E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Obama's re-election campaign made an about-face late Monday in its opposition to super PACs, encouraging donors to send their unlimited contributions to one such group founded by a former administration spokesman.
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina emailed supporters to formally endorse contributions to Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC founded by Bill Burton, a former White House deputy press secretary.
"With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm," Messina wrote on the campaign's blog. "Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC."
The decision represents a stark reversal for Obama, who has been among the most vocal critics of these outside political spending groups since the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the way for the rise of super PACs.
NYT: Obama returns cash tied to Mexico 'casino czar'
Obama has led Democrats in opposition to these groups, especially at the height of 2010's congressional elections. Republican-aligned groups like American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS took advantage of the new rules to great effect, spending tens of millions of dollars against Democrats during that election.
"And thanks to a Supreme Court decision called Citizens United, they are being helped along this year by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads … without ever disclosing who’s behind all these attack ads," Obama said of Republicans and super PACs that fall. "Now, that’s not just a threat to Democrats — that’s a threat to our democracy."
The president expressed his alarm as recently as Sunday in an interview with TODAY's Matt Lauer: "One of the worries we have obviously in the next campaign is that there are so many of these so-called super PACs, these independent expenditures that are gonna be out there," he said in a pre-Super Bowl interview.
'Smell test'
Moreover, after Priorities USA had launched, the White House continued to encourage it to abide by a stricter set of rules and disclose its donors. As recently as last week, Senate Democrats had announced their intention to investigate these groups, with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) arguing that the notion that groups like these don't coordinate a failure of the "smell test."
The Obama campaign's reversal, though, is a testament to the effectiveness of these groups. Restore Our Future, a super PAC established on behalf of Mitt Romney, has raised tens of millions of dollars already and spent some of that war chest with great effectiveness against Romney's rivals in the Republican primary.
Messina's statement Monday evening said that senior campaign officials, along with some White House and cabinet officials, would attend events and solicit donations for Priorities USA. Those actions are permitted under federal election laws, though Priorities USA is barred from coordinating formally with the Obama campaign. (Messina said that Obama, Vice President Biden and the first lady would not participate in this effort.)
"As has become evident in the past month, the only enthusiasm in the Republican Party is among oil company billionaires and investment bankers on Wall Street looking to defeat President Obama," Burton said by email in reaction to the decision. "We’re committed to providing a balance to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers who have pledged more than half a billion dollars to their effort."
According to a filing this month with the Federal Election Commission, Priorities USA Action had managed to raise about $1.2 million in the second half of 2011, leaving it with about $1.5 million in the bank at the end of the year.
With the heft of the Obama campaign behind its efforts, though, Priorities USA could see its bank accounts swell, giving the group millions to spend on behalf of the president — and agains his eventual Republican challenger — over the course of the next nine months.
Leave a Comment:
Good ole Citizens United, there's no choice but to fight fire with fire. Come on people, send your donations for reelection of President Obama!
Wall Street and Big Oil are getting behind the Teapublican candidates--of course. There are already a lot of right-wing Super PAC ads spinning the spin. I just watched one from Americans for Prosperity as if the election was between President Obama and Reagan, with quotes taken out of context from both presidents. Teapublicans can't carry the torch for Bush/Cheney or advertise on behalf of GOP/TP candidates because they all suck. But the fact is Reagan would be rejected by present-day Teapublicans, so what a joke.
Well that took about 2.5 seconds....SuperPacs are no longer evil, because "O" says it's Ok
They're still evil, but there's no point in gimping yourself. Need to play by the same rules. Between Obama and Gingrich, these Super PACs don't look so great to Repubs anymore, huh?
no, they're still evil, unfortunately, they appear to be a necessary one with election laws as they now stand. i won't give to one, even one i agree with. but his prior position was untenable, there was no way to compete with an anonymous stack of cash unless you have your own anonymous stack of cash.
My mistake, sorry...I'll amend...Another Politician abandons his morals / beliefs when it appear they interfere with his ambitions...better??
So he's supposed to just stand by and lose because the Supreme Court decided corporations are people and have almost unlimited speech= cash= influence?? The man may have changed his mind but he's not stupid enough to throw away the election.
Obama didn't invent the rules but he deserves a level playing field
Talk about a flip-flopper.
From the way most democrats talk on here, there's no need for super PAC. He'll just win the election, right?
Mr Phea.
If you want to win election and fight for what you believe, you dont enter a gun fight with only knives. Now that guns are legal with the Super pacs. Obama has no ch oice but to arm himself. Against values or not. If the rules change thanks to the opposition. You dont win by not arming back even if you dont care for it.
President Obama will still have 10 times more donations from small donors that Romney.
"Now, that’s not just a threat to Democrats — that’s a threat to our democracy."
Everything Republican is a threat to our democracy....
Because in a Democrat's mind, the only true democracy comes from one party dictating everything..
Get the money out of politics, get politics out of government.....enact term limits now.....the PAC's will disappear eventually as they will be useless as change will occur faster than they can keep up with.
If you want to know how money, campaign contributions, lobbyists, and out and out bribes are wiping out The Peoples Democracy just pick up a copy of Jack Abramoff's Capitol Punishment read that and see if that doesn't open your eyes to business as usual in Washington (London, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo etc). It is a very current expose' mentions such stalwarts of democracy as Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Bohner, Ronald Regan, Bill Gates, Jack Kemp, Imelda Marco, the Bush's, Dick Cheney man they are all there in it up to their elbows and don't think the Democrats don't have their hands in the cookie jar either because they do!
READ THE BOOK..... but remember the it's not the truth that sets you free its the actions we take as a result of knowing the truth that sets you free.
Now why would the oil company billionaires, investment bankers, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers (The very same group that caused this Recession because of their greediness.) want to defeat Obama ?? Could it be that they are afraid of regulations that would require them to follow the laws, pay their fair share of taxes (and not zero to 14%), no more tax exemptions, etc., etc.???? Isn't it amazing how the 1% pay the lowest % in taxes to the IRS???
In sport, when one team is having certain advantage, the other team want that too, which is fair. As long as GOP stop throwing rock down the field and betting vs. U.S economy and American workers. It's like GOP asks me to vote for them, but also, wishing that I get lay off, this is not American I know.
Ah, so the excuse to acting like a dousche bag is someone else is a douschebag. So now we will be led by dousche bags whether we vote Democrat or Republican.
So, this is why I find it hilarious that people only vote for one party or the other. As if one of these parties is 'Holier.' Here's a statement that is true no matter which party you vote for: Your party sucks.
What should happen is someone should turn the United States into a combat zone over SuperPACs. But since nobody in the US really cares anymore if their voice is drowned out, other than bitching in places like Newsvine, on Wall Street, or at your Texas barbeque, I suppose nobody in this country really deserves to be represented anyway.
Take it away, wealthy people! Middle class people and poor people don't want our country anymore. Please lower our wages and thank you, we do love it as long as we can yell at each other.
It's too bad the Republicans could not do something more worthwhile for our society with their money. Maybe with that pledge of more than half a billion dollars to defeat Obama, they could stop being so outrageously, greedy, and pay down the deficit, provide better health care, invest & improve educational, technical, and vocational training, etc., etc. OMG, I forgot that the Republicans do not spend money recklessly or carelessly!!
Citizens United the "unintended" consequences, lets give away our voice in our democracy so that the few will again control the message the money the power. No chance at a level playing field unless you play by the same rules, ask your boy Grinch.
And let's not forget the Democrats using the funds more wisely as well.
I knew before i looked that it would be OBrien's name on this article. Am i questioning your journalistic ethics? You betcha. Unlike Romney being for choice before he became anti choice or for government mandated healthcare before he was against it Obama is simply admitting this is a part of this election. I don't think you see anyone praising these superpacs on the administrations behalf.Send an amendment to Obama removing superpacs and the ink will be drying in about 1 minute.
According to NPR Obama was expected to have a BILLION dollar war-chest with large individual and corporate donors who already committed, so he needs to have a super-pac to win for financial reasons??? That's BILLION not million!
Really???? Don't be so naive! With a billion he could be on TV 24/7.
Wrong is WRONG is WRONG! He was elected because he promoted change and was supposed to be in it for the regular people.
He should just say the truth, a large corporation/donor has offered millions and he wants to avoid it appearing that he's being paid off. So instead put it into a PAC. We know who owns Romney.. So who now owns Obama? Oil Companies? Pharmaceuticals? Insurance?
To Derek Posting 1.14:
To quote you:
And just what is it that you are contributing besides complaining ???
All the more reason for ALL OF YOU to get involved with the Popular Amendment Movement (faircampaignreform(dot)us and help push the constitutional amendment petition drive in YOUR community. Get these petitions out there, get them signed, start your own local grassroots organization, and get the petitions to YOUR Secretary of State. This is the only way that we will ever see true election/campaign finance reform.
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
BTW, unlike the other Super PAC's, Priorities USA IS reporting all of their donors and the amount they have donated, not just one or two of them, just as Colbert's Super PAC did.
Ex Solyndra executives will be first to donate to Obama's super pac....
Maybe they will be able to do another Solyndra...just call it something else...
MrPheaNiques said:
Well from this you can logically deduce that you feel the Republicans Romney & Newt abandoned morals many months ago. OK I can live with that, Republican Leadership at its best. Too bad Obama has to get in the gutter with them to level the playing field.
Antitrust: The reason your amendment will never tread water is the side issues and unpalatable sections. An amendment simply stating that corperations are NOT living , breathing entities and are only entitled to protection under the law and not the rights of a us citizen would fly. The wounded duck you are trying to release will never catch air.
Ah yes. The the big bad PACs aren't so bad any more, Mr. Obama?! Didn't take the First Hypocrit long to change his tune now did it. And look at all his mindless minions rationalizing his sell out. ROTFLMAO!!!!!
No matter which party you vote for there will never be any real changes in this country. There is no way to stop the downward spiral of collapse and destruction that the Progressives have wrought upon America.
States need to save themselves before the Federal Government drags them into the abyss with it. The break up of America will happen. It's only a matter of time.
The Citizens United case did only one thing--made money in politics WAY MORE PERVASIVE. In other words, elections have gotten a LOT MORE EXPENSIVE (on the order of 100's of times) in just 2 years. So only the wealthy interests can truly play now.
Citizens United is the most blatant case of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in generations (overturning 100 years of clear American jurisprudence). The implications for democracy in this country are grave.
The Citizens United ruling was either STUNNINGLY NAIVE, or an INTENTIONAL DECISION by the 5 justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) to shift government to subjugation by mega-wealthy corporate interests. Either way, it calls into question the very basis of an "independent judiciary".
Of course the Democrats have to play by the same rules. Someone here said that President Obama will raise over a billion dollars (the old fashioned way--from natural citizens). That's peanuts compared to the Super PAC's controlled by Karl Rove/Koch Brothers, who can join with their wealthy associates and easily infuse $500 MILLION (1/2 the amount the President will raise in over 1 year) into their Super PAC's IN 1 DAY!
One of Mitt Romney's Super PAC's lists something like 23 of his former associates at Bain Capital, and has spent tens of millions of dollars ALREADY in this election cycle. Newt Gingrich's associated Super PAC got $10 MILLION dollars over a 2 week period from the billionaire Adelson family out of Las Vegas.
