself a gross underestimation). There are three approaches to this problem. The first is to do nothing and say "fuck em." The second is to raise the minimum wage to an acceptable level. The third, and the one that makes the most sense to me, is to replace the minimum wage with a living wage.

If we're not going to say fuck them we have to help them. And we have to do it in a way that ensures that people working full time can afford to purchase food.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

Recyclerz
08-31-2002, 08:32 PM
Oooh, Oooh, pick me Mr. Kot-ter, I know this one!! Mr. Vac, Your Majesty, I humbly submit for your consideration a plan that should satisfy you both: The Negative Income Tax for the working poor! (see link for academic discussion) http://fto.int8.com/researchpapers/negativeincometax/ It's great. It only helps the working poor (everybody's favorite kind!); it could guarantee a decent level of income without disrupting the labor markets like a mandated minimum wage would; A conservative god (Milton Friedman) thought it up!; (Cont.) <P>

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

HordeKing1
08-31-2002, 08:35 PM
There are tax incentives (technically called expenditures) that benefit the working poor, but it does not provide them with a living wage.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

Recyclerz
08-31-2002, 08:38 PM
[Cont.] Michael Kinsley loves it (GVAC you lose that bet - you can't get more

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

Recyclerz
08-31-2002, 08:45 PM
Oops. Let me finish the thought... <P>
Kinsley is a liberal. <P>
So what could be more important than changing the tax laws to accomplish this? Oh yeah, W. though it more important to change the law so that the kids of really, really rich people get to keep all the loot when they pull the plug on Dad and/or Mom. <P>
Ah well, back to figgerin' how to hear R&F during middays.:-( <P>

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

Recyclerz
08-31-2002, 08:53 PM
HK <P>
True, but this program (conceptually) would go beyong the current f'ed up system and guarantee a level of income above the poverty level for anybody who was working and trapped down there now. The only difference from what you're advocating is that society picks up some of the tab rather than creating a disincentive for employers to hire unskilled labor. <P>

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

TheMojoPin
08-31-2002, 09:28 PM
that society picks up some of the tab

How is a living wage "picking up the tab"? You do the job well, you get paid the living wage. You don't do the job or do it poorly, you get fired. The only way you can make the living wage is if you do your job.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP