Elusive Trope's picture

    To A Billion And Beyond!

    By Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 7:32pm |

    What to make of this:

    President Barack Obama has shattered first quarter fundraising records for a White House incumbent by raising $86 million – a total that dwarfs the 2012 GOP field’s total take for the same period and that was substantially higher than his own target of $60 million.

    The pulse on the blogosphere seemed at times that disgruntled Dems were going to keep those checkbooks closed until Obama and the Dems started acting like true Dems.
     

    [Campaign Manager Jim Messina] also touted the campaign’s commitment to grassroots organizing, and the fact that the average donation to Obama’s non-DNC account was $69, lower even than the 2008 average contribution. Obama’s campaign organization had come under fire from some on the left who accused it of focusing too heavily on Democratic money players.

    “This should end any Washington chatter about whether or not our grassroots base will be engaged. Our supporters are back, they’re energized,” Messina later told reporters on a campaign conference call.


    One interesting note for me since I am in Indiana:

    Messina said that most of the primary cash would be used to build statewide organizations, including one in Indiana, despite reports that Team Obama had essentially given up hopes of repeating its 2008 victory there.

    I don't have much hope for him taking Indiana.  But any presence will help overall Democrats in a state that last election saw the Republicans seize control of everything.

    Comments

    One other point I forgot to make:

    The insanity of the Republicans with the debt ceiling will only make Obama and Company more appealing to the deep pockets of big business, and less likely that the GOP candidates will see a huge influx of money.  The PACs, however, are a different story.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 7:37pm

    Wow. I confess to surprise.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 7:52pm

    I too must confess surprise.  The next question will be whether he and the DNC can sustain this level of generosity.  This is where the Cantor and the other Republicans have done them a huge favor in my opinion.  And lets face it, too many voters are swayed by the television ads which these dollars buy.  The next next question is whether the conservatives will pump their money into the PACs to counter the tv buys.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 8:01pm

    Well, a good part of this low-level fundraising came from selling raffle tickets for a dinner with Barack.  I'm sure they can think of other things to hawk and raffle off too: beer cruises on Air Force One, Lincoln Bedroom stays, a special issue $100 bill with the winners face on it.  I'm not sure how much of it should be "contributing to the campaign."


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:34pm

    So even if that's true, what you're saying is that during these troubling times that average citizens are spending money on "raffle tickets" of which the sole prize is to hang with Obama, but they would rather he not be president for another four years?


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 11:56pm

    If Mila Kunis was bombarding America with email pitches to buy a raffle ticket for a romantic dinner with Mila, she could raise a lot of money too.  Obama and Kunis are stars, and the fact that there are many star-struck individuals who want to bask in their aura does not bespeak any profound convictions that either Barack Obama or Mila Kunis should be president.

    Kunis, at least, has the good taste to give dates away for free for a good cause.

    550,000 people is fewer than 1 in 500 Americans.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:42am

    Okay so first you dis Americans as being star struck idiots who have no political convictions.  So what does this say about the results of any election.  Basically maybe just who has the most name recognition or the best commercials?  So we as might as well just hang up our hats and call it a night because we are doomed politically.

    Secondly, the majority of Americans do not participate in primaries.  Do we invalidate them?

    Thirdly, it seems you are saying that W. generating his funds through zillion dollar a plate dinners so you can meet the Prez is somehow more legitimate than average joe playing a raffle to meet the Prez.  I always knew you were a closet wealthy elitst. :)

    The fact is most rallies and so many fund raisers are based on "get close" to the celeb.  Whether it is Obama or Palin or Nader.  Deal with it. 

    If you are holding your breath waiting for profound political convictions to have any major sway in politics, I have something to tell you: you are dead.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:58am

    Your comments are completely illogical.

    You implied by your comments that these numbers show that there are not lots of disgruntled Dems.   I think before leaping to that judgment you might want to ask the 99.8% of Americans who did not donate money this quarter to Obama's campaign what they think.  A sizeable proportion of them are Democrats.

    I didn't dis "Americans" as a group.  I dissed politicians who appeal to star-struck political groupies, while pointing out that the number of people donating so far was fewer than 1 in 500 Americans.

    I can't even begin to make sense of the W. comment.

    I donated money several times in the last election, and not once did it have anything to do with getting close to the candidate.  I don't think most people who donate to campaigns have that kind of aim as any kind of significant motive.  The Obama campaign wanted some big first quarter numbers this cycle, so they ran a gimmick pitch.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 1:23am

    A good chunk of a politician's time is taken up with what?  [insert politician's name] will be appearing at fund raising dinner in [insert city name here].  One of the great quotes of W. shown in Moore's film "Some people call you the elite.  I call you my base."

     

      [laughter; applause]. Why are those people there paying that money?  So they can be close to him.  Maybe to get influence.  But I will bet my last dollar (to which I am close) that most of them have some photograph of that event. 

    But in the end, if the fact that Obama's fundraising record means nothing, if it in fact shows a negative because of the number that contribute, then it would lead one to say that Reagan and Clinton and W. were all in mega-dire straits going into their second term elections, and conventional wisdom would say they should have lost, because look their donors from the first campaign were not stepping up for their second campaign.

    But in the final analysis, one has to be completely out of it to give to a politician and not get it that such a contribution will help re-elect said politician.  So at the very least, unless you're going to say Americans are truly brain dead (in which case we're doomed), they don't mind Obama being president.  Which in American politics (where a good chunk of voters make up their mind about who to vote for president in the last week of the race), is maybe as good as it gets.

    Or another way of looking at it: people don't donate to NPR for the t-shirt, but if they didn't offer the t-shirt (or coffee mug or chance at meeting David Sedaris) the donations wouldn't be so great.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 1:47am

    I don't get your point. The high-powered donors are buying access. Obama has plenty of affairs exactly like the Bush one you highlight. The small-donors either care about a cause, are star-struck or both.

    It seems difficult to argue that the "Obama raffle" does not cater 100% to the star-struck crowd.

    But you completely miss Dan's larger point. You are looking at .2% of the country and declaring that the behavior of this group is somehow indicative of larger "American" desire. Even if you look at it as a function of 2008 voter turnout, this number jumps to a whopping .4% of the active electorate. Democrats are about 32.5% of the electorate right now, so assuming every one of these people is a Democrat, the number of donors represents about 1.3% (based on 2008 turnout) of all Democrats.

    I suppose your view that an action by no more than 1.3% of your party represents an overwhelming mandate-confirming endorsement from the entire caucus explains an awful lot.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 2:03pm

    And you missing my point. I am not saying that this represents an overwhelming mandate-confirming endorsement from the entire caucus.

    Let me use a sports analogy: a rookie running back that no one gave a chance to make the team runs for 314 yards in his first game, breaking the single game record for any running back at any career point.  During his second game, in the first two quarters he scampers for 163 yards, putting him on pace to blow past his first game.  I say that is pretty impressive, and indicates the kid might have some serious game.  Dan pipes in and says so what, there are still 62 quarters left in the season and as far as a career total, 477 yards pales in comparison to Emmitt Smith's record of 18,355 yards.

    The kid may end being a bust, or he might blow out his knee, or he might go on to a so-so career, or he might end up setting season records and career records for a running back.  Who knows.  But an running who is able to put up 477 yards in 6 quarters deserves attention because guys just don't do that regardless of the schemes the coaches have drawn up and the talent holding the ball and blocking for the guy.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 2:57pm

    Well that reminds me of Timmy Smith. As a 'Skin, he rushed for 204 yards in SuperBowl XXII, but only ran for 602 yards in his career. Having the Hogs in front of him blowing away the Bronco's defensive blockers was a big help. Don't see too many Hogs in front of Obama though there may be some behind the scenes.


    by Donal on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:17pm

    Don't see too many Hogs in front of the 'skins offense these days either.

    Reid blocks for Obama like crazy. Pisses me off.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 3:15am

    Funny, when Obama does something you don't like, it's because he's an evil, thoroughly corrupt corporatist doing the bidding of Wall Street.  When Harry Reid does something you don't like, even though he's never been anybody's idea of an FDR liberal, it's because Obama is an evil, thoroughly corrupt corporatist doing the bidding of Wall Street.


    by brewmn on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 11:18am

    Politically speaking, Obama can hardly be called a rookie just completing his first six quarters.

    That said, I would argue players just don't do what you describe WITHOUT perfect schemes drawn up by the coaches, talent holding the ball that executes flawlessly and an offensive line that opens up a sweet lane that they then capitalize on for maximum gain. Taking your view, it would kind of make Obama a showboating a-hole who takes credit for the execution of a team - like a TO.

    Viewing the acquisition of money as the basis for defining a politician's game is another thing that really sucks. To me it just highlights there is nothing different or special about Obama - he's just a sold-out POS like the rest of them and leading the Democrats to more of the same. Congratulations on your boy being more effectively corrupt than the other side has yet managed to be. Go team!

    Don't get me wrong, I know money is needed for a campaign. But this the only thing that can be called an impressive achievement Obama has produced for "our" side ... a side that used to include a lot of people who aren't Democrats (though far fewer these days). Non-dems didn't really see having a party rake in hand-over-fist cash as the purpose for electing Obama. Independents aren't monolithic, but I'm pretty confident going out on that limb for us. The priorities are all political bullshit.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 4:09am

    Oh, I had to look up who is this Mila you speak of.   I do know her work, but I guess it says something, although i don't know what, that I was unaware of her name. 


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 1:01am

    Additionally, contrary to the negativity of the headline on this report, the participation levels are high, not only in the amount of money but in the number of people (including 260,000 first time donors) making the donations.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/obama-nets-260000-first-...

    Sounds like there are lots of people outside dag who think he's doing a decent job.


    by stillidealistic on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:00am

    Obama collected $47 million during April, May and June, gathering contributions from 552,462 individuals -- a record participation rate for this point in a presidential campaign, officials said.

    The number of donors for the quarter also ecclipsed the campaign's total for 2007.

    Yeah the headline is totally misleading.  It would only be a legitimate question if some other president had its donors mostly return at this point in the campaign.  Since he blew doors off all the records, the headline is basically of the sensational variety, which doesn't surprise me, but is one more notch in the sinking American press stick.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:09am

    I was active with GOTV in 2010 for K, Meeks here in Florida.  Now I am on every person's list that is raising money for DNC.  My email is stuff with letters and requests for donations.  Many of the emails are very informative about what is going on in DC and Republican strong holds in states like Ohio and WI, so I am not surprised at the amount of money that is being raised.  There is anger and desperation that many of the emails are tapping into. 

    Alan Grayson is going to run again for his old house seat in Orlando.  He has done a good job of keeping in touch with his base while he has been out of office.  There will be lots of $$$ in that race.   


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 2:17am

    I think what is probably infuriating some of those on the far left is that this last episode does show there is actually a difference between Dems and Repubs.  Cantor does not equal Grayson.  Mitt does not equal Barry the Socialist.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 2:37am

    I am by no means on the far left ... so maybe that's why I'm not following your logic here. Do you mean the the Debt Ceiling thing when you refer to a "last episode?"

    If so ... What about Mitch McConnoll going on TV and asserting that of course they will raise the debt ceiling and that nobody in congress is even talking about not raising the debt ceiling? At the same time Obama is putting Medicare on the table and running around threatening to cut Social Security payments as first resort if Congress doesn't do what McConnell is saying they totally plan to do anyway?

    The lines are so criss-crossed between the party objectives right now it's impossible to discern where the ass's ass stops and the elephant's ass begins. Hell, if you get your heads any further up each others butts it would approach a paradox or create a black hole or something.

    Obama has set himself to be fighting a 45-day-out narrative that the GOP saved Medicare/Social Security from *him*.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:44am

    when discussing these issues, sometimes it is probably helpful to point out whether one is talking about the low information voter, the medium information voter or the high information voter.  In the previous comment I was referring to the high information left-wing voter who is frustrated with Obama's moderate to moderate right policies, but now is faced with reality that the Republicans have almost no one who fills the moderate right spot, let alone a majority that can help craft national policy.  There are those who want to paint Obama as a Republican, and there was a day it was true, say 1974.  But not in 2011. And point is we live in 2011 and not 1974.  And one can go on and on about how he is like a Republican in 1974, but it doesn't really much at all, especially since there Democrats in 1974 that were like Republicans in 2011.

    And this last episode shows that there indeed a difference between a Congress controlled by the Rs than the Ds.  If in 2010, the voters had sent the Ds back to control., would we be in this mess?  The simple and straightforward answer: NO.  I repeat. NO.  I repeat again. NO.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:57am

    Haven't we already established that the high-info left wing has never fallen below the upper 80's in approval no matter what? I thought that's why y'all were ignoring what they want and playing to the low-info moderate independents that will sweep Obama in to office come 2012.

    The high-info left seem to be pretty keen on a leader who defends Medicare - not one that trades it away. Definitive proof of Obama's eagerness to cut crucial social programs seems to be the largest take-away here. I'm still confused as what you see as the great big difference between the party objectives you have seen highlighted ... that Obama takes the position of a Medicare-slashing Republican who will also raise taxes?

    I can see an argument (I feel is wrong) that there might be some sizable faction out there who really wants to see a bastard-child approach pulled out of politician's asses to every issue facing America and would be attracted by this .... of all American sub-groups, I'm just sort of skeptical the high-info liberals could possibly fit that bill. They seem to keep voting for Dems out of an odd mix of fear, loyalty and lack of imagination ... 100% emotional, Obama can do anything and they'll vote for him.

    If in 2010, the voters had sent the Ds back to control., would we be in this mess?  The simple and straightforward answer: NO.  I repeat. NO.  I repeat again. NO.

    No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney. How is the dynamic substantially different from HCR? Or December ... when Democrats held unchallenged power and KNEW the Republicans were moving in to the position they now hold?

    It doesn't matter if you guys have a majority - or how big a majority America hands you ... GOP "obstruction" will always be an insurmountable hurdle to those who have no interest in clearing it.

    We're in this "mess" because of Obama's debt commission. He created this narrative on purpose well in advance of the 2010 election. IMO this episode demonstrates that as long as he is president, our social safety net will be under attack from Democrats.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:34pm

    Pat on the back as you seem to be fighting this battle all alone.

    It becomes increasingly dysfunctional to deny what the president himself affirms.

    No one seems to even understand what the message is. Just, "everthing on the chopping block". Chop all night, sand in the day.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 2:36pm

    Where do I say that had we sent the Dems more control that there would nothing but gumdrops and rainbows.  I am saying we wouldn't be fighting over whether to raise the debt ceiling.  I seriously doubt Nancy P. would be telling Obama that unless he makes even bigger cuts, the Dems in the House aren't going to raise the debt limit. 

    The Dems would screwing around probably, arguing over minor tweaks to health care, or whether to have another stimulus.  Of course, had the Dems grew their majorities in 2010, it would have sent the message that indeed Obama and the Dems did NOT go to far to the left.  We would be listening to Grayson and not tea party hacks.

    And I am not of the crowd that believes to modify SS does not equate gutting it.  The Commission recommended some needed improvements, including to those who have to retire early because their jobs put more punishment on the body than other jobs.  I don't believe to give inch on SS means inevitably and quickly a mile will be taken.  Reform of SS is not always an attack.  The same goes for medicare, the defense budget, etc. 

    We're in this mess because ideologues and those afraid of losing the next election aren't willing to address a situation that unless it is dealt with will become a real serious problem down the road.  Unfortunately, too many people treat this all like they treat the climate change.  It ain't a crisis until trees are bursting into flames or the sea swallows LA.  Why do today what can kicked down the road ten years (because by then suddenly politicians will be able to quickly deal with complex issues).


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:16pm

    And I'm saying your assertion is unsustainable. Politicians would totally be fighting over whether to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats held both the House and Senate not long ago at all ... name ONE thing that passed they didn't fight over. Truth is if Democrats had been given control of the House, you'd just be explaining how a lack of super-duper-ultra majority in the Senate means that Obama has to give away the farm.

    We're in this mess because ideologues and those afraid of losing the next election aren't willing to address a situation that unless it is dealt with will become a real serious problem down the road.

    Those who argue against slashing benefits do so based on the belief that it is horrible policy and would cause tons on unnecessary pain for some of the most vulerable Americans.  Your faction is the one that is bereft of any moral compass and justifies everything based on a need to win the next election. You are projecting again. The fact that it's political suicide is just a side-observation.

    Obama's debt commission explicitly noted that Social Security has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. And it also has nothing to do with the debt ceiling (any more than China does). Obama's commission went well outside it's mandate of addressing the national debt specifically based on the long-held religion of some of the most notorious ideologues in America ... and now Obama is embracing these ideologues who violated the public trust.