What are these mega-wealthy interests buying for all that money? Who really believes the Super PAC's are independent and do not coordinate with the campaigns?
The answer is OUR VERY DEMOCRACY.
Like a wise woman once told me: "only stupid people dom't change their minds"
Super PACs are "evil" and unfair as they drown out any normal poltical discourse. The Roberts Supreme Court reversed 100 years of law to allow them to exsist. Our Democracy is now in the hands of secret, super rich, corporate, type donars. This is insanity.
I support a Constitutional Amendment to somehow put these Super PACs out of business.
Amazing the timing of the release of this story. One of the most incredible acts of the lack of integrity in political history and it is buried at 11:00 p.m. There is no defense of this no matter what. Any attempt to do so places you in contempt lower than a snake's belly.
PACS wouldn't be an issue if so many Americans weren't sheep. Unfortunately, too many of our fellow citizens fall for those attack ads and believe the bullshi* innuendo. Obama has other choice. Until we start doing our own fact checking, he's gotta fight fire with fire.
No politician ever met a dollar bill he didn't like.
There is no "about face", it's called "two faced".
One of the primary marks of a POOR leader is that he doesn't know how to make a decision and stand by it - but changes his mind; reverses directions when it suddenly become "inconvenient" to maintain the course of action which he had proudly and loudly proclaimed, while metaphorically pounding his chest, was the righteous, the virtuous way to be - until he realized there were acutal, real consequences that he - not someone else - might have to pay for his "virtue". (See reference in Napoleon Hill's classic book: Think and Grow Rich.)
Frankly, anyone who looks at Obama and thinks he even qualifies as a poor leader - much less a great one - has a serious problem with facing reality and probably still believes in the tooth fairy.
The other day I was having a conversation with a little 7 year old friend and he asked me, with the utmost seriousness, "Do you believe in the tooth fairy?" My answer was to feed it back and said, "Do you believe in the tooth fairy?" - and hope he would let it slide (which he did) since - not being his parent - it was not my place to disabuse him of his childhood fantasies.
Thank God, Mitt Romney doesn't have to behave that way when it comes to pointing out that President Obama is the modern day, adult equivalent of those who long for the days of beliving in the tooth fairy, but who have sublimated and transferred that longing to "the government".
Obama will go down in history as perhaps the worst President, the poorest & most ineffectual leader this country has ever had - he makes even that lying, philandering, manipulator Bill Clinton - who thought he was above being accountable to anyone but himself - look good in comparison. "Who could ask for anything worse." To paraphrase the old Toyota commercial.
An independant thinker wrote
Now why would the oil company billionaires, investment bankers, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers (The very same group that caused this Recession because of their greediness.) want to defeat Obama ?? Could it be that they are afraid of regulations that would require them to follow the laws, pay their fair share of taxes (and not zero to 14%), no more tax exemptions, etc., etc.???? Isn't it amazing how the 1% pay the lowest % in taxes to the IRS???
Ummm wrong, the recession was caused by the banking crisis because of no down payment loans, interest payment only loans, 125% loan to value loans etc., brought to you by the Democrat party so that people who couldn't afford homes could buy a home. Get it right for once, economic freedom is what made this country great and it's socialism that's destroying it. You want more taxes paid to a government that wastes the money it's already given you need to wake up.
Well put Matt. Of course, for those who still desperately want to believe that the tooth fairy is actually real and will give them magically what they want (without working), it will fall on deaf ears!
Well, it is about money now isn't it? So is it really a surprise that any politician would reverse their stance about something like this? Nope, it's just a normal day in U.S.A. politics folks. It shows you the true nature of the beast.
It's not about hope and change anymore......now it's about money!
I am a political pragmatist as long as it is legal to do. Survival is the first law of nature and sometimes even though a certain thing makes us hold our nose we MUST do it and this is one. If Republicans can do this and stash away hundreds of MILLIONS then we, the Democratic Party, need to work for the 99% and MUST compete. We cannot just rely on dribs and drabs.
This MONSTROUS, disgusting, unethical US Supreme Court handed down this putrid decision nearly as bad as the Dred Scott decision of another era. They the rancid FIVE unethical justices could be singularly responsible for ruining this country and reinforcing the already oligarchic control of BIG money while the people starve, get kicked out of their homes, jobless.
Ultimately when this country gains its rational sanity back IF it ever does in MY lifetime maybe a different Supreme Court will overturn this absolutely unethical decision of Citizens United. Dred Scott was not overturned for nearly a century. Sometimes it takes that long -- I HOPE not. A constitutional amendment SHOULD be enacted to prevent against this and public financing by the people should be the only source barring so called superPacs. we need TRANSPARENCY to GET MONEY OUT OF CONGRESS to work fairly for ALL the people not just a few corporate BILLIONAIRES who consider the millions they need to graft onto congressmen as simply part of doing business.
I say KUDOS to Obama an EXCELLENT president as I can see now (no I do not agree with ALL his positions) but generally speaking I believe he wants to do the right thing. So Democratic Pacs CONTRIBUTE ASAP to get the president re-elected again. Let these Republican swine taste their own medicine and see how THEY like it. Ruinous JERKS these Supreme Court five and let me name them: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy and Alito -- they are killers, killers of a truly democratic form of government. Thanks guys you singlehandedly put the icing on a destroyed Republic!
WE the people MUST take it back and can do so by electing progressive Democrats and HOPING these five exit stage right!
Oil companies and the Koch bros. have donated half a billion dollars? Where is it? The Republican super pac has 1.5 million in it's bank account. Obama has already raised 20 million. Who is getting the big money? Most of the $15.00 donators are on unemployment, so not there. The poor don't have it. How many $35,000.00 a plate dinners for Obama have you attended? He's had six or seven so far.
And the lies keep coming, from both sides. let's see how much Soros donates. BTW: know how Soros made most of his money? By investing in the Koch Bros. companies.
Just change the Law! What, the American People will not be able to make up their minds from debates and Town Hall meetings? MONEY truly is the root of all evil - Politicians.
It's like all those poor Red states who complained about the stimulus but happily took the money. Texas, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina.
Newsflash to all the liberal Obamadrones: "Wall Street" gave more to Obama's campaign in 2008 than they did to McCain's campaign. So all you bellyaching bed wetters out there need to put a sock in your whining about Wall Street.
But I find the irony, back-end hooks and about-faces of this administration - and its blind followers - so delicious. Only in liberal land is it okay to do a complete 180 on big evil corporate politicking when "the nation is at stake." Yeah, we've seen where Democrats can waste $862 billion in a "stimulus" bill that was supposed to keep this nation out of the soup lines and another great depression (it did nothing of the sort). All it did was hand money to Obama's cronies and special interests like Big Green Energy (about a half dozen firms to date have gone bankrupt now).
But we all know liberal Democrats have no shame. They can do whatever they want to and it's all justified because of the "good" about it. How pathetic. Well, Obama has lost the Catholic vote now, so that's just another piece of the political pie that will hurt him in November. Yeah Obama got one thing right about this backflip however: the nation is at stake. When Romney wins in November, I can't wait to come on here and read the posts. (Yeah, you libs in the media have fun with your "polls" showing Obama ahead of Romney in the general election). Your probes don't run very deep to get a REAL picture of the state of this nation from the general electorate perspective.
Trial Lawyers, Big Labor, Hollywood, ect..., ect... I hate to burst you liberals self righteous bubble, but democrats take money from oil companies (BP gave more money to Obama then anyone else.), they take money from rich Wall Streeters, Bankers, CEO's, and trust fund babies. Democrats have more rich donors then Republicans, and have outraised Republicans 10-1. Like so many things it is a do as I say, not as I do when your dealing with the left. No principle ever stands in the way of their true goal which is power and control. And not one Obama-bot is free thinking enough to not jump on the party line.
Do you libs really think its people on the entitlements donating to Obama? Its also funny hearing libs defending his change of heart. What ever happened to standing for something you believe in? Thats right dems only believe they have all the right answers
Or perhaps Karl Rove's Pac can change it's name to Enron, Halliburton or Interior Department circa Bush Administration....
Voters, be not moved by the money behind super pacs. Both republicans and democrats know the voter can be bribed with his own tax money - all the super pac can help determine is which shiny personality gets to do the bribing.
It's a voter problem, not a campaign finance one.
They are all down in the mud together on this one ! We need campaign finance reform and term limits NOW !
Mutually Assured Destruction. Parity is how the cold war was fought - without firing a shot - while destroying national economies. Investments in unused and non-productive ingenuity - that did not prevent war - that allowed the worst of humanity to commit the worst of atrocities. Investment in power - with no strength to wield it.
MAD politics. American business - the 'idle successful' - gambling money to shape government policy for their benefit. All paid for by American consumers. 'Free enterprise' investing at work.
Citizens United declared that money is 'free' speech. Demographics - polls - voter response - simply justifies the bad investments.
Yet we all complain - and - watch - and - cheer. We fund the MAD game with our purchases. We endorse the MAD game with our complacency. We allow the MADness to continue ...
In the proposed amendment above, you will effectively remove the "STATES RIGHTS" to hold elections as they wish. The proposal above will fail...
Union People! Do you understand the law that allows corporations to give also says 'unions are people' as well. You have the same ability to donate under this law. You can do exactly the same thing you rail against, crying about 'corporations being people'. Under the law, corporations are people, and unions are people. This benefits both sides. Unions can have an unlimited voice as well. Why aren't you praising this measure?
KSte Said:
KSte: Since you seem to be so well versed in donations, why don't you give us a detailed accounting of who is giving money to Obama. What's really funny, is people like you think its okay for the Republicans to receive $$ from the PACs but its not okay for Obama or anyone else to be on the same playing field right? Dems do not have all the right answers, but at least we can admit it. Republicans want special rights and cry foul when the Dems utilize the same pathetic structure. Grow up conservative.
Quite honestly, I am fed up with PACs, special interests groups, corporations, lobbyists, unions, and any 'companies' that are buying our government officials. I think anyone in this country who receives $$ like this MUST wear patches on their clothes just like Nascar drivers. Americans should know who is sponsoring those politicians.
This doesn't affect the Republicans at all. As far as I'm concerned, Obama has really stepped in it, considering he's the one who promised "change." As it turns out, he just wants business as usual like all the rest.
He has leveled the playing field? No, he has stooped to their level and there's a big difference.
I heard a saying once, "If you stick a glove in the mud, the mud does not get glovey." This will tarnish Obama's image with Independents.
Jesse G-341147
I would definitely drink to your comment sir. In my opinion that seems like some of the most thought out plan I've heard to date. Sadly I feel this idea is against the beliefs of the powers at be, it could possibly only be implemented with another revolution. I say this because it seems as if reliance in SuperPACs seems to be so deeply ingrained in the American society lately, that it would take extreme measures to eradicate it altogether. I don't feel many whom these SuperPACs benefit would give them up willingly, as they would probably feel it infringes on their rights. If history has taught us anything, it's that just because an idea or concept may be accepted by a size-able portion of the population, doesn't necessarily make it honorable. I think the very idea of these being allowed to exist gives those who they benefit the power to quite literally buy elections and dictate legislation in some instances. A candidate could have the best ideas and ability to follow through on their core beliefs, however, without a SuperPAC they most likely wouldn't be able to go the distance in any political race.
I'm somewhat of a moderate Democrat, and don't always agree with Republicans, but I don't resort to calling them fascists when this occurs. Lately the only person I've heard denounce the use of the from the Republican side of the spectrum is former Louisiana Governor Buddy Romer, I applaud him for taking this stance. I'm not sure if there ever was a time in our country's past where the idea of these abomination SuperPACs were seen as blasphemous, but if there was everyone should take steps to get back to these principals.
@anti-trust,
1) Getting rid of the College of Electors would require three coordinated actions: a) repeal the 12th Amendment, b) enact a new Amendment that would supersede Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and c) enact a new Amendment that would require direct election of the President and Vice-President. This would be extremely cumbersome and would take 20-30 years to accomplish if everything went perfectly during all three ratification processes.
2) The idea of holding even the most truthful and honest politician to be legally responsible for his/her campaign promises is equally dishonest and very, very dangerous. This is because situations change over time. For example, when Obama promised to bring the troops home from Iraq within his first year that was seen as doable, and even Bush agreed with it, when the logistics were laid out it took 16 months to do with the minimal risk of life and property. You would advocate for suing Obama over the 4-month gap?
3) The idea of limiting all campaigning to the 60 days prior to election has some merit, but it would be sheer chaos because so much would happen so quickly. There would always be candidates who would use that to their advantage, especially those with populist ideas that sounded good but were unworkable, such as a return to a gold standard that, while it has been a populist beacon for over 100 years, is actually impossible to attain without contracting the US economy by more than 80%. But it is the kind of hair-brained idea that could get people elected, but if enacted into law would plunge the country into economic ruin.
4) All of your suggestions, taken together, would have the effect of destroying the Constitution and placing the country into the hands of those with pre-existing money. While there is some merit to some of the ideas, it would be more useful to advocate for more narrow and potentially achievable goals such as stopping all paid lobbying (including the type done by Gingrich with Freddie Mac.)
People seem to forget that the Founding Fathers all hated political parties, but each ended up joining either the Federalists or the Republicans despite their sense that political parties were the worst possible thing that could happen to the country. The Founding Fathers despised the idea of democracy. They had seen its effects in England with Cromwell, and in the French Revolution and in some of the Colonies themselves. And all agreed, including the Republicans, with Ambrose Bierce that democracy was "four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
The Founding Fathers only allowed for direct election of the House of Representatives by direct election and even there they limited the term of office to the shortest imaginable. Senators and Presidential Electors were appointed by state legislatures and The Supreme Court, the Cabinet, and most top civil service positions were appointed. And there was considerable discussion of the folly of allowing direct election of the House, especially since it was loaded in such a way as to support slavery as an institution (not to give the people a voice.)
The Founding Fathers had in mind that the government would be people of wisdom appointed by state legislatures. These people would then universally cast aside the wishes of their districts, states, and regions and vote in the best interests of the country as a whole. They considered the Senate to be the supreme legislative body with a highly deliberative character and figured that the House would be a total loss, filled with rabble-rousers and raconteurs.
Obama says this could ruin democracy, and then reverses course. There's an easy way to tell when he's lying, his lips are moving. I can't wait to vote!
@Chris: #4. Please explain how banning all corporate, union, non-profit, PAC, Super-PAC, etc. donations and "third-party" advertising would destroy the constitution and put all of the power in the hands of those with pre-existing money. Section 4 limits individual contributions as well, and prevents a wealthy person from buying the election by also restricting the amount of their own money they can spend to 60% of the individual/family donations. Just stopping all paid lobbyists (also included in this proposal, Section 11) will NOT solve the problems being addressed by this amendment. If you have been following this promotion over the past 15 months, the amendment was created from comments posted by people here on Newsvine and is a compilation of those concerns. The single National Primary date was set because of people complaining about the length of campaigns in this country and all of the "nonsense" that comes out of those long-term campaigns. People wanted a much shorter campaign, which is fully logical in this day and age of 24/7 electronic communications. If the voting electorate is really concerned about who they are voting for, they will educate themselves in the short time span, just as easily as the long campaigns. Just look at the polling results that show most voters making their decision within ONE MONTH or less of the primary.
The conservative Supreme Court made the Citizens United decision.
If you have moral issues with the Super Pacs, put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the conservative sellouts on the Supreme Court.
And stop voting for the right-wingers who appoint sellouts on the court.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights most certainly make a left!!!
Can't have it BOTH ways..............!!!
@Independent Thinker: Contributing? Pointing out that people here seem to think they aren't voting for a whore if they vote Democrat or Republican. They think they aren't voting for the whore of a corporation. They think their vote will somehow matter. And if that's not a contribution, and someone is insulted, they're just dumb enough to believe the lie that they were fed that one of these two parties is better than the other.
You don't hear Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum complaining about Superpacs, in fact, they invite them.
So you can complain about the Obama about face (even though he was right to start with), but the Republicans are upholding this sham of a ruling and it tells you where their ethics are.
Chris- couple of things here you might want to clear up...the French revolution happened after we became a country,,,Ambrose Bierce lived during the civil war period
Diamondo & others... your claims that the president reversed course yes he admits it because the realities tell us that in order for there to be a level playing field. If you want only the few to control our democracy then you're for Citizens United...we all know corporations are not people(another example of judicial activism just like Bush v Gore). Puleeze, its like saying cars are people because people drive them. Your anger to Obama's statement is specious reasoning at best.
Its good to see Obama is such a principled person that he would rather loose than move to a position he earlier stated was off limits. It's great to have his fine moral character on display for all to see. He's one hell of a guy. No I mean he's really a hell of a guy.
I can't believe that a sitting president needs this much money for reelection. Doesn't he get it, he is NOT doing a good job, period.
Itsabouttime- No whats funny is how bad you all were bitching about the repubs and pacs but now change you stance. I never said I agree with or without them. What Im saying is stand up for something.
Obama, strong, stern, steadfast Liberal (or is that Progressive?) leadership values.
First time I've ever had a post collapsed. Guess there's a first time for everything.
"Flip-flopping" is exactly what he did.
And the post directly my old one proved my other point. Basically stating it doesn't matter if he has a PAC or not, he'll still get "10 times more donations from small donors."
Whether you want to admit to it or not, Obama feels threatened now. If he thought he could win without a PAC, he wouldn't urge people to donate to it. Either that or he's just greedy like most politicians.--Republican or Democrat.
Shame on the SCOTUS.
Citizen's United is one of the worst decisions of all time.
Shame, shame shame on the Robert's court.
According to NPR Obama was expected to have a BILLION dollar war-chest with large individual and corporate donors who already committed, so he needs to have a super-pac to win for financial reasons??? That's BILLION not million!
Really???? Don't be so naive! With a billion he could be on TV 24/7.
Wrong is WRONG is WRONG! He was elected because he promoted change and was supposed to be in it for the regular people.
He should just say the truth, a large corporation/donor has offered millions and he wants to avoid it appearing that he's being paid off. So instead put it into a PAC. We know who owns Romney.. So who now owns Obama? Oil Companies? Pharmaceuticals? Insurance?
The President may be the Front runner in collecting money for campaigning ... but understand - much of that money is filtered down to other Democrats in other races; Governors, Congressmen, mayors - etc. Used to help the campaigns (distributed through the DNC) of other serious contenders.
As Mel Brooks said... Its good to be the King! Well its very good to be the President, just by showing up there is a guarantee of a minimum fee - if you want the perks, a picture, a handshake, a small quiet dinner of 30 - 40 friends, fans and more Photo ops. .. its worth even more.
Political dinners, speaking engagements with the movers and shakers is lucrative for the Party. Its the cycle of Life in politics, the party helps you get your foot in the door and you do the dog 'n pony show to help the next generation of Politicians.
except in the case of the GOPpers, engagements are often spelled as engagements. They were totally caught off guard by the success of Senator Obama's Campaign for the Presidency ... and they preempted the integrity of the Supreme courts to insure they would have a bigger trough to feed from this time.
Gingrich. still the Big Boar in the Pig sty - made his own deal since the GOPpers were unwilling (unable?) to see a way he could stand the scrutiny of being a serious contender for the office of President, as predicted his mercurail flash is dimmed the more people see of him, learn about him. Lately, much like a Carnival Barkers - he is given to sell the Bearded Woman, Snake Oil, circus freak shows to keep the seats filled - more outragous every time he sees a mcirophone, a camera or a mirror ... the man has too much baggage to get out of the side show - can't fill the seats, can't make it to the Big Tent.
Look, I don't like SuperPacs as much as the next guy. In fact I want Citizens United OUT. But even you conservatives who want Obama out and seek to criticize him at every turn have to understand that in order to have a fair election, all candidates must have at least a level playing field. At least Obama admitted that he switched and why he did instead of just switching and leaving it at that. And Obama's billion dollar war chest is a fake. Whoever said it was either lying, exaggerating, or joking. Everyone knows that (or should know that). All of the GOP candidates know because they are up-to-date on the info, and yet they STILL accuse Obama of amassing a huge treasury even though they know that he has only raised less that one-quarter of that amount. If you want to blame someone, blame the damn right-wing SCOTUS that has endangered our democracy with Citizens United. TO HELL WITH SUPERPACS!!!!! TO HELL WITH THE SCOTUS DECISION!!!!!! LONG LIVE LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
NPR said that Obama's war-chest was going to be a billion dollars... They are about as democrat supporting as you can get, so they're lying? Get your facts straight! For the last presidential election the Obama campaign themselves reported raising $750 MILLION!! The sitting president almost always has more money the next time.
Even without the superpacs Obama was expected to raise more money than any of the republican candidates, so why the change?
The real question is, who will be donating to his super-pacs?????
It's time people stop voting for the guy with the most tv commercials and voted for someone who isn't bought and paid for by the rich 1%! It's also time people stop blindly accepting what is wrong just because someone in their party says it's ok.
Wow, an about face from the administration. I guess that was the Change they talked about 4 years ago. Well, promise delivered I guess.
BHO is satans right hand man. Romney is no better. I would NOT vote for either of these 2 clowns, unless it was for a job at ringling brothers...
One of them might get you some job. The other likes to fire people. Pick your poison
Vote for some honesty.
Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul is a tired, old man with tired, old ideas. Even if by some miracle he runs as a 3rd party candidate and gets elected, what chances would he have against Congress? Sorry, but NO President has that much power. In fact, the Office of the President has very little real power.
Sadly Ron Paul is a cross between Chamberlain and Wilson. Just say yes to all and hope they don't bring trouble to our shores. The head in the sand stance hasn't worked since...well never.
