TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Candidate Expenses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Candidate Expenses - Page 2  

post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
McCain did accept
....while collecting donations from the lobbyists and special interest groups. Oh, that's right, those aren't public contributions.

Their lawyers couldn't agree to terms. If both candidates take accountability of what their lawyers decided, then I guess that neither of one had an issue with the decision. Unless you are suggesting that McCain didn't agree with his own legal staff? Or was it that McCain went against his word when he chose to publicly denounce Obama for their mutual decision. There he goes flip flopping again!
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
....while collecting donations from the lobbyists and special interest groups. Oh, that's right, those aren't public contributions.

Their lawyers couldn't agree to terms. If both candidates take accountability of what their lawyers decided, then I guess that neither of one had an issue with the decision. Unless you are suggesting that McCain didn't agree with his own legal staff? Or was it that McCain went against his word when he chose to publicly denounce Obama for their mutual decision. There he goes flip flopping again!
The link Eithne provided clearly how much money has been raised.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The fact is BHO didn't take the Federal funding he said he would, and has out raised and outspent McCain 4-1. That's really gonna bite when he loses. IF it makes it that far: with the scandal surrounding his online fundraising, I wouldn't be surprised at seeing Hillary being written back into the picture.
post #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Not unless you checked the box on your Federal tax return, and since you're not a US Citizen you don't have that option.
I'm confused... Is it only citizens whose tax dollars that go to a campaign? I do a Federal tax return, do I not have that same option? I don't remember seeing it as an option (the accountant does our taxes...).
post #34 of 52
The fact is Obama lied and McCain kept his word. Period.

I will vote for the man with integrity, McCain.
post #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
I'm confused... Is it only citizens whose tax dollars that go to a campaign? I do a Federal tax return, do I not have that same option? I don't remember seeing it as an option (the accountant does our taxes...).
If you do a Federal tax return, there's a block you check for $3 of your monies to go to the Federal Election fund.

I have no idea if it applies to everyone regardless of your nationality.
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
The fact is Obama lied and McCain kept his word. Period.
The fact is that their lawyers agreed on what they ultimately did with their campaign finances, and the candidates agreed with them. McCain lied about the agreement. Period.
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I will vote for the man with integrity, .
Me to lol just the other man
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
The fact is that their lawyers agreed on what they ultimately did with their campaign finances, and the candidates agreed with them. McCain lied about the agreement. Period.
Obama's own words and actions prove him the liar and you can't argue with that.

McCain's actions prove his integrity.

You can say McCain lied but he is the one that is taking Public Financing and actions speak louder than words.

I'm sorry to tell you that no lawyer could make McCain lose his integrity, he didn't and his campaign financing proves it.
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
The fact is that their lawyers agreed on what they ultimately did with their campaign finances, and the candidates agreed with them. McCain lied about the agreement. Period.
Exactly.
McCain's campaign is loaded with lobbyists and they had plans to infuse him with a lot of cash. They hoped Obama would fall for it and he didn't. So they are trying to spin it. Thankfully not that many people are buying it.
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Obama's own words and actions prove him the liar and you can't argue with that.

McCain's actions prove his integrity.

You can say McCain lied but he is the one that is taking Public Financing and actions speak louder than words.

I'm sorry to tell you that no lawyer could make McCain lose his integrity, he didn't and his campaign financing proves it.
Then we will have to simply agree to disagree.
post #41 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
Exactly.
McCain's campaign is loaded with lobbyists and they had plans to infuse him with a lot of cash. They hoped Obama would fall for it and he didn't. So they are trying to spin it. Thankfully not that many people are buying it.
Say what you want, it will never change the fact of what Obama said, (that he would accept public financing) and it won't change what Obama did, went back on his word and did not accept public financing.

And when John McCain brought it up in the third debate, Obama made no defense for himself. That right there, coupled with his words on the questionnaire says it all.
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
Then we will have to simply agree to disagree.
That we can do.
post #43 of 52
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...ama/index.html

Quote:
Commentary: Obama breaks promise on campaign finance
Obama pledged to accept public financing last year
Sadly, he broke his word. But I'm sure he will keep his word about other things.
post #44 of 52
Oh my. Another risk taker. Hope she doesn't owe back taxes or child support.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_595810.html

Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

post #45 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Yes, a lot of people like him, but... I think a lot of those donations were simply expressions of "anti-Bush" sentiment, which has evolved into an "anti-Republican" stance for many people during this election season.
Speaking as someone who dontated to Obama's campaign (small amount), it wasn't anti-Bush sentiment, but the fact that I like Obama and what he stands for. If it was just anti-Bush sentiment, I would have given to John Kerry's campaign, and I didn't. In fact, I've never donated to a politician in my life until this election.
post #46 of 52
I've agreed with conservative columnist George F. Will's political views only upon occasion, but have always appreciated his analyses. IMO, his take on public campaign financing, expressed in Call him John the Careless, is right on:
Quote:
Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.
One excellent result of this election cycle is that public financing of presidential campaigns now seems sillier than ever. The public has always disliked it: Voluntary and cost-free participation, using the check-off on the income tax form, peaked at 28.7 percent in 1980 and has sagged to 9.2 percent. The Post, which is melancholy about the system's parlous condition, says there were three reasons for creating public financing: to free candidates from the demands of fundraising, to level the playing field and "to limit the amount of money pouring into presidential campaigns." The first reason is decreasingly persuasive because fundraising is increasingly easy because of new technologies such as the Internet. The second reason is, the Supreme Court says, constitutionally impermissible. Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support. As for the third reason -- "huge amounts" (McCain) of money "pouring into" (The Post) presidential politics -- well:
The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that, by Election Day, $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began in January 2007, and an additional $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests. This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips.
post #47 of 52
It doesn't excuse the fact that Obama broke his word. He is a liar and is untrustworthy, some people may not care that he broke his work, I am not one of them.
post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
It doesn't excuse the fact that Obama broke his word. He is a liar and is untrustworthy, some people may not care that he broke his work, I am not one of them.
So how do you explain that McCain attempted to withdraw from public funding? It appears that there's a double standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022103141.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...em_for_mc.html
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentar...422_hasen.html
post #49 of 52
Those articles are about the primaries, not the general election.
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Those articles are about the primaries, not the general election.
McCain's campaign's actions during the primaries directly influenced Obama's decision not to take public financing. Obama Camp Responds on Campaign Finance
Did Obama change his position on election 2008 campaign financing?
post #51 of 52
That is hilarious. Obama sure doesn't take responsibilty for going back on his word does he.
post #52 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
That is hilarious. Obama sure doesn't take responsibilty for going back on his word does he.
You know, ALL politicians make fake promises and go back on their word. I don't think you'll ever find one who doesn't. Mccain's made his fair share of false promises/statements, too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Candidate Expenses