    There isn't a crisis in Social Security until a credible source presents the math to prove it is a crisis. In that regard, your position on Social Security is more like the inverse of those concerned about Global Warming - there is no science to support those who want to destroy it (e.g. you). For Social Security math shows the absolute worst possible outcome in the event the economy never comes back and the rich keep refusing to pay in it that there would have to be a 20% reduction in benefits ... two decades down the road.  That's a decades-distant tax increase (+1.53% to the FICA match, worst case). Not. A. Crisis.

    The most hilarious part is that you call those against cutting self-funded social safety net programs with zero debate as part of an entirely unrelated negotiation over requirements to sustain general expenditures ... ideologues. That's fucking rich.

    To me an ideologue playing politics because of electoral concerns is someone who, when McConnell offered a plan to cleanly raise the debt ceiling, refuses thus:

    "It doesn't reduce the deficit and that's what we have to do. It just deals with the debt limit. Now Sen. McConnell wants me to wear the jacket for that."

    So, to be really clear here. Obama acknowledges that the GOP has offered to deal with only the debt ceiling and none of the other nonsense. Obama flat out refused. Why? Because he doesn't want to "wear the jacket" of raising national debt. Isn't that the very definition of making a decision out of fear of losing the next election? And now he is back today demanding means testing for Medicare. Who's really playing chicken here? Obama is the one who won't let the debt limit raise without gutting Medicare. It's not the GOP.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 12:56pm

    Wow. He's getting paid. Who'd ever have imagined that would happen?

    Interestingly, you highlight the combined total haul taken in by Obama. Then you highlight an average donation calculated based on a subset of donors. In other words, when only donations made through the vehicle Obama uses to collect small donations are included in calculations (apparently around 55% of his total), of course the average donation is going to be small. But wouldn't the actual average donation size be a more honest number to promote ... or maybe better put, isn't selectively filtering out all the big donations and then promoting the result as Obama's average donation kind of dishonest?

    Shit ... a handful of Wall Street guys gave him $2.2 million in like an hour and a half last week. Ummmmm ..... congratulations? So totally different from Washington as usual. Wonder how, exactly, they pulled that off without "one single dollar from Washington lobbyists or special interest PAC?" ... I guess if you collect a big wad of cash from interested CEOs directly, it is totally different.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:03am

    So what is your point?

    Obama is like every other sitting president, except his team is smart enough to pull in more money than the other presidents' teams whose had the same goal? 

    Are you saying a president of the people wouldn't be trying to bring in as much money as possible?

    Of course there are huge donors involved. Given how so many American voters make their decisions about voting based on tv (commercials, convention coverage, etc) what politician wouldn't try to raise as much as they could, regardless of their integrity and ethics and purity. 

    I feel that you are having a hard time understanding why Obama was able to do what Bush, Cheney et al. couldn't do with Fox, why there might be a plethora of Democrats who are not upset with Obama, who while they might not be enthralled, see him, as the best we have available to us, and that is enough to generate support.

    The puzzler: why didn't Wall Street et al swamp Bush, then McCain with the money they are giving Obama?


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:23am

    My point is two fold. (a) it would appear you are playing a game with numbers vis-a-vis average donation size that is downright Fox-like in it's obvious intent to deceive the casual reader.

    and (b) you highlight yet again that Obama was a full of crap lying asshole who had no intention of doing what he said in 2008. Unsurprisingly, I'm not impressed. If that's what your party chooses to celebrate in the current political/economic situation, I think it speaks for itself.

    Frankly, you are projecting. You seem to have a vendetta against liberals and it warps your thinking. I have said time and time again that Obama's problem isn't with Democrats ... and I say AGAIN self-identified liberals have not gone below 89% approval - no matter how much Obama fucks with them. Your biggest problem is that only Teabaggers share your hatred ... and they aren't ever going to vote for Obama.

    What I feel you are having a hard time understanding is that Americans, regardless how they self-identify, want populist/liberal policy when it comes to core economic and social infrastructure issues. The glee you feel at seeing your primary enemy cowed has blinded you to the fact that along with liberals, that which America thought they were electing in 2008 with Obama is also being defeated.

