Comments for How McCain Is Skirting His Own Spending Caps »
Posted By ybdogsct 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsEven though McCain has agreed to an $84.1 million spending cap by accepting public funds--a decision he likes to portray as a principled stand against the corrupting influence of money on politics--at least double that sum will be spent on his behalf thanks to loopholes in the law that allow largely unregulated "soft money" contributions.
Read Full Story at blog.newsweek.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 242 of 244 Comments
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> Can you just imagine what he will be like in a debate? It's going to be downright pathetic.
I might get Tivo or a DVR just so I can go back and count how many times and ways he flip-flops, most flip-flops per minute segment, ave flip-flops per babble, and so on.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It simply bogles one's mind, reading about the amount of money spent to "buy" a political office.
The more the people are exposed to commercials about a certain candidate, the more they become influenced by it.
It appears in many ways that it is no longer a matter of electing who's best for the office, but to elect who has more money to change minds.
It sure would be refreshing to see an election with a cap on spending, regardless of where the money comes from.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Over a year ago, I heard or read an article about the amount of money spent on political campaigns.
The article was estimating that by the time the 2008 Presidential election was over - for all of the politicians that campaigned for the nomination - that ONE BILLION dollars will have been spent on that election alone.
It does INDEED boggle the mind ...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arch...
"OnMessage Inc. rolled out a series of pro-McCain, anti-Obama ads. The campaign - a perfect example of how the distinction between McCain and the RNC is irrelevant - aired the same (misleading) message McCain's campaign delivered in a spot last month.
The RNC can invest unlimited sums of money in commercials like this, since GOP donors can each contribute $28,500 to the national party--or about $25,000 more than Dems can give directly to Obama.
Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is stepping around federal spending limits by funneling cash through the state and national party machinery - and benefiting from donations to non-RNC organizations. As the Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday, the Republican Governors' Association, a GOP group unrestrained by federal spending limits, is now 'marketing itself as a home for contributions of unlimited size to help Sen. McCain.'
Reply-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIREDOFWHINERS:
"Yes, Time, my favorite magazine."
Actually, the story was not released by Time. The story was published by Andrew Romano of Newsweek, who was writing a commentary on a study released by the conservative Wall Street Journal.
Here are the links again, in case you missed it the first time:
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arch...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121503532000824...
Reply -
Neutral
gamahuche1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For someone with your handle it seems bizarre - speaking conservatively - that you actually NEVER speak outside of a whine. A snivelling whine, a sarcastic whine, a petulant whine but, alas, never a full-blooded howl or [simulated] death-rattle moan.
Disappointing really..
P.S. This was apparently a bold attempt at sarcasm?
I give you a C for effort; could do much better.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Although individual contributions to election campaigns are supposed to be limited to $2,300, Team McCain is soliciting checks of up to $70,100 from each donor -$28,500 for the RNC, $40,000 for a quartet of state parties, and $2,300 for the candidate himself. But with the RGA, even that $70,100 ceiling on individual contributions would be shattered.
The NRA plans to spend about $40 million, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Obama as a threat to voters' Second Amendment rights.
The irony here, of course, is that it was McCain who co-sponsored the 2002 law meant to curtail the influence of wealth on presidential politics by limiting direct donations to the campaigns. Now he's the one's doing everything imaginable to circumvent the very caps he fought to create."
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What exactly do you think these ultra-wealthy donors are getting in exchange for their mega-contributions?
There is only one goal behind blowing $70K plus on a losing horse, high-risk, high reward. Meaning they expect and will demand huge payback out of taxpayer/consumer funds if McCain wins.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a shame McBush has resorted to misleading the public about his own campaign financing, and then bashing Obama for not taking public funds.
This right here, IS the reason Obama did not take public funds. He has to compete against the GOP machine that churns out money through shady loopholes all day long.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bingo.
Obama declined public funding to even the playing field against the soft-money raised by the RNC and other organizations that are "independent" in name only.
Public funding may have limited McCain and Obama to an $85 million spending cap, but it would have done nothing to limit soft-money. And the RNC raises far more soft-money from its big-dollar donors than the DNC.