There are a whole lot of people in washington that need to get fired, so go with the guy that likes to fire people and get the job done.
you got that right SATAN looks like MADONNA is the group blow jobber including satan himself after that super bowl outfit, and I didn't watch the super bowl because I'm not going to be a part of Americas dummed down part of society who doesn't get it yet. Obama is the biggest a hole you could have for a President, and so is Romney do any of you fun retards even know what the NDAA does to your freedom you idiotic morons, well if you do not know what it is , you will soon how when or why ----If your to dumb to figure it out then this might be the whole reason your so in love with Obama he's got your idiotic azzes wrapped.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
I'll gladly donate to Obama's superpac. I'm not fond of the "starve the beast" policies that got us here and that Republicans continue to employ.
Tickle down economics is the love of the Republican party if you speak out against the rich getting the wealth then that's "class warfare". Republicans say they are for the middle class, yet nothing they do benefits the middle class.
Trickle up poverty from the Democratic Party is even worse ! Getting Obama out of office will do more to restore our economy than anything else.
The poverty is thanks to the tax cuts to the rich and the taking over of our economy by the wealthy and their slaves, the GOP. And at least Obama helped improve the economy and compromised to get things done, unlike the GOP which have obstructed nearly every bill that they don't like. The Founding Fathers would be abhorred by the dictatorial powers that the GOP are wielding even when they only control the House and have a minority in the Senate. This isn't democracy. This is a dictatorship. I say take out the GOP and let Congress do something productive instead of squabble and filibuster.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
NO TO RIGHT WING DICTATORSHIP
DEMOCRATS 2012
NO TO TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS
CLASS WARFARE MY ASS
AMERICA 2012
Fresh makes the point that she HAS NO CLUE what the founding fathers stood for and what they intended...Obama and this radical liberal administration represent EXACTLY what the founding fathers were against. GO READ A HISTORY BOOK AND STOP POSTING YOUR FALSE LIBERAL TRIPE. Just, WOW.
Oh joy, both sides are now selling out the the voters, the average American citizen. F*ck politicians, f*ck this screwed up system.
Run for office. Change things. When you try and run though, your going to need cash. So do something, or dont complain, this is your country and your fellow Ameircans that cause these rules that forces hands. get involved in politics and get people elected that wont do things you dont want. Or you cant complain
Who will those people who voted for change go to next twisted? Or didn't they give enough money to their candidate to make a difference?
cliff-- it is still the best system in the world, so I wouldn't complain.
Since money is speech according to the Supreme Court, unless you have a lot of money, you have little right to complain because you have little speech to complain with.
you sure about that? You are basing that on what, your extensive experience outside the US? After every single successful attempt to degrade our political system so many of you shrug your shoulders and say well, we're still the best. Is that really true? And even if it is, for how long with so many of you American's doing nothing but shrugging your shoulders?
Tw1sted...I voted, I am an American citizen, and I am actively involved in the political world, that gives me the right to speak my mind. Or did you forget, like so many of our current politicians, about that little thing called the Constitution?
Fight fire with fire, contribute to a guy who stands for the middle class, a guy who fights for ALL AMERICANS, someone who cares about the POOR, someone who calls a spade a spade and not a freagin spoon: Re-Elect Barack Obama!
No way Teapublicans turn this economy around, we will back to square one folks: reckless wall street and big bank gluttony, un-authorized wars, 15% on the rich while 99% of Americans building this country get the short end of the stick, a middle finger and scorn for being "lazy".
Romney is nothing but the good ol boy status quo intending to appease the fat cats in wall street and big oil and banks while punking 99%ers...This is the guy that would fire your grandpa who's been working at a factory for over 40s so he can make a profit...These punks have no shame. They would put their own mother under the bus for a quick buck and 15% tax...
This is Reddneck Doc Holliday (formerly staunch Teapub thats seen the light), and I approve this message.
Back to square one...what has Obama done to stem any of those things you listed above?
Twisted it is not our rules..... It is the good old court system that said yes to this BS.....
I wonder how this will be received by the deadbeats from the "Occupy" camps. After all, the President who condemns the so-called 1% is now dependent on that 1%. You give anyone $200,00, you expect and get something in return and it's obvious O'Bama the person is now worth $20 let alone $200,000.
What is sad is that anyone actually believed Mr Status quo in the first place. Republicans = in favor of business. Democrats = in favor of telling you whatever it takes to get elected and sadly people voting for them and actually believing the tripe..
Ahhh yes,
Another Obama BROKEN PROMISE!! Lol!! We got another flip-flopper people. Our campaigner-in-chief has changed his mind...AGAIN! LOL.
So, Roanoke1 when did the President ever say that he would not endorse super PAC's? His opposition was and is to the Supreme Court ruling which gave Super Pac's the ability to accept unlimited amounts of money. When did he make a "PROMISE" not to go after Super Pac money?
See, this is the problem with you anti-Obama folks. You have a serious comprehension problem. You only hear what you want to hear, not what is said. You only believe what is told to you be a THIRD PARTY, instead of seeking out the truth as spoken by the individual his/herself.
obumbo is getting desperate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahaha....you poor saps :(
I'm an Independent...I strongly dislike BOTH political parties because neither work for the vast majority of American citizens. I have to smile when I see these back-and-forths between the left and right posters...as if anything they say has any influence on what their respective parties ultimately decide. We have three elections in this country: (1) the one-day primary election, (2) the one day general election and the most important election the (3) money election which goes on the other 363 days of the year. Tragically, our political system has evolved into the ultimate pay-for-play system in the industrialized world. Until ALL citizens, be they Tea Partiers or Occupy sympathizers, Repubs or Dems...until all see that MONEY runs our country and NOT us, and until we force a Constitutional Amendment to end that, nothing will change. Inform yourself...read Richard Lessig's REPUBLIC, LOST to see exactly how far our "democracy" has fallen. And stop thinking that you have anything to say about any issue...UNLESS you happen to have LOTS of cash to spread around.
And obama thinks his failings are just about the money. The dems got their asses handed to them on a platter in the last election for reasons other than money.
I'm not a big fan of this move, but I can see why he's doing it. Right now the Super Pacs for the repubs are outspending the repubs themselves, if Obama doesn't have the ability to match that he's going to have a very tough time in the election. He needs to win this election, and if a Super Pac can make that happen, then that's what needs to happen... The other guys are certainly milking it for all its worth.
All I heard here was "baaaah". It's our right to complain when things aren't working the way we think they should, it was that right to complain that this country was FOUNDED on. And this idiotic situation of legalized bribing of politicians is DEFINITELY worth complaining about as it's destroying the basis of our democracy.
Why is this amazing? It's just another example of a Professional Politician saying one thing and doing another because it works better for him. It reminds me of the Governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas and the song Charles Durning sang:
The Professional Politician's National Anthem!
enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCDoBvG1HoI
O'bama is projected to have a billion dollars at his disposal. He is expected to outspend the Republicans 2 to 1. I guess he needs more, after all, what can he run on other than a constant barrage of attack adds.
Money is not evil when in the right hands though, right libies? As long as they are down with the struggle and all
Obama didn't set the rules. The Supreme Court did. Only a dunce would stand by the side of the road and whine as all that GOP PAC money finances negative ads against him. Obama is merely defending himself by playing according to the rules the Supreme Court laid down. I believe the GOP would refer to them as activist judges. LOL!
What would anyone expect from our politicker-n-chief...
1 billion to get re-elected? What a sham!
I've had it with these parties. As of 9:09 EDT, I turn my back on all these clowns and will back Ron Paul.
My problem with this is he will run against whomever the republican's choose as their nominee. Those two will split the right and independent vote, thus making Obama our next president.
If I back Paul, I need about 40,000,000 others to do it as well, or I just threw my vote away. Thus the quandary...
Obama campaign must defend itself. You see wht the republicans are doing in their own primaries. They would eat their young if it got them a vote. Gingrich got 10 million from one casino owner and now the guy say he will throw his money behind Romney if he is the nominee! Please. When Obama is in his second term with a democratic congress he will be able to reverse this insane Supreme Court decision.
Sayitaintso,
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Did you even read the article? Apparently not! LOL.
"President Obama's re-election campaign made an about-face late Monday in its opposition to super PACs, encouraging donors to send their unlimited contributions to one such group founded by a former administration spokesman." More from the article: "The decision represents a stark reversal for Obama, who has been among the most vocal critics of these outside political spending groups since the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the way for the rise of super PACs."
Oops, eh? LOL. See, this is the problem with libs. They dont even take the time to read the article before berating other posters with their pseudo-intellectualism...all the while looking like complete fools when the truth is staring them right in the face. Sayitaintso, learn to read before spewing the vomit that comes from your mouth.
The Obama administration has done an about face on every other stance why should this be any different? Guess a BILLION STINKING dollars isn't enough for this POTUS to get re-elected!
Umm..Weemee,
Nope, no matter how many votes Obama and the Democrats purchase this year, they will never be able to change Supreme Court rulings...unless they start removing judges from the bench (illegally) which I guess wouldn't be too far-fetched for Obama. But, go read a book please. You will see that the president or a Democratic Congress can do absolutely nothing about changing a Supreme Court decision unless they somehow get new liberal Justices on the bench (which Obama has been very good at so far). So who knows...
Isn't this the same looser that said he would use public funding then accepted donations from everyone he ended up giving bailouts to?
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Money given to the super PACs should be forfeited to the treasury to defray the spending orgy of the thief in chief.
People wringing their hands about Citizens United should be aware of this fact: The largest donations ever made to political campaigns were made by the NEA, a union which donates dollars 4 to 1 to Democrats over Republicans.
The second largest donation is public sector (AKA government employee) unions. It is still TBD to see if any super PAC will be able to eclipse, let alone match, the unions' donations to their Democrat overlords.
The Democrats whining about Citizens United is them saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
The real problem with the Citizens United SCOTUS decision is that it is allowing foreign governments, especially the Chinese and Koreans to pour many millions of dollars of illegal campaign contributions into the GOP. Because corporations can contribute unlimited amounts to campaigns without divulging their sources, the Chinese, especially, are throwing millions toward the Republicans to get the environmental exceptions and tax breaks to give them an advantage over American corporations in building plants in this country.
My wife is an academic and many of our friends are foreign-born. I have personally seen letters addressed to both Chinese and Korean ex-pats advising them to give money to specific candidates (Sessions, Shelby and Bentley) and to the RNC and Romney. The letters tell the people that it is their duty to financially support candidates who favor their homelands. They give specific instructions for finding SuperPACs and making donations. While I could not read the letters themselves, I have complete confidence in the honesty of the people who received them and translated them into English for me.
@DocHoliday,
So you were a Republican and change to Democrat, and you say you've seen the light? You haven't seen the light, you just changed to a different shade of rose. I honestly don't mean this as a slam, but with the shape both parties are in right now, I don't think anyone that belongs to either party has seen the light. Both parties are corrupt beyond belief.
To see the light is to pull away from both parties, become an independent and think with your own mind.
If you go to a fight with a knife and everyone else brought guns, you better find yourself some guns, or your just going to lose... Makes sense to me...
When on the other side they have a casino owners giving ten million dollars for ads you better meet that or get out of the game...
@ AlexM-2364525,
Somebody's gotta have a backbone, independents dont! They like to hide behind issues and skirts, get your head out of the sand son...you either with us or them...(good ol sayin from W.)
You can't win a Knife fight .. with words. As reluctant to fight as you might be... when there there is escalation in the rules of engagement, you gotta step up.
