E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOur breakdown of the 2nd quarter fundraising expectations game: A good quarter for Obama would be $60 million-plus (almost twice what he raised in the 2nd quarter of ’07), and a great quarter would be $80 million-plus… A very good quarter for Romney would be $30-$40 million (more than he raised in the 1st quarter of ’07)… What would be bad news for Pawlenty: If he doesn’t raise more than $6.5 million (the amount that Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson pulled in the 1st quarter of ’07)
*** The dash for dollars: The first milepost of the 2012 presidential race comes on Thursday, when the 2nd fundraising quarter (April 1 to June 30) ends. While the campaigns don’t have to officially file their fundraising numbers until July 15, we can still play the financial expectations game, according to history and our reporting. Let’s start with President Obama: A good quarter for him would be in excess of $60 million -- which is almost twice the amount (about $35 million) that both George W. Bush raised in the 2nd quarter of 2003 and Obama himself raised in the 2nd quarter of 2007. A great quarter would $80 million or more. (If he’s going to raise $1 billion, he’s got to average about $150 million per quarter, and you’d expect his numbers to increase by the general election.) As a lowball number, the campaign says it’s shooting for a combined $60 million with the DNC’s cash. What to watch: Obama’s online fundraising; despite initial concerns that it might not match his 2008 pace, we’ve heard Team Obama is more than pleased with its online haul so far. It says it has a goal of 450,000 overall donors this quarter…
*** Obama's team pushes back against the $60 million and $80 million figures, saying they aren't realistic. "All of the president's events have been joint events for the DNC and the campaign (the Obama victory fund), and a higher share of those dollars go to the DNC – so your expectations for the campaign are totally unrealistic and not going to be met by a longshot," campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt tells First Read. "Why would the campaign itself be expected to double or exceed doubling what we did in '07, without a primary opponent? That just aint going to happen."
*** Obama vs. Romney: As everyone expects, Romney will lap the GOP field in fundraising. His campaign is floating a haul of about $20 million for the quarter, but remember he raised MORE than $20 million in the first quarter of 2007. Given his $10 million-plus single fundraising day -- in addition to all of his other fundraisers over the past couple of months -- a very good quarter would be in excess of $30-$40 million. Note: Romney is raising only primary money (maximum contribution $2,500), and he isn’t putting any of his personal money into the pot.
*** The rest: TPaw, Bachmann, and Huntsman: As Politico reported last week, the buzz is that Tim Pawlenty has been struggling on the financial front. We’ve heard and read that he’s expected to raise more than $2 to $4 million, which would be less than $6 million-plus that both Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson pulled in during the 1st quarter of 2007. Anything substantially less than that -- let alone the $10 million-plus Romney raised in a single day -- would be yet another blow for his campaign. Although Michele Bachmann has been in the race for just two weeks, she’s proved she’s a formidable fundraiser, having raked in more than $13.5 million for her House race last year, and she has nearly $2 million left over from that campaign she can roll over to her presidential account. Similarly, Huntsman has been in the race for just a week, but pulled in $1.2 million in a single fundraiser, and has a total of 18 money events between his announcement and June 30. He has also said he’s loaning the campaign a certain amount to “prime the pump.”
Leave a Comment:
That's a good point!
This is nothing more than another MSM nontroversy...
No worries - when the rubber hits the road, there will be more than enough of us donating our paper route money!
I already donate weekly online & the amount will increase!
Your right Feisty, the msn spends more time fabricating fund raising numbers and talking about what a candidates family is doing than getting the facts for the electorate. I honestly don't think they know how to gather facts and report them anymore. But their all over every rumor out there, talking about it 24/7.
With the Chamber of Commerce laundering foreign money and big corporation money. The Democrats will need to continue to seek individual donations. What Axelrod and Plouffe know is that if you are willing to donate money, you are willing to work in the campaign and vote again for our President.
It is all speculation until the numbers come out this week. Many republican candidates will be limping along by fall without a lot of money: Pawlenty, Gingrich. On the other hand Romney, Huntsman and Bachmann have have money in the bank.
Obama does not need to spend for a long drawn out primary season. It is wonderful to have an incumbent president for a change. I am sending money to some 2012 state races in the meantime.
I'm also back to donating to the DNC now that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is running things.
Kaine was a nice guy, problem is he was to nice.
Northstar:
You are absolutely correct. We have seen what happens when the GOP/TP pick up governorships and Tea Partiers win congressional seats. We need to take those seats back in 2012. Well said.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL."
That's a good point!
This is nothing more than another MSM nontroversy...
No worries - when the rubber hits the road, there will be more than enough of us donating our paper route money!
Exactly, Feisty
So much for the scare tactics. The rumor-mill is fast at work, the rubbeer is hitting the road. Onc Michelle Batwoman leaves Iowa its over for her. The others candidates are either so lackluster just Ghost Busters from the Dark Ages. No rational person would vote any of these loons. But, rational persons love the Koch Money exposing LIES, LIES,and MORE LIES
Obama attracting more small donors
The president's major fundraising filing will show a dramatic increase in the number of small donors so far this year compared with 2008. The tally is well over 300,000.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-small-donors-20110626,0,6028236.story
I’d like to see the world buy a Koch in perfect harmony.
Think Wisconsin.
Really Chuck Todd? Still talking about Huntsman, Pawlenty, and Bachman?
Ron Paul has polled better than 2 of the above every single time and Ron Paul has raised almost 6 million from tens of thousands grass roots.
To not bother to mention Paul who has outraised even establishment Bachman so far is to underscore how obsolete and irrelevant you are as a so called "jounalist".
Bev.? You want to see "...the world buy a Koch in perfect harmony"?
It's not even 8:30 am an already we have a fantastic Bevism.
It is definitely a "nontroversy". The fact the Crossroads GPS, one of many groups which do not have to account for who gives how much, is spending $20 million on anti-Obama ads 15 months before the election is exactly why President Obama must raise huge amounts of money.
So Jody, if the entity did have to "account for who gives how much" would that make a difference or change anything?
Obama raised a "huge" amount of money last time, pre-Citizens, right Jody? SO why is it you think THIS is the reason?
I guess it doesn't bother anybody but the people who are middle of the road or non-party about all the money in politics. You'll never get a selfless President or politician at this rate... but don't worry too much, since most of you are married to one party or another (despite the fact that they're virtually the same) I guess the amount of money doesn't bother you.
Spanky,
Crossroads GPS is not required to regularly file financial reports. While reports filed with the FEC and the Internal Revenue Service show that American Crossroads has raised a total of about $6.7 million between its late March creation and the end of July, American Crossroads GPS is not required to regularly report its finances – and won’t be required to reveal its donors at all. That’s because – unlike the original Crossroads, which was initially registered under Section 527 of the IRS code and this month changed its registration to become a PAC – GPS is registered under section 501(c)4 of the IRS code, which allows donors anonymity, but also restricts the aggressiveness of the group’s ads.
Crossroads GPS was incorporated under section 501(c)4 of the IRS code. That section of the code requires far less disclosure and allows groups to withhold information on individual donors.
That is the difference. While both the GOP and Democrats are required to file monthly fundraising reports with the FEC, Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)4 entity, is not.
Very insightful Groucho, but it gets the same response the libbies get when they whine about "loopholes" "exclusions" or "deductions" -
Take it up with the folks that write the IRC. You no like-y IRC Sec. 501(c)4, tell your congress critter to do something. Tax code can be changed, amended and deleted.
Rangel I assume was stripped of his chair-ship. Who took his place? Who is in charge? Hey, I know someone who, if he wanted could make an issue out of it. Obama. Yet, I sure haven't heard him bitching. Huh, wonder why?
So tell us Groucho - why is it, given all the bitching about this code section and Citizens United that no one - neither a R or a D is doing anything to fix this section?
Spanky..
Sorry...cut myself off.
As they do not have to disclose individual donors or amounts donated, they are not limited to the $2500 (I think that's right) donation individuals are capped at giving. Not an even playing field.
Sure, the democrats can set up their own 501(c)4 groups to counter the GOP and they probably will.
So fundraising by private groups is virtually a non issue. They're both going to do it.
Answer your question?
And meanwhile, Soros is buying judgeships around the country. The Evil One has been doing his dastardly deeds. It's over on Fox. Naturally this media-arm of the WH wouldn't carry it.
You're just wasting your paper route money, Feisty. There is absolutely no way this President will be reelected. Go buy a new bicycle.
It would be nice for Obama to get a second term and change the direction of the court so we can get rid of citizens united.
Herein lies the problem. The Citizens United ruling was a COURT ruling. The court is not elected. Neither are they subject to oversight. In the case of THIS court, neither do they seem to have retained any impartiality or self control.
So it's not really an R or D thing. It's not really something the electorate can fix directly. That's why there is so much outcry.
Hey, you all, don't forget to throw a few bucks toward Wisconsin, gotta win those recalls and get the tyranny out, and start to get workers rights back. Walker even changed the child labor laws, allowing children to be worked to death for peanuts. He's got to be stopped. Try United Wisconsin, or OneWisconsin, they need our help. I'm in Florida, but from Wis. and all three of my sons live under the Koch Bros. best friend, Walker.
What a complete waste of time and money, at a time where the money could be put to so many better uses. The only ones who benefit from the current campaign finance system are those who can give large sums of money, and those who receive the money -- i.e., the media and the rest of the campaign industry -- hotels, caterers, printers, etc., etc., etc.
I have always been a proponent of public campaign financing, and we've never needed it more than now. Those who say the current system corrupts both sides are absolutely right about that -- but that doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be fixed. The biggest problem now is the Citizens United decision, which has institutionalized political corruption.
The only way that the system can be fixed is by complete overhaul, starting with overturning the Citizens United decision.
Good Morning Anna Molly:
As usual, you are spot-on. Now how are we going to get the SC to overturn the Citizens United Decision. We could start with unseating Thomas.
Last night I listened to a story about Wisconsin on Ira Glass's This American Life. It highlighted how Scott Walker's radical policies on public worker unions has resulted in a disintegration of "Wisconsin nice." The same thing is happening in Maine, where we once prided ourselves on civility and bi-partisanship. Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats who previously liked and respected each other are at each other's throats thanks to the Tea Party radical agenda. The Citizens United decision will just fuel the divisiveness in this country as civil discourse is drowned out by corporate-sponsered messaging.
So, Anna, I guess you were disappointed with Obama thumbing his nose at his promise to take public financing last time?
Did you follow the reports that, despite his claim that the bulk of his financing came from "little people", the fact was that 75% came from big dollar donors?
I have read multiple reports that Obama expects to haul in $60 million in June alone. Given this article, I am thinking that the second quarter will be as weak as the first quarter was for fundraising, so maybe he will take public financing this time out.
Given the state of the economy, unemployment, and foreign policy that will just be more money down a rat hole.
No Joe, wasn't it you that kept saying President Obama would resign before the end of his first term? So now we're suppose to believe any thing you say. Only in No Joe's delusional mind.
no joe ~ You and JoAnna always presume you know about people when you don't. I'm ALWAYS in favor of public campaign financing, although I did get a chuckle in 2008 from the irony of how the Republicans whined about it when the tables were reversed. They loved the system well enough when THEY were the major beneficiaries of big-money donations. McCain would have turned it down, too, if he'd had the same choice that Obama had.
If you have some idea that I'm blind to the fact that President Obama is influenced by corporate campaign donations, then you REALLY don't know me at all.
My only question is why that bothers YOU. From your side's perspective, isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
Hey AM - What's the inside scoop on the Prosser v. Bradley fist to cuffs?
I initially heard he grabbed her, but then she went at him.
Of course the libby bloggers ran with the intial story and called for he resignation/ouster. Just no place for physical violence and all.
But now that it looks more like she went after him, the calls for resignation for the physical aggressor, Bradley, are strangely gone.
What's your take?
Oh and please explain your "institutional corruption" claim, and relate that to the amount of contributions last election by the AFSCME.
And Mo - please don't forget to tell Nojo to "go back to Faux Noise." That's your line, did you forget?
no joe, no bo, nj..
First, think about it. If you were raising millions and millions of dollars per month and your momentum was continuing to rise, would you take public campaign financing dollars or go the way of private funding through contributions. To the best of my knowledge, there were no charges of improper financing charges brought against his campaign. We agree on somethings, but this argument is disingenuous because if McCain was raising more money he would not have needed public funds.
The problem with the GOP candidates is that there isn't a candidate gaining traction or public support because neither the GOP base or independents like any of them.
Look at it this way. On any given Sunday 40% of Republicans will vote for the candidate no matter who it is. Same, same for the Democrats. The battle is for the remaining 20%, the undecided and independents and right now Obama is winning that battle cause the GOP choice is which is the best of the worst. Seriously, could you bring yourself to vote for any of these candidates? Romney is the sanest and you can't trust him caused he's changed his position so many times you really don't know where he stands.
Today, on this one, we agree to disagree.
Look out! Here comes Spanky! Right about now all the FR libs are huddled together on a private chat room (some in the fetal position), whining "who is he and what are we going to do about him?" "He dominates the afternoons!" "Doesn't he understand that First Read is my life???!!!"" Waaaaahhh Waaaaahhhh
You're a lawyer, Spanky, you figure it out. Even if she went for him first, a choke hold doesn't seem like appropriate self-defense, does it? A big, brave guy like Prosser could have gently pushed her away, or even dodged her. So far, I'm not impressed with that account. And you have to wonder what he said that would have made her do that. We already know what he's capable of saying, don't we?
All institutional donations are corrupt, Spanky. But I didn't make the playing field. Your side did that. And when it happens to tilt toward our side, you hate that so much that you're even willing to abandon your own principles and argue against what you always otherwise support.
By the way, you should meet the head of Wisconsin's AFSCME union sometime. A more caring, and less "corrupt" man, you'll never meet, even when you look in the mirror. Or maybe especially then.
Groucho, I wouldn't want to put money on the that 20% of the vote going to Pres. Obama.
Groucho, my problem was not with the decision per se, but with the attendant lies.
Obama said during that campaign, and continues to say, that most of his donors were "small dollar" people- which is a lie.
My understanding is that the FEC is just wrapping up their investigation I to that campaign, although I have seen no hint that they uncovered anything, but
Read my post on First Thoughts, and follow the link to the Washington Post- that explains the spending and corruption of his financing model.
As to who I will support- my favorite, Mitch Daniels, declined to run because he would not put his family through the media meat grinder. Therefore, I am still figuring out who to support. There is still time for me to make my decision.
Unfortunately, this country has suffered dramatically because of the president we have now. He needs to be replaced.
FYI [Damage123] -
I had my fill of chat room/side groups and travel plans for St Louis last week. It was amusing, but I have no plans to bring it up, or discuss that stuff any further.
Now that's not to say the cat's out of the bag as to what they all said on a personal level, but I graduated junior high a long time ago. No seed to relive it. I was not popular then, and I am clearly not popular now. And that's ok with me.
And again, the fact that some have side discussions is great. I just wish they could actually formulate intelligent counter arguments. I'd settle if they just spent a few minutes actually reading some of the more important IRC sections.
And please one of you - take some basic accounting and tax materials to your meeting and discuss. It would really help.
Why are institutional donations per se corrupt?
If my law firm makes a donation to the girl scouts, is that corrupt?
If my law firm hosts a party for a candidate for street sweeper, is that corrupt? I assume that you refer not just to financial contributions, but time, resources, manpower.
Like for instance when the SEIU send 500 members to man a phone solicitation bank for a candidate, is that also corrupt?
I think Prosser and Bradley should both immediately resign. That way Walker could appoint two new ones. Problem solved, right AM?
Somehow I doubt you'd go for that.
Absolutely right, Anna Molly. The Citizens United decision eliminated the McCain-Feingold reform legislation making it unconstitutional. The only way to reform the system is to overturn Citizens United.
As for AFSCME and other labor organizations, they must abide by campaign donation and disclosure rules. They must note who contributes and where the money is spent and ads must show who made them. That rule does not apply to groups like Crossroads GPS, the Chamber of Commerce. What the legislators could do to lesson the impact of Citizens United is make the full-disclosure rules apply to all groups not just some.
There needs to be some clarification, for starters... Democrats have traditionally raised more money than Republicans for Presidential Elections. Ironically, while businesses use their donations like bets, and often give to both candidates, unions take the opposite route and give solely to Democrats in nearly every case. Of course, until recently... while unions have been able to funnel tons of money into the pockets of Democrats, businesses had not been able to... So recently, there has been a slight shift in the volume of cash being moved in elections and it has been in the favor of whomever they feel will win. For example, businesses donated more to Obama for the 08 election than they did McCain ~ yet you don't have to go far to hear Democrats stereotyping Republicans as the party for (evil) corporations.
Moving along though... Groucho, you're accounting of party sizes is a bit off. Estimates usually range from 25-30% of Americans being registered Democrat, with an equal and as varied percentile being Republican. The majority of Americans remain unregistered... roughly 40%. Ironically though, most of the independents when polled lean conservative. In recent Presidential elections, if a Democrat candidate for President wanted to win, they had to essentially get at least 60% of the independent vote (note: Obama got 64%). This is hard to do because hard left philosophy just simply isn't popular with the overwhelming majority of Americans. While you contend Obama is doing fine and great with the independents, polling data shows otherwise, he's down... below 50% and sometimes cresting as low as the high 30s. Data regarding to specific issues is even worse than the overall look.
This is why people and analysts are currently stating Obama "could" lose... if the Republicans can find the right person. Obama has enough people angry, has lost enough of middle America that if the right person will effectively put Obama out. The odds of this happening... with the current lot of candidates is low in my opinion... but stranger things have happened, ie. Obama beating Hillary in the primaries.
Although it is still very early, it is looking like a Bachman/ Romney,or Romney/ Bachman ticket. Either way would be just great.
When Obama falls, he will likely drag down many long entrenched Democratic Congressmen and women.
There are 22 Democratic Senators up for re-election this cycle. The Republican Party only needs a net gain of three of those seats to gain a majority in the Senate. I expect much more.
This will move old Harry Reid to the very back of the bus....where he belongs.
Watch as those Democrats, who are in close races, try to distance themselves from Obama and his failed, socialist policies.
By the way, here is a link to support my first comment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/obama-fundraising-goal_n_870088.html
He expected to raise $60 million in JUNE alone. No telling what the haul was in May, but he got a little under $20 for himself and the DNC in April- below expectations.
It's a long way from the billion they anticipated.
Jody - do tell us why the only way is to overturn Citizens?
The courts merely interpret the law, which is written by the legislature - you know that whole separation of powers thing-y.
So Jody - have you called you Congress person and demanded that IRC Sec. 501(c)4 be amended? Have you ever even read that, or any other IRC section?
Jody, today would be a great day to start to actually read some of this stuff for yourself. Stop relying on ThinkProgress. They, like all bloggers/media, are very smart. You are better than them.
Depends on whether you expect something in exchange. Do you?
The primary reason that institutional donations are corrupt should be obvious. Corporations, not really being people, don't have actual political beliefs beyond those of their executives, who could also give individually. Therefore, the quid pro quo part is more-or-less obvious, whether ever stated directly or not. And also because those kinds of donations are so much larger -- or louder, I guess the Supreme Court would say.
Anna - just think of all the money that could be spent on programs if we didn't have to pay interest on our debt of $14 + trillion. And the interest is at a historical low. Scary to think of what the payments will be when interest rates are 4 - 5 %.
lisa s-1749992
Groucho, I wouldn't want to put money on the that 20% of the vote going to Pres. Obama.
Neither would I but with the GOP field as it stands, there's no good choice for a political centrist. Who knows, if the economy is in as bad a shape as it is today, you maybe very right.
Spanky. That is my opinion based on reading many, many things including the Constitution. Our SCOTUS has been corrupted by the very businesses that Citizens United declared as deserving the same Constitutional rights as "individuals". Corporations cannot vote at the ballot box nor can they speak with a singular voice because what a corporation says is not what every person working within the corporation believes. Thus, they are not entitled to the exact same rights as are individuals. They have the right to advertise to sell their products but they should not have the right to buy elections or legislators simply because they have the cash to do so and do so in the name of individual free speech without in big, bold letters telling the rest of Americans who paid for the ad. That's my view not that of ThinkProgress or any other organization.
So AM and Jody - the difference between a corporation and a union is therefore what?
Unions don't have the right to vote, and only act through their members, right? And not all with in a given union think alike. They do not have the right to buy elections or legislators simply because they have the cash - right Jody.
As I recall the AFSME and SEIU gave ass loads of cash to politicians last cycle.
I appreciate your opinion Jody, but again your issue seems to be with the laws. So go do something to get them changed. For me, a corporation is free to act however it, through its Board, acting in it's shareholder's interests, wants.
But this concept by AM of per se corruption is stupid. Corporations make donations all the time. For lots of reasons. Besides AM you have now qualified it with a "depends." So guess they are not always corrupt.
Besides - in today's age who cares about advertising anymore anyway. Do we really need an ad by Obama? We already know who he is and what he is about. It a huge waste.
Again, Spanky, as I said above, when you say unions are just like corporations, you're making the argument why unions should be preserved. Because otherwise, and unless you agree to public financing, you're left arguing that only one side should have all the campaign money to spend. You're not really arguing for THAT, are you Spanky?
And, by the way, a donation to the Girl Scouts is NOT a "political" donation. It's charitable, and tax exempt, which political donations are not. The "expecting something for it" part was my gentle way of trying to show you the difference. Try arguing apples, okay?
If you're REALLY against advertising, then limited public funding ought to be perfect for you. Honestly, Spanky.
But thanks for setting them up for me. Yet another fastball up and over the plate? ;-)
Preserved? By who? Corporations come. Corporations go. Their customers support whether they exist or not. And corporations give money to both political parties.
Unions exist for their members, usually with mandatory dues, and they donate nearly exclusively to the Democrats.
The only entity that is "preserving" the unions today seems to be the government. See GM bailout and states bailout from the 2009 Recovery and Reinvest Act for details. You know, Democrats helping Democrats, with the taxpayers money.
Oil industry subsidies, and tax cuts for the wealthy. You know, Republicans helping Republicans, with taxpayer money.
Corporations exist solely to make a profit for their shareholders -- someone out here, I forget exactly who, told me that -- and since they do, then it's all right for them to do everything possible to cut their labor costs and save what they have to pay out on benefits; and corporations, in the service of their shareholders, contribute overwhelmingly to Republicans.
But seriously, JoAnna -- once your side destroys the unions, the corporations won't HAVE to give to both sides anymore, will they? And pretty soon, there will only BE one side, won't there?
And that's exactly what you want, isn't it? Because if it's not, you're sure doing a lousy job arguing for anything else.
The unions have destroyed themselves. They destroyed the manufacturing base of the country from the auto industry, the steel industry, the textile industry, and the airline industry. Employment in those areas have either decreased or ceased to exist. They only area they have grown the workforce is at the federal, state and local government levels, and those also have needed billions in bailout dollars of taxpayer money to be kept afloat. The unions can only be sustained with government money, they cannot exist on their own.
But you didn't answer the question Annie. How exactly do we "preserve" unions? Other than with our constant raiding of taxpayer dollars to bail the unions out.
I shouldn't have to tell you this, JoAnna. Fair trade policies overseas, and simple humanity. Which part of that don't you understand?
On second thought, never mind. Both parts of that seem to be lacking in your Ayn Rand world.
So, if you don't like the trade policies, why hasn't Obama done anything about those policies? That's his job to negotiate those policies. He hasn't done anything. Instead, he's just pumped billions of dollars into the countries unions, billions of borrowed dollars.
Look at Greece AM. Think what's going on there is humane? That's what happens when the government gives out more than it takes in. The world is very concerned about Greece and how it can be bailed out AM. A small country like that, and it is a major drag on the world economy. Who's going to bailout the US though AM? When the US debt can no longer be sustained, who will bail us out? Think that the things that need to happen to address that debt at that time will be "humane"?
On second thought, never mind. You'll never understand.
And you still haven't answered how we "preserve" the unions. Why is that?
technically, what's happening in Greece is an UNENFORCED tax code. Taxes are not being paid. Imagine, some people actually OWE taxes; but then don't pay them.
I know, who would do such a thing? Those who can get away with it, apparently.
CNN disagrees.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/02/10/greek.debt.qanda/index.html
Unrestrained spending? Cheap lending? Failure to implement financial reforms? Wow, that sure sounds familiar.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/14/greece-taxes-debt-opinions-contributors-richard-murphy.html
I would argue it has multiple facets, of which MY point is a large factor.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities.
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
Nice to see you posting this same thing over and over and over again today. Neat trick.
Tell us, though- I see a date at the bottom, March 16, 2006. Are things exactly the same now as they were in 2006? Did you know, that in the past, it was quite common for the reps of the party NOT in power to disagree with rasising the debt limit just about every time?
Sure you do. But why let that interfere with a cute-sy talking post?
drive by observer......Your powers of observation are astounding. Obama's approval rating 1/20/09 - 65%........Obama's approval rating today is 45% and tanking.........and I am confident that you are not wondering why......remember what happend on 11/2/10? ......do you remember why?.....do you remember what happens when you are the incumbent with more than 7 to 8% uenmployment that you can no longer hang on Bush simply because after 2.5 years.......Obama owns it?.......hold that thought for 11/6/12!
"....remember what happend on 11/2/10? ......do you remember why?....."