This is precisely why I support Obama's decision to forgo public funding. McCain likes to claim that accepting public funding represents his stand against the influence of lobbyists, PACs, and money in elections, but the truth is that McCain only accepted public funding because:
1) McCain is an AWFUL fundraiser and wouldn't have raised more than $85 million in direct donations anyway.
2) Soft-money from the RNC and nominally-"independent" organizations would more than compensate for the difference between Obama's and McCain's fundraising.
Reply-
PretkoComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain adheres only to the letter of his new campaign ethics rules, while violating the spirit of HIS OWN rules. How does McCain take a stand against the influence of money when McCain:
I) has lobbyists as top donors and advisors for his campaign?
II) accepts money from lobbyists and PACs?
III) accepts unregulated soft-money from the RNC and nominally-"independent" organizations?
The problem with public funding is that the laws McCain helped pass are not strong enough to prevent special interests from influencing campaigns. In fact, since the money Obama and McCain choose to forgo, by limiting themselves to public funding, will have to be raised a different way, special interests may end up having an even MORE profound influence on political campaigns by donating soft-money to the national parties and committees (which are regulated by looser limits) rather than donating to the campaigns themselves (which have stricter limits).
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"In his early efforts to secure the support of the Republican establishment, McCain has embraced some of the same political-money figures he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors, fundraisers and lobbyists. The contrast between McCain the presidential candidate and McCain the reformer can be jarring.
McCain the candidate now expects Republicans to use the same big-money 527 groups in the 2008 elections to beat Democrats. McCain the candidate has enlisted some of the same GOP fundraising giants who created and flourished in the soft-money system, including Bush's fundraising 'Pioneers' and 'Rangers,' who earned their designations by raising at least $100,000 or $200,000 for his campaigns. McCain's finance co-chairs have given at least $13.5 million in soft money and 527 donations since the 1998 election."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/mccain...
"The RNC Skirts Intention of Public Financing:
McCain's new fund structure will allow the McCain camp to collect significantly more money than the individual limits placed by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/28...
"Sen. John McCain, who championed a law imposing strict new political contribution limits, is appearing at fundraisers nationwide where donors can give up to $70,100 each to help him win the presidency through a group set up jointly by his campaign and the Republican Party. This tactic exposes how easy it is to raise money from donors even if they already have given the maximum amount of $2300 to the presidential campaigns allowed under a law that Mr. McCain helped enact."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/19/new-mc...
"John McCain's campaign has devised a new system to increase the maximum amount an individual can donate to the unofficial Republican nominee's election efforts. The idea is to tap donors for more than the $2,300 limit set by campaign finance laws. Under legislation pushed by McCain in his role as a senator from Arizona, an individual can donate a maximum of $2,300 to a presidential primary campaign and the same amount to the general election campaign.
Campaign manager Rick Davis released the details of the 'McCain Victory 08' fund on Friday. He said the entity is a joint committee, combining the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and four key states under a 'hybrid legal structure.' The new structure allows up to $70,000 in individual contributions by channeling the money into different McCain-centric funds."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By rejecting money from PACs and federally-registered lobbyists and by forcing the DNC to do the same, Barack Obama is abiding by the spirit and intention of the public financing laws that seeks to minimize the effects of corporate PACs, lobbyists, and special interests. That is because even though Obama will formally eschew public funding, Obama's campaign was largely funded by personal, small-dollar contributions from voters rather than from corporate PACs, lobbyists, and interest groups.
Obama's campaign is, in spirit, publicly funded BY THE PUBLIC, not by the government.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/14/nation/...
"Obama raised $27.2 million in donations of $200 or less in 2007."
Meanwhile, although McCain can claim that he accepts public funding, his campaign is actually being funded by lobbysits and corporate interests, since McCain accepts cash from the RNC, which accepts money from PACs and lobbyists.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have quite a bit of documented evidence to contribute to the discussion. In fact, there are at least a dozen more articles that I've refrained from posting to prevent my posts from overwhelming the thread.
You, on the other hand, have wasted in the small amount of space you've consumed here with this post.
Do you have anything substantive and evidence-supported to contribute, or is this really the best you have to offer?
Reply -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned20 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Speaking of flip flops:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/12/07/...
TIREDOFWHINERS: "Probably Huckabee or Romney would be best. They are not Bush. I personally like Duncan Hunter. Obama is the only dumbocrap I would consider."
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/01/25/...
TIREDOFWHINERS: "I've decided Romney is the best one. I want him to robotically cut spending and taxes, bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion, stop terrorism, stop illegal immigration, run the U'S. like a business - not like a bankrupt corporation. I want him to robotically harp on these issues on and on until something is done. Giuliani is next, the man with some passion and get it done credentials. Third place goes to McCain, the deadpan and serious one who says it like it is (unfortunately wrong at times)."
Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned13 Replies
-
-
gbilly08Comment removed: Retracted by user11 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>I thought they treated him humanely.
Apparently, so did the VC.
As soon as McCain cried his Daddy`s name and rank, they gave McCain the best meds they had and made him some kind of elite POW immune from the worst treatment that the rest of the POWs got. No, McCain has always been `special` cause of his Daddy and granddaddy, then when he returned home to the real world and found out he was nobody special, he threw his wife and mother of three children under the bus to leech onto a young, dumb blonde bimbo heiress who had no issues with a little homewrecking of one of the peasants.
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nonparted1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Rules, laws, ethics, morals apply to others. They do not apply to Republicans. First rule in American politics."
well lurch apparently it doesnt apply to democrats either. does it?
if ur gonna make a statement like this then u must include both parties. if u dont, then ur statement isnt justifialbe.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We deserve better than what McCain has to offer as a candidate, because his loyalty is not to this nation. He is loyal to those that pay his way; the lobbyists and profiteers.
His campaign is founded on the politics of destruction. As one journalist recently stated, "even the McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the McCain of 2008."
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive47 Replies
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was just fishing the other day and I caught 2 fish. One flipped and flopped all over the place like McCain. The other one had an eerie resemblance to Obama and just laid there like he was dead. We cooked the McCain fish but buried the Obama one in the garden because it looked like we could get poisoned by it.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wouldn't it be great if we could outlaw McCain's making use of the loopholes? Then Obama could way outspend him because of his tremendous fund raising ability. McCain spending $84.1 million and Obama spending $300 million ? would be fair because we all know Obama is good and McCain is bad, and as was stated, the more money spent on ads the more people can be convinced to vote for a candidate, regardless if he is good or bad. As far as Obama deciding to renege on his promise to stay within the $84.1 million, well, why should he when he found out he could raise more on his own? The idea is to get elected, not to keep promises or stand on principles.
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"because of his tremendous fund raising ability. "
Ironically, the attribute that got Bush elected in 2000 and 2004 is suddenly not a good thing. It's the goose and gander world.
"The idea is to get elected, not to keep promises or stand on principles."
Now this has a large foundation of truth. Are you voting on principle and promises? Or are you voting for one of the two main candidates?
You are doing an awful lot of whining about the fund raising ability of one of the candidates.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goose and gander world - I have no complaint about Obama's great fund raising ability or Bush's back then. It's a good thing as far as I am concerned. The $$$ show the degree of support they have. Hopefully it will be well spent and truthful (I doubt that). I think you misread my comment. Yes I threw in a little sarcasm too. Sorry to throw you off by doing that.
I voted for Duncan Hunter in the Nevada primary even though I knew he had no chance. My second choice was Romney. Now I like the libertarian Bob Barr even though he has no chance. My least favorites were and still are McCain and Obama. How about you. Are you voting for one of the main candidates? Did you vote principle in the primaries?
Remember, both main candidates are people. If you can't trust people, who can you trust?
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I have stated in many posts, I'm writing in Paul.
There is no one candidate that is perfect, but I find the two main candidates are the worst possible offerings. I feel both are not truly listening to the American citizenry.
We need to balance the budget with real economics, not the smoke and mirror vodo that both candidates are touting. We need to remove government from where it does not belong. Neither candidate is offering any solution in that world.
Reply
-
-
-
-
soniyashrmaComment removed: Hard Banned8 Replies
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am considering changing and voting for Obama. I don't particularly like McCain anyway because he is/was too liberal. I'm not saying Obama has flip-flopped but he has recently "changed" his postitions and is now almost the same as McCain. And he is a great speaker if his writers can keep up the good speech writing, McCain isn't. He is now eschewing the public spending limit, is now in favor of expanding Bush's policy of funneling public funds to religious organizations for social spending, now supports the overturning of the D.C. gun ban, has abandoned his vow to filibuster the electronic wiretapping bill if it gives immunity to telecommunications companies, supports the death penalty for child rapists. He is much like McCain now. All he has to do is promise to support offshore and Alaska oil drilling, speak out against illegal immigration, keep Bush's tax cuts and he will have McCain beat. None of that is flip-flopping, it's "making change we can believe in".
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I forgot one. Obama originally said during the primaries that he would get our troops out of Iraq (within 16 months of his becoming President). That was an unequivocal statement with a timetable. Great! Now he says, of course I would confer with the Iraqi government and our military leaders including Petraeus. And he now says he wouldn't withdraw until Iraq is secure and our troops can be withdrawn safely. He now "believes" that it can be done in 16 months but no guarantee now (repeating the "16 months" is to provide some kind of beleivability/consistency). In essence he seems to be saying the same thing McCain and Bush are saying i.e. we will withdraw ASAP but not sooner. No deadline, just a hope/goal. To make Iraq secure could take years, not months. Anyway, glad to hear him change his policy or details thereof regarding the war in Iraq.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
fsev411 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unfortunately neither of the candidates have ultimate control of campaign spending, fund raising or tactics. The success of the candidate largely determines the success of the party. If the candidate loses, the party loses and neither major party wants to allow that to happen. Thus the party and related entities have more control over the campaign than may be healthy. What may be well meaning, honest candidates enter the fray and suddenly become puppets of the party. For a totally independent candidate to participate, and control his/her own campaign etc. is totally impossible. Its not much different than two monopolistic corporations competing for our dollars and votes.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Face the facts, either candidate will do whatever to convince voters of their ideas. Money is very important. The biggest lobby of all is the little guy (like me) who wants to get all they can from the wealthy (not always me but sometimes me). And who believes the campaign promises (sometimes me). I haven't given a dime to either side. I read somewhere that the Dems have beat the Repubs big time in contributions from lots of corporations, of which many would be very surprising. I see McCain as a fairly honest person and Obama as fairly honest too. I don't think either is any kind of crook. But both are heavily influenced by their parties and the American people. Remember McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill? I was one of the millions of people who faxed him and others to defeat that bill. Even my Nevada senator "Dingy Harry" Reid. McCain finally saw the light and said "I learned my lesson" about illegal immigration. But Reid hasn't learned.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sorry about the comment above. This post shows both intelligence and common sense. But many of JQs do also, which is why my knee jerked.
I think if we try to avoid the hyperbole and generalizations, the forum will remain much more civilized.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sorry about which comment? I really don't see much common sense in JQ (I now call him nitwit because he decided to call me a twit). I only see a completely biased closed mind. I really am considering Obama but may not because of the kind of people and thinking that support him, especially the rude and name calling ones. I have in the past intentionally posted pure facts (like McCain is not spelled McSame or McBush) to see if I get negged and sure enough--. "Harrumph - I don't get no respect" (Rodney Dangerfield).
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the one where I said you couldn't demonstrate intelligence or common sense.
I think a lot of us -- I've seen it from myself and I've seen it from you -- get caught up in what we see as a completely biased discussion and respond with our own completely biased reply. I really dislike the serial neggers who neg anything by members of the "other side"... it would be great if, for once, there were no sides.
Also, the name-calling is quite childish from both sides.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So true. I get caught up in some of these one sided discussions. I was not naturally that way but learned from propeller commenters. But sometimes it's fun; however nothing gets accomplished. If I could be convinced, it won't happen when I'm insulted by those trying to convince me. In reality I wish an internet campaign would spread about electing Bob Barr. He stands for many of my principles.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willotica - You have a good heart and are a civil person. Not sure of your views but I respect you. Whining is just a word I put in my user name and never changed it. I remembered the Whiners on Saturday Night Live. Everyone is whining but, if in a civil and sensible way, no problem. I actually threw some satire and humor into this thread but it didn't register to most. If I see some real stretches or never a sense of humor then they qualify as a whiner. I might change to "petpeeve" because my pet peeves are those who ALWAYS want a link to prove something, even well known facts. Then if provided they usually chop that link as a bad source (left or right). I gave one link from the NY Times editorial that was fairly well interpreted and someone pooh poohed it as a bad source. I mostly don't have time for links. Another pet peeve is those who name call and put down (a little put down or sarcasm is OK). I am guilty of responding in kind but rarely initiate such rudeness.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My views tend to conflict with yours on most things. :)
I'm a social liberal, in the truest sense. Most people would probably call it libertarian. I think there are way too many laws restricting the freedom of individuals instead of protecting them.