The Supreme Court changed the rules, there is little chance that they will review the ruling anytime soon.
Even a paciafist will pickup a gun - if the stress gets too high.
Remember how Newt mis-calculated? Based on the same Go Negative strategy he took (when Mitt said he would not sink to that level?).
After he lost, got his butt handed to him - he unleashed the dogs ... suddenly, soon as Newt was getting his own trash thrown back in his face ... he started to complain about how unfair it was to change his mind.
yeah ... right. When the courts take the referee out of the ring - you gotta go with what you know. That's the attraction of Hockey... if someone stps out of line ... you don't need to wait for ref....
If you think this only happens for Republicans, you have a birds eye view of your colon. Rember the Clintons? Remember O'bama for that matter, and his relationship with GM? Come on buddy, dont be so silly
True Pat,
Why don't you and those like you go after the greedy corporations that don't produce and damn thing here in the states? Nor do they employ a single American and leave the oil companies that employ thousands and pay billions in taxes alone for a while. They are no more involved in politics than any other group.
obumbo has NOTHING to run on. No accomplishments of any kind so the only answer is class warfare. I am not a 1%er but I am certainly not going to lumped into the so called 99% group by a bunch of liberals who have no answers.
Look if I brought 700 million dollars in ads can i paint the most up right person on earth to be the devil?
YES!
So this is a silly argument. One side can't be allowed to raise unlimited funds and the other side raise a fraction of that while making everything transparent.
To play by old rules when the rules have been changed would be stupid and dumb on President Obama's part. SUPER PAC UP and fight fire with fire, not a drop of water putting out a 100 mile forest fire. Trying to make fun of what he said he wouldn't do is good for political points but that wont force him to play by old azz rules.
Here you go Chris
Desperate measures for a desperate man! Despite what you hear in the old liberal media... Obama's chances to repeat are getting slimmer. Soros will not accept losing his gravy train. And Obama's handlers don't want to lose their chance to further socialize America.
It is a lie to say Obama represents the middle class! He's been attacking it every since he took office! Thanks to his efforts 2,000,000 middle class citizens have been pushed down into poverty and are now dependent on govenment handouts.... can we really afford to let Obama finish the job????
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights most certainly make a left!!!
Can't have it BOTH ways..............!!!
Now that Obama is pro super pac, watch Schumer SUDDENLY stop his investigation in order to protect the president. Coverup big time...
Roanoke1
Dear clueless, It appears that you have no understanding of what is really going on here. It has been stated, and is STILL stated, that the Obama administration would prefer NOT to leverage Super PAC funds. This was caused by a RIGHT leaning Supreme court that was very clueless about the impact of their ruling.
If anything, the supreme court should be removed as they are destroying our political process. Now elections are only about who can raise the most money to generate negative ads.
Your statement simply demonstrates how you have no understanding of the current state of politics. You can appose a decision but still be forced to legally leverage Super Pacs because to not use them would simply be martyrdom.
Let me ask this........... IF Obama is doing the phenominal job of running this country as I read from his followers here almost daily singing his praises, then why does he need to spend ANY money, much less dollar for dollar to the lowly republicans who don't have a prayer to win?
Rub of the Green
Really! I just can't wait to go back to all those 1% policies that do not represent the rest of Americans. We tried trickle down economics. It was a dismal failure. Perhaps we should go back to incentizing the shipping of jobs overseas and building an economy based on wall street gambling and derivatives instead of actually manufacturing or creating something that is a real asset.
Maybe we should start a couple more unfunded wars and prescription drug program. Lat I saw, the economy is returning in spite of the obstructionist congressional house. 22 months of growth sounds like the right direction to me; particularly given the massive hole that the last administration put us in.
The most prosperous times in our history were when the rich had high tax rate. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. Even the republicans try to claim credit for the prosperity of the 90s. Part of that success was that both parties tried to work together. The tax rate for the rich 39%. The ONLY times that prosperity stalled over the last 100 years was when too low of tax rates were given to the rich.
Unfortunately, with all the super pac monies there will be that much more big dollar influence that will be expecting a return of the favor. Politicians will be forced to oblige and accommodate their interests.
@Chris #3.33,
You are apparently quite adept at distortions. Barack Obama, during his last campaign, promised to reveal all his sources of funding as part of the requirement to receive federal matching funds. He totally backed away from this and did not take matching funds, and DID NOT REVEAL his contributors because he was receiving so much foreign money !
Now, you are accusing the Republicans of doing that with the Chinese and Koreans so, what ? ...... they can change the laws IN THIS COUNTRY to give them an advantage ??????? That is the most disingenuous B.S. I've heard in a long time. Your wife may be an "academic" but that certainly does not give you a license to fabricate stuff.
Furthermore, you really should change your screen moniker ..... you do not represent the conservative philosophy of that institution. Elephants are also more closely associated with Republicans and you are clearly a liberal. Perhaps a picture of a donkey or a gerbil would be more appropriate.
Obama, strong, stern, steadfast Liberal (or is that Progressive?) leadership values... the quality of which are found in every Banana Republic......
Well, at least Obama's being consistent with his career in politics; Dirty money to gain a Senator's seat from Chicago, dirty money to maintain a ill gotten chair in the White House, and being a consistent Waffle.
I can see "No Change", and definitely "No Change" America can believe in.
America's been shammwowed again.
the thinker-318752
Yes, the tea partierst tromped. But look at them now. One of the lowest ratings in history. You should feel proud for electing a do nothing obstructionist congressional house. I suspect that will change as buyers remorse is in full swing against congress.
Obama said during his "hope and change" campaign that super pac's were the greatest threat to our democracy. Now Obama see's them as a cash cow as his vision of democracy is nothing more the crony capitalism. If you are a friend of Obama's you have done extremely well during his first term, unfortunately most of the 300 million citizens that are not connected have not.
Obama will say or do anything to get elected. Tell the people what they want to hear to get their vote, and then sit back and enjoy the Presidency the Ride. Handout cash from taxpayer guaranteed loans to your friends like those of Solyndra, and rubber stamp anything the Democrats in congress pass. Spend like there is no tomorrow, and spend like you don't care who has to pick up the tab.
Great reader, terrible leader. But those with blind support for Obama can only find fault pointing fingers at someone else, and now that super pac's are no longer the greatest threat to our democracy they are perfectly okay for Obama. After all, the only thing Obama has shown to be truly adept at is spending other peoples money, and there is a whole lot of it to be had in super pac's.
usa1967-
Desperate....hardly! What's desperate is what is going on in one of the most comical primary seasons of all time. The economy is moving ahead in spite of every effort by congress to obstruct. They are not concerned about recovery, they only want the return of power. They would love nothing more than to do everything they can to stall the economy until election time.
If the American public is stupid enough to change out the administration that has done more to help us then the previous administrations policies, that will be re-instated if the republicans win, then I indeed feel very saddened for our future.
Tramponian,
You can justify and blame all you like. "Oh wahh, it's the Supreme Court's fault." "Oh wahh, Obama still doesnt want to use PAC money."---but then goes and does just that! LOL! Typical liberal, who simply blames and justifies when things dont go according to plan. Oh, and I like how you state that the Supreme Court should be done away with...our only check against our government taking away our constitutional rights. But as a socialist/communist liberal, I can see why you would want the Supreme Court abolished. It would make it sooo much easier for your party to take away the rights guaranteed by our constitution that you liberals hate so much. LOL! Please read and learn before posting, you won't look so foolish.
Tramponian,
You seem to be sooo very confused about history. You see, the last time our government actually ran a balanced budget and created a budget surplus was when??? You guessed it!! It was WHEN REPUBLICANS controlled the HOUSE and the SENATE, and Bill Clinton was a lame duck who was forced to go along with them (even though he tried shuttting the government down for a bit before he finally succumbed). And lo and behold what happened? A balanced economy! A governmental surplus! Bottom line Tramp, NO DEMOCRAT CONGRESS IN MODERN HISTORY HAS EVER RAN A BALANCED BUDGET!!! Which I guess, is why Obama and the Dems HAVE NOT WORRIED ABOUT PASSING A BUDGET IN OVER THREE YEARS!! LOL!
I know, but you will blame the "obstructionist House" for that. Hmmmm? Even though Obama and the Dems had an initial supermajority, and then STILL controlled all three facets of our government UNTIL 2010. But sure, it was all the GOP's fault, who controlled no facets of our government!! LOL. As for Republican obstructionism...HMMMM??? What happened to Obama's budget proposal LAST YEAR?!?!? Oh yeah, IT WAS REJECTED BY THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE 97-0!!!!! EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTED AGAINST IT. But sure, keep blaming the Republicans. Do you see how weak and pathetic you guys are??? If you arent able to blame Bush for all your parties' failures, then you blame current Republicans.
22 months of straight growth??? Hmmm? I wonder why the UNEMPLOYMENT IS STILL OVER 8% AND HAS BEEN FOR 35 STRAIGHT MONTHS, the longest streak since WWII. You say things are better? Well, why is unemployment STILL OVER 8???? After promises that it would NOT go higher than 8%? LOL. FAIL. And the NON PARTISAN CBO report just stated THIS week THAT UNEMPLOYMENT WILL SKYROCKET TO 9.2% OR HIGHER by ELECTION time next year. LOL. Yikes, couple this with the fact that NO INCUMBENT PRESIDENT HAS EVER BEEN RE-ELECTED with approval numbers as LOW AS OBAMA's...and it sounds like things are going really well for our campaigner in chief. LOL. Ohhh, happy times.
Obama is human. As such he is capable of all the faults of ordinary human beings. Including hypocrisy. That's why he signed NDAA into law. That's why he went back on one of his biggest campaign promises and signed an extension of the Patriot Act at the last minute rather than letting it die. He's a hypocrit and his integrity has been bought off somehow. I think there are people in this country more powerful than the POTUS, or at least have the power to pull the President's strings no matter who the President is.
Remember Hoover, head of the FBI and how he was able to blackmail just about every Congressman and President throughout his career as head of the FBI? If someone is in a position to collect such information now (and there are several people who are) they would be fools not to use it. I don't think this country is really run by politicians who could be ousted at every re-election cycle. I think the real people in charge are the ones who control key information and money.
I'm not going to name names or point fingers because I don't really know anything and I'm just speculating. I'm speculating that no matter who becomes president it won't really change things. Just like how Obama is supporting many measures enacted by Bush that he campaigned against. Just like the way both Obama and McCain supported the bailout (it would have happened no matter who got elected). I'm willing to bet that even if hell froze over and Ron Paul got elected (nutty as he is), he would either get assassinated in his first term, or he would go back on many of his key promises.
I'm going to watch the next President after Obama very carefully. I'm going to compare his actions to that of Obama and Bush. If I'm wrong I'll be happy. If I'm right I'm moving to Australia, or New Zeland, or Canada.
Watch the trends over the long run. Pay attention to history. Read the fine print in the laws that get passed. Those are the only ways in which you will know that something is going on. You might not be able to piece together exactly what is going on (like me), or when the real @!$%# is going to hit the fan (if it ever does), but you'll be able to tell that our rights are eroding away no matter who is in office.