Yes I DO. And so does AMERICA. Why the hell do you think we keep asking "where are the jobs, Mr Speaker" on here? (and getting ridiculed for it, to boot??)
dbo - Let's see now...Americans are not stupid either.....they remember what happened on 11/2/10 and why as well......that is why they Republican control only one branch of the government for 6 months now...and when the Repubs take over the Senate on 11/6/12....noooo problemo!!......oh....by the way......just how is "The Summary of Recovery 2010" coming along?
Sadly, things were a lot better on 'o6.
Debt a lot less. Yet Obama was exactly right then.
SO Drive By, why not just raise the ceiling $100 trillion?
Should be no problem right?
You are right, drive by.
Things are NOT at all what they were in 2006.
. In 2006, when that statement was made, the total debt was $8.2 trillion. Congress raised it to $9 trillion.
As with everything else,
Obama Made It Worse.
"Gallup is out with new Obama Approval Numbers today showing that his bounce after the killing of Osama Bin Laden is largely gone. Perhaps the key number is that among Independents, Obama's approval is down to 42% – close to where it was on May 1 before Bin Laden was killed (40%)."
Where's the bounce for getting gas prices down? That's why Obama released the oil reserves, right.
But Drive By - you have been telling us, as has Obama that it's not about supply. Yet he goes off and does this. Why?
If supply is not the big factor, then why would he release the Strategic Reserve? Seems a might inconsistent, no?
Spanky, that 30 million barrels have already been used (takes less than a day to blow through it). and to think that oil prices were already falling before this event.
Interesting to note that just how many gallons of gas this will put into each Americans gas tank. Based on old 2006 data....
a barrel of oil consists of 42 gallons which makes about 19.5 gallons of gas
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm
30000000 barrels x 19.5=585000000 gal of gas
250000000 est vehicles in the usa (2006 and low est)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
585000000/250000000= 2.34 gallons per vehicle
Figuring as a percentage isn't impressive either.
19.6 million barrels consumed daily by the US
http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html
19600000 barrels used/dayx30days=588000000 barrels/month
30000000/588000000 =approx 5.1%/month or .17%/day
I know american.
So we are left with naked politics by Obama, right Drive By.
It's funny my pal Drive By never wants to talk about the supply issue anymore. He used to be so passionate. I guess now that he has that Volt it screw all of us. Not cool Drive By.
Not cool at all, you damn "ME FIRST" guy.
RatPoison..
You wrote..
if the Republicans can find the right person. Obama has enough people angry, has lost enough of middle America that if the right person will effectively put Obama out. The odds of this happening... with the current lot of candidates is low in my opinion... but stranger things have happened
Thanks for the correction on the stats..
As to my point and yours, whether it be 20 or 30%, with the GOP field as it stands, I believe they go Obama, there's no other viable choice.
As nojo stated, Daniels would have the best choice against Obama and he is not in the race.
"It's funny my pal Drive By never wants to talk about the supply issue anymore"
Sorry, guys. Can't talk now- still trying to figgure this out:
Spanky-
Oh my Drive By!
Gas is coming down. You know that cause you see it with your own eyes, right. Proof positive that you libbies cannot see the Forest, just trees.
Sorry to break it to you - oil is going up. And you know where gas comes from? That's right.
Tell you what genius, how about you get back to us in 3 weeks. See if you can guess what gas will do in the interim.
Oh, SNAP!
Buzz, You're MY hero!
They hate it when you twist the words they SAY into something other than what they MEANT! You will now be summarily dismissed as irrelevant. Sad to say,...but we KNOW this tune and how the piper will play it out!
So Michele Bachman raised 13.5 million for a House campaign and apparently spent 11 million of it? I'd be interested to know how that compares with the average House campaign fundraising and expenditures.
steeler fan - this could be your next project, the info should be readily available on the web.
With all the money it takes to be president of the United States, is it any wonder they feel no obligation to fix the problems facing the American people? They take piles of cash from donors to get elected, they pay back those donors with political favors that they pay for with taxpayers hard earned money. All the while they pocket perks, benefits, and IOU's that set them and their families up for life all at taxpayer expense. So who are the real idiots in the country, the politicians that lie, cheat, and steal, or the American voter that continually elects them?
On board with you Rick.
We get the representation we deserve. We are the problem because we are the idiots you decry. Once we pull our heads out and demand that our leaders actually LEAD and sit down and make deals and compromise and move this country forward, then we as an electorate can pat ourselves on the back. Until then, we get what we deserve.
The amount of money that goes into politics is obscene. It is a shining example of what is wrong with America.
Decent start for Obama. Got his first donations from Wall Street and Big banks over the weekend. People think they dislike him when in fact his policies allow them to keep their money from we the people. No loans so banks can buy stock overseas. Many stocks bought up in China lol while you and me eat beans and rice for dinner for the third time this week.
If we can ever find a plain and smart person that is for we the people and less government this nation could only be so lucky to have a president like that.
Obama will make a great X president and his speaking fees will make Palin look like a lemonade vendor.
Links 3rdpartyadvocate, with out links you have no credibility. We do not except personal comments as fact around here.
"If we can ever find a plain and smart person that is for we the people and less government this nation could only be so lucky to have a president like that." 3rdpartyadvocate
Ron Paul 2012
Read up on his views and voting record. He stands by what he says, common sense if you ask me, by voting the way he says he will 100% of the time.