    And your "puzzler" is not a puzzler at all. Wall Street (and it's CEOs) has never made more money than under Obama's tender stewardship - at any time in history. McCain could NEVER have delivered for them like Obama has. Simply put, the rich have never been better off, so bribe seeking politician gets bribed. That's the way it works. Bush had his own money ... he was in it to accomplish a set of goals, not suck up to his peers.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 4:21am

    Actually I knew the answer to the puzzler. So it brings up the real puzzler: what is exactly Cantor up to?  As so many have said, Obama has given more than anyone would have imagined and yet....the whole narrative the conservatives have worked to create is being turned on its head.  They are left either looking increasingly insane or coming back to the middle where we as a nation can get back to discussing things as adults.

    But the key point is within this comment

    What I feel you are having a hard time understanding is that Americans, regardless how they self-identify, want populist/liberal policy when it comes to core economic and social infrastructure issues.

    What you leave out and is at the core of the issue is....they want populist/liberal policy but they don't want to personally sacrifice for that policy.  And I am speaking of the 75% of Americans (given that 25% are unemployed or severely underemployed) who have a decent job relatively speaking. 

    Everyone is for universal health care as long as they don;t have to pay for their neighbor's surgery.

    The glee I feel is that the people are finally confronting the real issues, push is coming to shove, and decisions have to be made.  Everyone is against the death panels, but now they have to really decide whether they want to grandma on the park bench, homeless and unable to feed herself.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 4:35am

    You sound like Orin Hatch. Are you proposing that the majority of Americans are not currently personally sacrificing to a very great extent?

    They are. Wages have been flat for over a decade. The investment many have been counting on based on "sophisticated" financial experts telling them it was rock solid for "average" folks - their homes - are worth shit and will be for another decade. Hell, what do you consider 25% of the population essentially being unemployed ... while corporations sit on unspent trillions earned largely based on their direct access to tax revenues at zero interest and pay their CEOs record bonuses? I call that some serious sacrifice.

    And you know what else these very same Americans have been doing? Paying in to their fucking Social Security and Medicare. You know who hasn't? The assholes trying to avoid raising their own taxes (which Americans who "refuse to sacrifice" pay on every penny they earn), that's who. Sacrifice is relative, I suppose.

    What, pray tell, do you consider the "real issue"?


    by kgb999 on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 12:47pm

    I'm all for reform of corporate tax law so they definitely pay their more than fair share of the tax burden.  But I don't think asking an individual who is making 60K a year with health benefits to pay a little more to help pay for a national healthcare system and not continue to increase the debt, so that it becomes a problem in 2020, is asking too much.  I make much less than that and would be willing to kick in a little more to help those with low low incomes or no income.  I don't care if the wages are flat (I haven't seen a raise in years myself).  A national health care system is a mega-pricey endeavor.  And since I don't see a practical or realistic way to make companies stay in our country, I don't see doing it solely through the corporations as feasible.  There just aren't that many GEs and Exxons out there to tap.  I know in my next of the woods, there aren't any of those corporations who sitting on trillions.  I do know there are people who are giving hundred and thousands of dollars to nonprofits who are having to fill the gaps in services the government can't provide.  It makes no sense to me (as someone who works in the nonprofit world) to fight the government taking $250 in taxes and then turn around and give the free health clinic $1,500 because the piecemeal system is less efficient. 


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 3:28pm

    Oh. And Eric Cantor is stepping up because someone in the GOP leadership needs to be seen as carrying water for the Tea Party here or they are going to explode. Bohner is going to have to make *something* happen - McConnell already gave it away. The Cantor laundry list had gotten so over the top it was an obvious propaganda move, they are using Obama's negotiation 100% as a messaging opportunity.

    Cantor is hungry for power, and like Bachmann sees the tea party as a viable elevator. Bohner has power. When the deal makes Wall Street happy, he's going to be the one at the center of it. Likewise McConnell. So you have Bohner collecting from Wall Street and Cantor placating the Tea Partiers; fighting valiantly before being crushed by the evil "Washington Powers".

    It's similar to how Bohner and McCaskil tag-team newbies on earmarks to snag appropriations from states with less experienced legislators (except in that scam, legislators who play the role Bohner takes here and shadow earmark for the districts to keep money flowing stay on the down low).


    by kgb999 on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 1:10pm

    If the Republicans are on the verge of collapse, don't you think it makes sense to let that happen before we turn our guns on the not-liberal-enough leaders of the Demcoratic Party? 


    by brewmn on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 11:25am

    Latest Comments