Further proof that our President cannot lead by example. He condemns the super funds and yet is scrambling to assemble his own. I can hear the five year old whine of "not fair" hundreds of miles away from DC. If Obama truly feels this is wrong, then it is equally wrong to be participating in what he accuses others of doing unfairly. And the notion that there has to be parity is ludicrous, because as the incumbent, he has access to media that no other candidate has. Every word he speaks is campaigning in nature, but he can delivery State of the Union Addresses at no charge, and can visit disaster areas and promise relief to peole, at no charge, and the list goes on and on. So why would he need financial parity??? And if, as the liberal posters all believe, his re-election is a shoe in, then why does he need this massive war chest of campaign money???? I wouldn't have a problem with either side amassing whatever they want in campaign war chests, as long as the rules were tweaked slightly. Instead of the candidates getting to keep the residuals once an election is past, how about all the surplus campaign money's being applied directly to the national debt and everyone having to start from ground zero in the next campaign season. That would benefit Americans, and would make things extremely fair.
Chris-749391
in post 3.33 you state:
The issue at hand in this article has nothing to do with Citizens United or the GOP. It is about the fact that the President of the United States promised one thing and then exactly what he had promised not to do while berating others for doing it. It is about INTEGRITY; something that is in very short supply in Washington.
When I was in the Marine Corps almost 45 years ago, one of the base principle of leadership was Integrity. One of my leadership manuals defined integrity in the following way:
That same manual declared that integrity was one that any leader MUST have in order to lead. Integrity is the basis of the social contract between the leader and the lead. It is especially important if you are asking someone to possibly go out and die for or with you. Integrity is making a promise and then keeping your word. Integrity is about making a commitment and keeping it. This is where I see that President Obama has failed.
I voted fro President Obama in 2008 but I will have a hard time doing so again for just this reason; a lack of integrity. One cannot commit to something when times are good only to withdraw from the commitment when things get tough. What else will he do an "about face" on when the going gets rough? It really is for me, a case of "Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on ME!"
Politically speaking this will all be old hat by the time the real poll (the only one that matters) comes around...the Repubs will not want to or have the moral high ground to make a big deal of it....especially if Flip Flop Mitt is the candidate. It is going to be pretty hard for the Repubs to go anti PAC considering it was all their idea in the first place and they are in fact surviving at the behest of their own Super Pac's at the moment. They collect very little from the small donors which was noted in the GOP's dissection of the landslide loss to the Dems in 2008.
So by reading all of the comments above we all know that money, politics, and government make a dangerous drug that effects people in a manner that makes them think they have the power over our lives and our tax dollars.....oops they do.....now what are we going to do about it???????? Whatever is going to be done it will have to be done by the will of the people because the career politicians are not going to kill the goose that lays and lays and lays the golden egg.
Now was he against them before he was for them or the other way around??????? I mean this was the first candidate in how many years that turned down the public financing.......oh wait that is right he was for that before he was against that also.........anyone see a pattern here???????
A pattern of following the law in order to ensure a fair fight. Standing on principal is nice, but it isn't great if he loses because he doesn't follow the same laws. Can't wait to see how fast the GOP scrambles to outlaw unlimited donations now.
Well just this weekend I read an article I believe at Politico where he stated that PAC's were not a good thing and from the gist of the article he would not be availing himself of them....Now 3 days later he has changed his tune??????? So as I said he was against them before he was for them.......
So he suddenly wants to follow the law???? He was not that concerned with a fair fight in 08 where he said he would use Public financing and it was agreed upon between the candidates and then when he saw the $$$$$$ he could raise he once again changed his tune like I said a pattern
Why should he handicap his own chances?? The Super Pacs are evil but just like negative ads no one wins without them
Well then if one does not want a handicap then simply say so/all the sanctimonious talk how they are the problem/if that is the case then stand for something......but that is not something he wants to do.....sorry just not buying it.
Like in 08 he stated he would use public funding until he saw how much money he could raise and then he was suddenly not in the public funding mood. Truly Pot meet kettle
From the gist of the article he would not avail himself of them? Now there is a hard fact. You should work for Faux. If the right thinks they are going to paint Obama as a flipflopper they probably should pick a different nominee than they are currently choosing. Romney is the Mary Lou Retton of polititions.
We are not painting Obama as a flip-flopper. We are calling him what he is: A LIAR!
CARLA: You can talk about how evil the Super PAC system is but recognize you are severely handicapped if you don't avail yourself of those same rules. That's not sanctimony. Try a dictionary.
And the public financing of campaigns vs. turning down the public financing option and accepting only private donations is a perfectly legal practice and saved the U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. Different issue entirely.
But, then, your irrational hatred of this President can be weaved into any issue, can't it?
Or......you could act like a "leader' and take a stand on an issue instead of playing along. Guess someone can't stand on his merits alone on this one.
Ron Paul 2012
It's called PRINCIPLES! Some leaders have them, and some do whatever they need to win.
What a hypocrite this President!!! Obama goes after the superpacks from the right but its ok for his benefit. Obama is a liar, hypocrite and God knows what else in the book. I am so tired of this President's rhetoric. This President calls for playing by the rules and yet he doesnt. How I ironic.!!!!!! Obama has integrity or honor and I for one will not support a person who speaks the double tongue.!!!!!!
He doesn't need more money. He can run on his record right liberals? LMAO
Stop being so naive, super PACs are a game changer and both sides have to play. Obama is no more for them than before but he knows how to play the game. In fact many of the things Obama does (deportation) are against what he believes in but he is required to abide by them. It is his hope that real Americans, will become so disgusted by the laws that they will demand change. No one is more willing to see these injustices eliminated, so he does his best to expose the obsenities. Only congress can change the laws. You got a problem with it, talk to Boehner.
What is Harry Reid the leader of the Senate chop liver? You do know the Senate is controlled by Democrats?
When Obama refuses Super PAC money he is a hero. When he accepts it he's just doing what everyone else is doing so it's ok. The fact that you completely flip flop you're views because you feel some personal attachment to this PARTY who cares nothing for you is pitiful. Grow a backbone and open your eyes to what's really going on, stop blindly following these corrupt sheep herders.
NO. The President is only doing what he has to in order to survive this campaign. The righties are the ones who changed the rules with the activist rightie judges on the Supreme Court who legislated from the bench that corporations are "people" (Citizens United case), therefore corporations have the same rights as all citizens do. The righties are the ones who want to do away with our democracry and turn it into a one party rule autocracy.
Your bias and ignorance is disgusting.
Superpacs for Democrats? If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Level the playing field. Our Democracy has been purchased by GOP and Dem money interests who can "purchase" politicians to enact legislation that best suits their objectives. If the Supreme Court blesses it, it must be good for the nation, right? Hell, no. The Supreme Court is made up of jurists who get their positions and take their direction from the politicians who bless their appointment and control them. In a word, they are subservient to those who put them "on the Court". Ultimately, it is we, the people in the streets, who will have to demand the legislative reforms needed to ensure that this nation returns to the Republic that our Founding Fathers envisioned. Ever wonder how our 235 year old Republic lasted this long when you compare it to the 5000 year old civilizations, led by Kings and dynasties, that exist in other parts of the world. Ever ask yourself why the Syrians, Egyptians, Libyans, Saud Arabians, Iranians, Afghans, etc., are subjugated to the will of the Monarch/King/Dictator/Holy Man and are just now trying to implement reforms? The "man in the street" was told by the "money interests" that this system of governing would be in his/her best interests. How did that work out for them? How do you think that it will work out for "ordinary Americans"? In the words of the 70's song..."there's something happening here...what it is ain't exactly clear...there's a man with a gun over there..." Folks, we are losing our Republic to Special Interests, Kings, Monarchs, Dictators/Religious leaders...and, once lost, we will never get it back.
Hmm....If President Obama is as bad a candidate as most of this thread apparently believes, all the money in the world won't help his re-election bid. And since most of the "big" money has already been allocated to the Party of the Right(eous), there should be no fear in encouraging donations to a Democrat-oriented-SuperPac. I mean...what could a group of middle class, low-wage earning individuals beaten down over the course of the last 2 decades possibly come up with ? Unless, of course, the Republican side wants to immediately eliminate ALL SuperPacs period. Naw...didn't think so !
Mr status quo was never for the people, but he conned you nicely into believing such tripe. And you keep on accepting his status quo mentality and explaining it away with excuse after excuse.
Leaders should not be about excuses and reasons. They should be about leading by example. And the only example I am seeing in the white house is Mr. status quo.
The fact is, Obummer doesn't need Super Pac funds. He's been fundraising since he took office. For the past few years, I have received up to 3 emails per week asking for donations. The majority are from the DNC, always spinning the facts of whatever the issues is that day. But there have also been emails asking for donations directly to his campaign. In the past year there have been sales of T-shirts, and other items. Then there have been the recruiting efforts to raise voter awareness by encouraging the naieve to join neighborhood teams to "get out the vote" specifically for Obama.
He is one who only cares about the poor when he needs their vote. That's why he is using the neighborhood teams. This is the same as the ACORN movement of the past. The primary purpose of these groups, while they do help in other ways, is to get out votes for Obama. Most of those they are targeting have no awareness nor care to be informed about politics. He's a phoney. He cares only about himself and his re-election. There is no sincerity in caring for any other element of the population.
He is also a union puppett. The union bosses have made a mess of the Obama administration and the American economy. Where do the unions get the money to fund campaigns? For excessive unions dues. Every union employee is paying for the mess this nation is in throught their dues. It is time to get those union bosses and their representatives oout of government. Just look at the backhanded way they have manipulated the National Labor FRelations Board the impose union standards on the small businesses in the country.
No, Obummer is getting funding from so many sources he really doesn't need the Super Pacs but he will use them to pay for negative and offensive ads he doesn't want directly connected to his campaign.
Obama in 2008, "I will work within McCain / Feingold". Then as he could seriously out raise McCain he said "we are not going to adhere to our word, to much money to turn down".
Obama in 2012, "I despise Super PAC and will not resort to that". Obama 4 months later "I will start a Super Pac fund, I didn't change course". The man is a liar, and is OWNED by Big Pharma, the Ethanol lobby, the big oil companies, and you folks saying otherwise, who is standing next to Obama? That's right, two big shots from Goldman Saks. "change we can't believe in"
I'm not a big fan of this move, but I can see why he's doing it. Right now the Super Pacs for the repubs are outspending the repubs themselves, if Obama doesn't have the ability to match that he's going to have a very tough time in the election. He needs to win this election, and if a Super Pac can make that happen, then that's what needs to happen... The other guys are certainly milking it for all its worth.
That is an out right lie. Obama out spent McCain in 08 by nearly 150 billion dollars. Look who gave it to him, BP, Exxon, Goldman Saks, the exact opposite of what you liberals say isn't so. It IS so. BP gave way more money to Obama than McCain. Obama is owned by big oil, big Pharma, the ethanol lobby, the unions. The "big" money will be raised by Obama who will spend nearly a billion dollars this campaign season FAR FAR more than the republican candidate, and you saying not so does not make it not so. Hypocrites of the highest order.