Don't take my word for it, read his speeches, watch a few interviews, or better yet read a couple of his books and decide for yourself. Ron Paul should be president.
Mo - Where have you been since nov 2010?? Just because you refuse to keep up with current events doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.
Obama stating a $ billion goal for his campaign by the 2012 elections, $30 k/plate or more fund raising dinners. Even FR reports on his fund raising events. And you want links???
You make it sound like there are no left wing bankers, business owners or CEO's. Talk about credibility gaps... You sound like the gieco commercial that asks if one lives under a rock.
Drive by observer......Your powers of observation are astounding. Obama's approval rating 1/20/09 - 65%........Obama's approval rating today is 45% and tanking.........and I am confident that you are not wondering why......remember what happened on 11/2/10? ......do you remember why?.....remember what happens if your the incumbent and unemployment is above 7 to 8%.......hold that thought for 11/6/12!
speaking about monies, where is your report on justice thomas and his ethic violations?
speaking of money. KCCI-TV out of des moines, iowa cited a poll that like 44% of those polled didn't want the debt limit raised while only about 38% did.
looking up more details of the poll.
Not as current as what was reported saturday night, but more in making the same public opinion on raising the debt limit.
http://www.kcci.com/news/27781608/detail.html
Most people do not understand what the impact would be in failing to raise the debt ceiling. The media and politicians are not doing a very good job explaining the very real risk and the impact on people not just the country. Republican legislators like Boehner and McConnell do understand the danger, they just prefer making political points to speaking honestly to Americans about why, like it or not, it must be done.
I don't understand, why didnt the Democrats just raise taxes while the had control of the house and Senate??? Things that make ya go Hmmmmmmm...
Come on, UAW, you know the answer to your lie/question, you just won't admit it.
The Democrats may have had the numbers, but the Repbulicans filibustered anything and everything.
Stop repeating the lie. It won't be true no matter how many times you say it.
Why is everyone so hung up on Iowa?
Lots and lots of folks are into livestock in Iowa, Mo. Bawk-mann today, then there's the big movie premier in a couple of days, with you-know-who in attendance.....
We like corn????.......................
Iowa, like NH, just gives a first read to the nation on where candidates stand. Left or right, makes little differrence.
The other factor is that Iowa voters are considered to be more conservative and moderate in their thinking and are as apt to vote left as they are to vote right.
The Campaigner-in-Chief should be able to raise more money since he stopped working and just gives campaign speeches inbetween golf games. He also has Watermellon One to fly him around now at the tax payers' expenses that he did not have access to before.
" He also has Watermellon One to fly him around now...."
Well, at least some posters are open about what they REALLY don't like about our president, instead of hiding behind nonsense like debt and unemployment. Your honesty is refreshing, Dr Bob.
"nonsense like debt and unemployment."
So speaketh the great Drive By. Focused like a laser so early this Monday.
As far as the two candicates running neck and neck, I listed to an interview yesterday morning with Michelle Bachman and needless to say she had nothing to say, skirted all the honest answers to questions presented to her and blamed everyting on President Obama. I was not impressed and she is the same as the rest of them. She will never get my vote. We do not need 4 years of her.
Why would she blame everything on President Obama, when everything is President Bush's fault?
Hard to wrap your head around the volume of money. It's like watching the Rose Bowl and the millions spent by each float creator for the public to have a couple hours viewing pleasure and realizing millions of children and adults go hungry in this country at some point every week if not every day. But we watch and enjoy and we will contribute to the candidates of our choice.
I said to my husband (I think it was last week) when the infamous Marilyn Monroe white dress sold for over 7 million dollars at auction - Imagine how many hungry people in this country that would feed...
It's obscene...
yeh, I am sure you did fiesty. lmao.
Let's all redistribute the wealth. After redistribution and a few years, the poor will still be with us, the hungry will still exist and their will still be a vast division of wealth just some of the names will be changed.
She has a husband?? That in itself is amazing.
As for feeding the poor and hungry Feisty, why not give that campaign money your sending weekly to your messiah, to feed hungry kids instead??
It's called....putting your money where your mouth is.
So you are perfectly fine with the already occurring redistribution to the wealthy few who have no more money than they can spend in 100 lifetimes but. You will let the poor and unfortunate suffer because the wealthy few can't control their insatiable greed and disdain for poverished communities?
Pathetic, just down right disgusting!
What individuals do with their own money is their business, Feisty. Here's a novel idea; mind your own business.
I do give money to feed the poor as well, Edward, and I do so because I care. You, sir, have the right to make your snarky remark but you do so without knowing anything about either Feisty or me and by doing so, the rest of FR has an understanding of what makes you tick.
Let me add, and it's pretty ugly...
No one said it was anyone's business, Dave D numbers, but one can certainly question the priorities.
Why, thank you Jody.
The priorities of Feisty giving money to Obama's campaign weekly, as opposed to sending that money to a good charity to help feed the poor children she harps about is the priority I question.
It's called putting your money where your mouth is.
dbo - Let's see now....the Republican control only one branch of the governmnt for 6 months now......and how is "The Summary of Recovery 2010" coming along?
"Gallup is out with new Obama Approval Numbers today showing that his bounce after the killing of Osama Bin Laden is largely gone. Perhaps the key number is that among Independents, Obama's approval is down to 42% – close to where it was on May 1 before Bin Laden was killed (40%)."