I think there needs to be regulations against businesses though, because they can grow out of control and bottom-line becomes more important than employees and products. I think government subsidies to business are the biggest impediment to the free market.
I believe that health-care is one of those things that should not be left up to the free market. Unfortunately, when you're in need of health-care, there isn't time to shop around - so the closest place essentially has a monopoly. (Then again, I'm Canadian, so I have always had access to health care, and rarely needed it.) I've also noticed that it's extremely difficult to get prices up front, so how can you shop around anyway?
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe that if the free market had been allowed free reign, then food should be a lot more expensive today (no farm subsidies). Energy should also be more expensive (people are clearly willing to pay more). Wages for low-skill labor should also be significantly higher. The uneducated don't work less hard, they just do different work. The price gap between rich and poor is way too big. Dress a CEO and a laborer in the same clothes and there's not a lot of difference between the two. The laborer will probably be more help to you around the house, with your car, building a shed, the CEO might be more help if you need your taxes done or a party organized.
Is the CEO ten times more useful? Probably not even, yet he gets paid hundreds or thousands of times as much.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right on willotica. I hadn't read this comment when I posted above about Bob Barr. What a coincidence. You are very convincing. Right along my lines of beliefs. I am neutral regarding health care because it would be run by the feds and may be tough to fund adequately. I say fund what can be afforded, but there's a case for it paying for itself in longer lives and less sick time at work. Unfortunately there's some horror stories about long waits for health care in Canada. I heard one directly from a Canadian myself. But since Canadians are less likely to take advantage (in my opinion) it may work better there than here. Yes many CEO's make way too much. Some are worth a lot but most aren't. They all can be replaced. I also agree about the price of energy and food. I really felt that both were unbeliveably cheap for a long time. Now that food is going up, maybe some will eat less and lose some weight. Gas? I don't care, I just drive less and plan my trips. Canada is our no. 1 supplier
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've seen the numbers on health care crunched a bit. If we eliminate the inefficiencies in the system (cut out profit incentive for insurance companies and just streamline paperwork in general) and keep everyone who has insurance now paying the same amount, just in taxes as opposed to the companies, we can keep everything about the same quality wise while providing for everyone. I don't think many Americans, despite our sometimes arrogance, quite understand just how fantastically wealthy we are overall in terms of GDP. We could pay for it and we should also cut military spending in half, or more, having 50% of the world's military might is insanity. I can see a good argument for 25% (as we control 25% of the world's wealth) and I personally wanna see us around 15%. Essentially, most single payer programs are under funded and if we used same % of GDP that others do, we actually cut our costs significantly.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One of biggest places for inefficiency in US health care is insurance. Unfortunately, there is a huge chunk of population employed in the insurance industry, so the best thing for health-care (which would be a giant pool of resources available to all not requiring individual insurance or the bureaucracy and cost associated with it) would result in millions of jobs lost and therefore wouldn't be very good for the economy as a whole.
The profit motive definitely has to go. I read that some insurance companies reject the first claim unirregardless of validity, because most people won't bother to re-claim. Also, if you're suffering from sickness or loss, the last thing you have the energy to do is fight with insurance companies.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that we could consider keeping alot of those who work in the insurance industry already, to help manage a single payer system. This would keep the jobs, certainly cannot keep them all. We might manage to keep half or so. The rest, well, with luck a single payer system will be a boon to the economy and they can get a job elsewhere. I would propose perhaps cutting overall spending by about 20% on health care, with full regards to GDP and what we already pay on it (not just what the government pays; what everyone pays) and I think that with the efficiencies cleared out that will maintain the same high level of quality. One US Senator described the US health care like this, and I think its accurate:
"We have the best health care in the world but the worst way of paying for it."