Not accepting money from an organization doesn't mean he isn't following the same laws. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. That doesn't mean you have to partake of their services.
Well the Republicans have nothing to worry about... There are no Democrats in the 1%. Right?
Obama was (and is) right. The PACs are a horrible idea!
But SCOTUS said the GOP needs them to finance its 'fear and loathing' campaigns against minorities (not so much because they don't like minorities, but because too many minorities break 6/4 Democratic when it comes to elections). It's all a numbers game. And this SCOTUS isn't as bad as the Dred Scott guys, though they might just edge out the Bush v. Gore (here's a ruling, but it's not a precendent because it's really sloppy law) guys.
Nevertheless, as long as corporations can vote, you might as well compete for as many votes as you can get.
Obama is going to do what he has to do. If McCain had agreed to public financing, Obama would have accepted it as well. If the GOP had banned SuperPACS, so would Obama and the Democratic Party. You don't have to agree with rules in order to see when the dice would be loaded against you.
But the bottom line of the Obama campaign, that is not true of Romney/Gingrich et alia, is that the vast majority of his money came from small contributors in small amounts. The very successful Obama fund-raising strategy was to get people to make a $3 contribution. Once that $3 was in hand, now Obama had a name to whom he could go back time and time again for additional small contributions as he needed them. That is still in play for 2012. Because of the way the FEC reports it, you can’t calculate a precise average for either candidate, but in 2008 persons giving less than $200 in total accounted for 47% of Obama’s donations and just 26% of McCain’s. It is anticipated that in an Obama/Romney contest, it would be more like 55% of Obama's contributions and around 20% of Romney's.
An out right lie Chris. It was Obama who broke his promise to the Amercan people. Don't believe me? then google it for yourself, your flat out wrong.
Hey Chris, the facts from factcheck, guess who's busted for bad information? it's you.
As we reported earlier, public financing limits candidates to spending $84.1 million on their general campaign. The money is provided to them in the form of a grant from the U.S. Treasury. Candidates can still solicit private donations, but the money can only be used toward legal and accounting expenses. The money cannot be used to fund advertising, events planning, transportation, salaries or any of the other myriad campaign expenses.
Obama’s choice to turn down public financing and McCain’s choice to accept it helped create a relatively large campaign fundraising disparity.
Do not expect him to stay in touch with reality, JCB. Reality and fantasy exist side by side in his world.
Just a few weeks ago he was trying to tell me the politics at the University of Alabama and in the City of Tuscaloosa is "left of center". The history of voting from this area says otherwise.
Obama simply wants to be elected so badly that he will do ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL to get re-elected including contradicting himself yet again !
LogicReguired
Nice concept if you believe martyrdom is the best course of action here. I assume that you must also be talking about the lack of principals for the republican candidates as well? If you blame anyone blame our inept scotus for being clueless with citizens united.
The whole process disgusts me but who could blame the administration from being forced to play on an even playing field. Why not ask BOTH parties to disavow Super PACS.
Obama makes the multiple personalities of Sybil look tame by comparison. He is the say and do anything president of the delusional. He bashes big oil, but gasoline was a 1.79 the day he took office and now it is up 100% and he says nothing. Bush raised the debt ceiling 4 trillion over 8 years and Obama called that unpatriotic. Yet he will finish his first term having raised the debt ceiling over 6 trillion. The list goes on and on and on. The too many faces of Obama, and too many delusional supporters. All those silver spoons waving Obama flags while he and his cronies laugh at your stupidity.
John-3806548
You speak of political bias. It is quite apparent you are immune...LOL The President HAS NOT changed his views. Have you actually seen his comments and those of Axlerod? They still are against the Supreme Court ruling. Do you expect him to be a martyr and stand on principal only to be ousted because of who spends the most?
Perhaps if the Republicans refused the money I am 100% sure that the President would fall in line. His hand was forced. It is the SCOTUS that should hear the case again and re-evaluate one of the most stupid decisions in our history.
Rick-3416939
Got those figures from the Conservative Underground? Perhaps you should look at the trend over the last 11 years. This is a normal cycle that the oil industry seems to yank our chain with. in 2008 (the Bush Years it was OVER 4.00 a gallon. The point is that you cannot pick and chose the statistics that you want. You have to really look at the entire trend. Please state the alternative you back. I would rather have a president that has turned our economy around in-spite of the hatred, bias, racists, line the pockets of the rich, obstructionist opposition.
Every thing should be free ... some big Bird should just come out of the sky and start farting out golden eggs. But that ain't happening either.
So, the GOPpers come up with a Constitutional approval, which by the way - goes against 200 years of American judicial precedents.
But in your mind ... The President shouldn't take advantage of the same combined, hidden and unlimited largess that your candidates are using?
Speaking on super PACs on Oct 15, 2010 President Obama said "They don't have the courage to stand up and disclose their identities," and "They could be insurance companies or Wall Street banks or even foreign-owned corporations. We will not know because there's no disclosure. But this isn't just a threat to the Democrats: It's a threat to our democracy."
Glad you think it is ok for the POTUS to choose to be a "threat to our democracy" for money.
It's a shame, but what can you do? Sit on your ideals and get the hell beat out of you with phony issues and false claims, or counter with clarifications and attacks of your own? The Presidency has become the lottery to Republicans. It has nothing to do with truth, public needs and desires or integrity, not that those rules were ever in the Republican handbook, but all to do with Big money, power and rape and suppression of the little guy. The Koch Bothers, et al are the result of the unfair playing field brought by the Bush- CHENEY administration. Why would they want to give it up? People like that never do. They just want more and won't be deterred by social and ethical restraints.
Obama saw Newt lose in Iowa because of Romney's Pacs-- so I'm glad he was smart enough to change his mind
According to NPR he'll have a BILLION dollar war-chest so why the need to sell out??? Not buying it!
MIKE: See my comment at 1/26, above.
Most people simply do not realize how much money is in play here now. $1 Billion dollars ain't what it used to be! There are billions and billions of corporate dollars in play now, because the payoff in influencing legislation is such a lucrative proposition.
$1 Billion sounds good, and it would be fantastic (a huge vote of confidence for the President by average citizens) without Citizens United. This is the last cycle where any average American will donate money to a presidential candidate; why bother when against Super PAC money its a drop in the ocean?
Here's a fun fact: The US's debt after the Revolutionary War was $12 billion adjusted for inflation. That figure includes the states and the federal government.
This election, more than $12 billion will be spent by both candidates and their Super PACs.
Mr. status quo is just showing you the truth. He was never about any change.
Leaders lead by example. And Mr. Status quo is showing us all that he is no different than anyone else who is in politics. Just keep the money flowing in, because that is what is important to him.
So why not use the Super Pacs' money to pay down the debt?
That's the way the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory. I know they know more than I do, BUT, with the 99% movement and the hatred for Citizens United, Pres. Obama had victory, now, he's just like everyone else.
So now he can add "hypocrite" to his list of failures, right next to "lacks integrity". That's pathetic.
And now it's really not a late-night comedian's joke but truth:
Obama and the Chevy Volt: two brands best known for crashing and burning everything around them.
No choice but to even up the playing field. Corporations are people remember? Someday contribution rules will change to more fairness, but not with a party that licks excrement from Corps. behind and hold a special pledge in writing not to change taxes.
Your talking about the Democratic party right? I mean, in those two years when they were cramming unconstitutional laws down our throats they surely could have fixed the tax code, at least in terms of Corporations yeh? Oh wait, they didn't? Hmmm wonder why that is??
The misconception is that Mr Status quo is "now just like everyone else" Wake up.. he ALWAYS was like everyone else. There is nothing new here. He has been status quo since before he was elected.
John #'s, please get and education on how this Super PAC legislation got to where it is today. It is obvious you have a dislike for the President, but this situation was not a doing of Congress but was given to us by an activist Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Roberts, a Republican presidential appointee.
But just like a Republican you can't argue on the facts, so you deflect and change the subject. Tax Law? Really? The Democrats could have changed the Tax Laws all by themselves because they had more members in Congress than the Republicans? Are you really going to try and stand on such an outright idiotic statement? If that is the depth of your understanding regarding the way our government works I sure hope that you aren't registered to vote, cause buddy you are sorely lacking in the workings of the country in which you live.
As to the Presidents stance on Super PAC's, I'm sure those of you who've already decided to vote Republican in 2012 see this as an opportunity to bash him as a "perceived" change of position. But the truth is, he never said that he would not accept any Super PAC assistance. What he did say is that the "Citizens United ruling was a bad move and would open the door to unlimited funding by Special Interest groups and quite possibly foreign interests." Spin that any way you want to, but nowhere in that statement did he say he or the Democrat party would not participate with Super PAC's.
But, if you all are so sure you have a winning candidate in Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul why are you worried about a Democrat run Super PAC? If your guys are sooooo good this shouldn't be a problem for you in the least, now should it.
Or are you all just secretly worried that the remaining four GOP candidates don't have a chance of beating the incumbent President unless you have an unfair advantage by being the only party using Super PAC's? Which is it? I'll await your explanation.
As they say about a fight, if might have just been a fist-fight, but once someone pulls out a knife, it's now a knife fight. The rules just changed.
You can still be opposed to something on moral and legal grounds and can work towards changing it, but in the meantime, staying in the game on a somewhat level playing field trumps all good intentions.
Sayitaintso,
PLEASE STOP TELLING LIES!! Two statements from Obama on SuperPACs:
"Speaking on super PACs on Oct 15, 2010 President Obama said “They don’t have the courage to stand up and disclose their identities,” and “They could be insurance companies or Wall Street banks or even foreign-owned corporations. We will not know because there’s no disclosure. But this isn’t just a threat to the Democrats: It’s a threat to our democracy.”
And in the state of the Union "I don’t think American elections should be bank rolled by America’s most powerful interests."
Soooo, YIKES!!! I guess Sayitaintso can play semantics and pretend Obama was never against SuperPACS. LOL!
And finally from a Former Democrat Senator (Feingold)...just because it's fun:
"The President is wrong to embrace the corrupt corporate politics of Citizens United through the use of Super PACs – organizations that raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations and the richest individuals, sometimes in total secrecy. It’s not just bad policy; it’s also dumb strategy.
"Democrats have tried this strategy before, when enormous amounts of soft money were raised by Democratic Leadership in the 1990s. The result was the enactment, with active Democratic support, of a corporate-dominated policy agenda that included trade policies that shipped millions of family-supporting jobs overseas, fiscally reckless tax laws that greatly increased our long-term debt, and the disastrous banking and financial deregulation that paved the way for the worst recession since the Great Depression."
So, okay, Obama hates SuperPACs and thinks they are awful for democracy...but NOW he's willing to allow them to fund his campaign when it comes to winning and losing. SO, Obama makes it clear that he is MORE THAN WILLING TO SACRIFICE PRINCIPLE IF IT MEANS IT GETS HIM THE ELECTION! Gotcha. Thanks for playing!
Roan..I guess you don't get it. The playing field is being evened up. Simple. Got it!
Right. I get that. It is YOU who seems to not understand that OBAMA HAS SIMPLY FLIP-FLOPPED AGAIN. First he's against it (in principle) and now he's for it (as long as it wins him re-election). Yep, sounds like a typical liberal to me. Good stuff STRMZ.