The sure fact it comes down to money is a sure sign of what this Country has come to! It's no longer who is best, instead it's who has money to buy the Presidency! If anyone really thinks a common man, with all the good ideas and background to support it, can be elected, you're nuts! Bush had the Oil companies and a brother in Florida to win, Obama raised 1 billion dollars to get elected, some of which came from the Banking Industry and BP, remember them? So much division between the Democrats and Republicans, it makes the Grand Canyon look like a mire crack! I guess it will come down to the "Status Qua" or the "Unknown", neither seems to be a good choice but that's America!!!
You know what, there never used to be that much of a division between the two parties. It's that way now because of OBAMA! We want that Progressive Socialist THUG OUT!
Obama/Biden 2012!!! They've got my full support because the GOP certainly has done nothing to help fix the economy or solve our problems--two plus years of NO, block, obstruct, filibuster tells me all I need to know about who puts Country First and it is not the GNOP.
Even when our Republican heros were greatly outnumbered in both houses of congress and the Executive branch to boot, they kept the faith with the true Americans and did their best to block the terrible socialist policies of Obama and his evil minions.
Never have so many owed so much gratitude to so few Republicans. Reinforcements were sent in as soon as possible in November, but they couldn't really get into the thick of the battle until January of 2011. The fight for the freedom and economic welfare of true Americans continues unabated to this day. Together we shall prevail in the final battle in November 2012.
Let's keep track of the top donors so we will know who will get jobs in two years!
I understand that many of the money dilberts didn't attend the Obama $35,000/plate dinner last week. Hmm......could it be the anti-business fraud of a prez has lost his followers? If the Dems were smart, they'd distance themselves from him big time. Obama is DONE......
Yes Annie,
It will be comical to watch the Democratic hopefuls, who are up for re-election this cycle, slowly try to (diplomatically) edge away from Obama. He will be political poison to any Democrat who wants to stay in office.
If they carry the dreaded "D" after their names, they are toast.
The other thing is, Soros still has plenty of $$ although he is busy buying judgeships around the country. Oh and don't forget the under $25 from the Middle Eastern donors. You know those Muslims. They'll come through.
Nice touch, AnnieRich--throw in the Muslim nonsense, now that really gives your comment credibility..NOT.
Many people complain about the redistribution of wealth and entitlements. I believe our constitution was written on principles to avoid us becoming a subservient state where all the wealth is controlled by so few as it is now. so if the intention of the Tea party and the republicans is to take the country back to the pre industrial age, I say there are well on their way.
vote independant, term limits, set donor contribution limits, and put the money into communities where our taxes are supposed to be going in the first place, not to billion dollar corporations. What every happened to the time when communities really were families? i'm willing to bet that 5 out of every 10 billionaires stole their way to proseperity!!!!!!!
exactly,...that is why the Inheritance Tax was so popular,...until "W" tried to make a dinosaur out of it. Wealth that continues to concentrate with a select few,...ultimately becomes a monarchy - or WORSE.
The death tax or inheritance tax was popular? How people can justify this tax and the amount they want to take is disgusting. Its been taxed once, that should be enough.
Clara,
So those families that own family farms are now the "select few"?? Typical liberal crap.
You probably ought to wake up in this centurey/decade. The 'family' farm has literally been co-opted to huge conglomerates.
but here is a chart indicating how to 'protect' the almost mythical small family farm of which you speak:
http://wills.about.com/od/understandingestatetaxes/a/estatetaxchart.htm
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/demographics.html
Why is that democrats always want to make decisions with other people's finances and think they know better than the person that earned the money? So they point to a few people that inherited the money and avoid talking about the vast majority of people who through hard work, intelligence or talent have made something for themselves. Surgeons, business owners, Tiger Woods, Oprah, pro athletes, doctors, lawyers etc who under the theories espoused by Commonsense and others now must give all their money via taxes back to the government because hey they got more than they need right? We the liberals can spend it much better than you even though you have worked so hard for it and earned every penny of it. How much do you really need because its our job to make sure you are charitable enough. Of course based on every single statistic including tax returns as filed, these same people and by the way low and middle income republicans give far more to charity than democrats. Remember when Al Gore was so embarassed because his tax return showed that he had given a grand total of $500 dollars to charity as vice president when he was preaching about higher taxes.
So democrats always want to tell other people what to do with their money but cant live themselves pursuant to the philosophy they preach, but republicans do the same thing with sex. Do you notice how they want to get in everyone's sex life and tell them when they can have sex, how they are educated about it, who can have it and who can get married and who can have an abortion or use stem cells or get birth control. Of course, besides Weiner, it always seems like republicans cant live under the same principles they preach. Why are they all just hypocrites?
Kirk,
You failed to mention how many family farms that have been in the same family for generations have to be broke up and sold off to pay this ridiculous inheritance tax. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
..
They did not even mention Ron Paul ??? How can you ignore him if we are talking about how much his supporters give... wow.
Over 30 Fundraisers in 2 months!
Obsessed with his BILLION DOLLAR goal.......
And "we" the middle class taxpayers, are paying for ALL of the expenses!
Only a pure Narcissist would set a selfish goal of that nature and still sleep at night!!!