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You would best be described as a Theodore Roosevelt type, I believe. His basic reasoning is that the free market is there to provide services for people and allow a way of working your way to the top. So he would aggressively pursue monopolies and regulate things so the big companies couldn't abuse the little guy. He also had a tendency to be pro-union, though in the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 he didn't authorize the miners the ability to unionize, he did get the company that was abusing the worker to accede to most of the demands of the worker. Come to the US and help me resurrect his Bull Moose Party!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tiredofwhiners- Your comment about maybe voting for Obama caught my attention because it showed that maybe you have looked at the opinions of other candidates or parties which to me is something that all people should do when given the chance to vote. If people from both sides questioned their candidate as well as the opposing candidate we all might get better served by our representatives. As for the firkin I guess I learn something new every day.
Reply-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain is skirting his own spending caps? Tell me it isn't so. Why if he did that he would be a flip-flopper or something like that wouldn't he?
Nah, not a chance. That would cause people to whine.
Couldn't have any of that now could we?
Reply-
Secret_Asian_ManComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
grassroots4usaComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article is a whiny, disingenuous load of BS.
McCain limits himself to public financing as he said he would. Obama breaks from what he said and refuses public financing. Now the leftistas are pi$$ed that the RNC has more more tacos in the bank than the DNC and they're worried.
Obama and the DNC chose their weapons and McCain and the RNC chose theirs. No one was forced to do anything.
"...thanks to loopholes in the law that allow outside groups to effectively skirt such limits with largely unregulated "soft money" contributions." Of course the Obama campaign will benefit from these very same "loopholes".
Moveon has been attacking McCain since at least April.
Obama backed out of public financing because he thought he could raise more money than McCain's $84 million limit.
The Obamababies need to stop crying, the rules are the same for both sides.
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tony, I didn't realize it was the Obamababies that were doing the whining. I sure thought it was the Republicans that were the crybabies.
The rules are the same for both side, but then what was it bush said when he signed bills, did it go something like "OK heres one law I'm not going to keep, I ain't gonna keep this one neither, not gonna keep this one, What's that Dickie boy, you say that's the Constitution I said I ain't gonna keep, well its just a G.. D... piece of paper anyway!
I know pepole ain't gonna like it.
What's that Dickie boy, did you say So?
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everyone is whining including you and me. Some are even shedding tears. I think this discussion is fun and educational - how about you?
The constitution has been redefined to the point of being unrecognizable over the years with some help by the supreme court. In some cases, I'm sure, to the better.
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TONYBYRON:
"Obama and the DNC chose their weapons and McCain and the RNC chose theirs."
Public funding is only successful at reducing the influence of special interests and lobbyists IF unregulated soft-money sources are eliminated.
Obama realized one of McCain's weaknesses was fundraising. McCain would not have been able to raise $85 million without public financing.
Obama also realized that McCain would skirt campaign finance rules that McCain himself helped enact. McCain would circumvent his own campaign finance rules by accepting millions in unregulated soft-money, by accepting donations from PACs, by restructuring his campaign finances to accept more than the $2300 donation limit imposed on direct personal contributions, and by hiring federally-registered lobbyists to be his top campaign advisors. All of these actions VIOLATE McCain's pledge to minimize the influence of special interests even though McCain will be accepting public financing.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, Obama wisely withdrew from public funding (It's not illegal to do so.). But Obama also upheld his pledge to reduce the influence of special interests by refusing to accept money from PACs and federally-registered lobbyists. Obama also forced the DNC to do the same.
Obama has not reneged on his pledge to reduce the influence of special interests; Obama has simply found an alternative and more effective way to do accomplish this goal.
Meanwhile in accepting public funding, McCain has found an effective way to fool simpletons that he is doing everything in his power to minimize the influence of special interests on elections, while simultaneously accepting MILLIONS in UNREGULATED soft-money, accepting MILLIONS from PACs and lobbyists, and hiring infamous lobbyists to be his top campaign advisors.
And yet you fail to see the incongruity between McCain's pledge and his actions.
LOL.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.