Flip flop? So has the supreme court. Get over it. So you don't like our president. SO WHAT.
Roanoke1 - He has just outed himself as a hypocrite with no principals. Nothing really new.
What's good for the Goose,-----------------------------------------!!!!!!!! Fair play is the rule for losers in politics
This is the only way to fight the massive amounts of cash that will be spent by the super pacs on the right.
rove will be pissed off about this too..... the poor mans head is going to explode.
It seems to me that this is fighting from the "inside". Once this super pac starts publishing its donors, the right wing pacs will have little excuse for not doing the same.
Maybe while he's at it, Obama will publish his college transcripts and all other records so we can see documentation of his college curriculum choices .... and some validation for his generally presumed "brilliance" . Why are all of Obama's college records totally hidden from the public ?????
no one demanded Bush's transcripts and none of the Republican candidates have released all their college transcripts. this is racism plain and simple.
Bush is not President .... hasn't been for quite some time. Furthermore, his records were not "erased".
Your inflammatory claim of racism has been duly noted ... a truly weak reply to pull out the race card.
I want to see if Obama ever had a course in basic accounting. I want to see if he studied leftist ideology. If it is part of who Obama is, then what in the hell does that have to do with race ?????????
I'd like to know where Bush got his strategic Military training. And now that you bring it up... would it be too much to ask (even at this late date) who inspired the overwhelming trust he held of his VP ("shoot'em in the face" - Tricky Dick) and his Secretary of of defence ("you'll get your body armour, when I'm damn Good'n ready to give it to you, not a moment sooner! - the "Abrasive Rummy" Donnie Rumsfeld).
Narcoleptic GW - a man who could Pause for forever at the drop of a levee - or a couple of buildings).
But I understand ... I really do ... apparently you weren't interested in politics then, you jut pushed the buttons they "told" you to. Facts, qualifications ability - only became important later, after you saw what a real President could do.
I wanna see Bush's medical records. I want to see his birth certificate. I want to see if he is pro-America. I also want to see if any of the GOP clowns are pro-America. How does it feel, RETHUGLICANS????? From all their talk, they virtually call the president a traitor and un-American. How low can you go???? If Obama had to show his birth certificate to prove his citizenship, I say that he doesn't have to show his college transcript. We've gone too far into his private life as it is.
F*** you Mitt Fat Cat Romney, you lying, thieving, middle-class squelching, supply-side conservatwit!!!!!!!!
F*** you Newt Grinch, you lying, canoodling, anti-American, right-wing, supply-side Reagan wannabe!!!!!!!!!
F*** you Rick Santorum, you hypocritical liberty-snatching, Big Brother supporting, far right-bending, unconstitutional, ultraconservative leader of the Christian extremists!!!!!!!! (Note that I am Catholic and opposed to anti-contraception, anti-abortion-in-every-case, anti-gay rights, and conservatism).
I respect only Ron Paul; I like a few of his ideas, but I find him to be an unelectable right-wing radical. HOWEVER, I respect his service and his honesty, and I won't seek to besmirch his name, mind you Ron Paul supporters.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
DEATH TO THE FASCIST GOP
DEMOCRATS 2012
NO TO TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS
AMERICA 2012
CLASS WARFARE MY ASS
Its not Obama's fault-- blame the Conservatives on the Supreme Ct for upending 100 years of fending off the overwhelming influence of corporations. Now we'll be at there mercy-- as we are already seeing in Wisconsin with Governor Walker.
The unions will be under attack and so will any regulation that affects them. We no longer live in a one man one vote democracy after that fiasco
In fact, in Citizens United the republicans on the supreme court even extended their case beyond the question from the lower court so they could help the republicans who can't win by the vote of the people, but can by having the US Supreme court help them without counting chads or by making out that corporations are entitled to vote.
Walker was voted in and just like all dems they didnt get the guy they wanted so like the spoiled little brats they wanted a do over. let me hand you a tissue to whipe your tears with. What part of Walker's promise didnt he keep he did what he said he would LOWERED OUR DEBT 3 BILLION and without RAISING TAXES.
More rightie BULLFLOPS. kidrick. Walker LIED to the people of Wisconsin. We don't take kindly to that crap, especially fron the republiCONS. We are kicking his ass OUT because he LIED, just like ALL republiCONS.
Mr status quo is sure happy people are still supporting him.
Leaders lead by example and it's status quo in Washington.
Wisconsin took the right path. The unions are entrenched in government and costing the American people way too much. Government spending is at an all time high because of union interference in government. If Obama had a back bone, he and Congress would reduce the size of government. Instead they attack the elderly aand poor by attacking what they call entitlements (i.e. social security, medicare medicaid etc.). The social security fund was stolen by congress to pay for other government needs rather than face reality and reduce the size of government.
So what, George, you want government to be what it was in the early 20th century, when life expectancy was low and companies practically enslaved their workers??? Big government has helped us; what we need is a strong yet flexible and efficient government, not a small one.
And you wanna know how Walker cut the deficit???? By taking away collective bargaining rights from union workers and cutting $900 million from education. Why couldn't he have just balanced the budget with both tax revenues AND cuts so he could balance out the burden???? And you don't cut taxes for corporations WHILE denying schools (and students) millions of dollars in needed aid. Why not raise an education surtax to fund education??? Then the education budget can be taken care of and the budget can be adjusted in order to lower the deficit. That is why you can't elect a 21st century GOP to office; they'll cut education while at the same time giving breaks to companies. If the rate is too high than you can lower it, by at least keep funding education and instead try looking to cut waste (whatever amount it here is in the education budget) WHILE raising taxes for at least the upper class so you can fund them, if you really wanted to protect the middle class.
Well...everybody else is doing it. Thats how we roll.
When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.
But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
Which of Obama's policies? How about - "Which policies from the previous administration burdened the present administration?"
How about the doubling of the national debt which now costs $500 BILLION per year in interest
Or, how about the $1 Trillion per year for the Medicare Part D drug program?
Or, how about the two wars that Bush didn't even budget but the current administration did?
How about the layoffs of 750,000 per month that the previous administration left which now required unemployment instead of tax to the government?
And how about the tax cuts to the rich that left the government going in the hole from lack of tax receipts?
And finally, how about the $1.3 Trillion budget deficit that was left on the new administration's desk on January 21, 2009?
Yes. When Geedub and the GOP took over the government it was like an Oprah special. We where awash in money and Geedub was screaming look under your seat, there is a check for you, and you , and you , and you. For the GOP to even try to say they are the party of less spending and smaller government is absurd. Please remember the giant beauracracy DHS was solely and completely a republican addendum to the federal government.
Girl
1. Doubling National Debt.
National Debt as of 2000 5.2 Trillion
National Debt as of 2008 10.02 Trillion
Very close to Doubling. ONE FOR YOU.
2. 1 Trillion per year Medicare Part D.
Cost of Medicare Part D from 2004-2013 "would result in additional direct spending totaling about
$395 billion over the 2004-2013 period."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6076/ThomasLtr2-9-05.pdf
Not even close to your 1 Trillion per year.
You LOSE!
3. 2 wars not on Budget.
Have you heard of Overseas Contingency Operations??
That is how the "Off Budget" Wars were paid.
The Democrats could have stopped the funding ANY TIME THEY WANTED with the FILIBUSTER.
Why didn't they??
You lose again.
4. 750,000 per month job lose in Jan 2009.
Well lets see here.
FEB 2009 141,687,000 EMPLOYED (Notice I used FEB. Obama wasn't in Office until Jan 20.
Jan 2012 141,637,000 HUMMM. Looks like 50,000 LESS EMPLOYED NOW then 2009!!
You lose again.
5. Tax cuts fr the RICH.
300 Billion in Tax Cuts for people making LESS than $250,000.
70 Billion in Tax Cuts for people making More then $250,000
Gov't revenue(Income) INCREASED each year from 2004 to 2007.
Had a DECREASE of 44 Billion in 2008. Go figure.
You lose again.
6. 1.3 Trillion Deficit Jan 21,2009.
There was no Budget for FY 2009. Just Continuing Resolutions.
The LAST Continuing Resolution signed by Bush was from Dec. 2008 to Mar. 2009.
Now how can you explain that 1.3 Trillion was spent in 4 months???
You lose again.
WELL!! LETS SEE HERE 1 out of 6. That's about 16.68% CORRECT! Not very good. Maybe you should do some due diligence and educate yourself.
BTW here are a few links for you.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6076/ThomasLtr2-9-05.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (you'll need Excel to read the chart.)
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
http://www.1115.org/2010/08/23/the-comparative-costs-of-extending-the-bush-tax-cuts/
Girl: you DO realize that the Democrats in Congress haven't passed a BUDGET in three years, right? No, you don't. You DO realize that Democrats ran Congress for the last two years of the Bush administration, right? No, you don't. You DO realize that Obama has been in office THREE SOLID YEARS, TWO of which there was COMPLETE Democrat control in Washington with a supermajority (where Obamacare got rammed down our throats), right? No, you don't. You DO realize that Obama wasted $862 BILLION in a so-called "stimulus" bill that was to get America back on its feet again that just wound up going to cronies and special interests, right? The same about roughly as the TOTAL cost of BOTH wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to date, right? No, you don't.
In short, Obama drama queens like you don't know much of anything except little mindless snippets of liberal talking points taken from the New York Times and MSNBC, do you?
Thank you slodon for that beat down with FACTS. Liberals hate facts when you throw them at them. Sit back and watch their heads spin and mouths froth from that virtual holy water.
Liberals hate this, pubs hate that, who the hell cares? Why don't you people stop beating on each other and fight this corrupt government entity? Is it because you're too lazy to do anything other than sit on your computers and bash each other?
As long as we keep hating and blaming the other party, both parties will continue to collude behind closed doors and screw us all.
Girl, I notice you didn't point out 15.6 Trillon in debt currently. Let's lay all the facts on the table.
Now, if you want to compare the Bush Administration (WHO found themselves under attack and in a war they did not plan to be in) you can use all your accounting and statistical tricks on the weak minds of the liberal following. And sadly, these sheeple follow behind you. . .heading towards the socialist dream. But here is where your logic is flawed.
1) Yes, under Bush, the debt went from 5 trillion to 10 trillion in 8 years. Doubled. I will give you that.
Wars are expensive. Cannot help that. Katrina and other national desasters do cost money. The people in the south didn't ask for their homes and lives to be destroyed. The people of NY did not ask for terrorist attacks. The people who went to work at the Pentegon did not ask someone to land a jet in their front door. But the Bush administration did what they could. And yes, it is expensive.
However, Obama, has went from 10 trillion to 15 trillion in only 4 years.
So you can use fancy accounting and statistics to make your people look better and accuse Bush of DOUBLING (OMG, that is so AWFUL) the debt. Thensay "Obama has ONLY incresed the debt 50% compared to Bushes 100% or DOUBLING. But fact is, he has spend in 4 years what Bush did in 8. So in reality, Obama in on the path to spend DOUBLE what Bush did.
Wake up and smell the coffee Girl.
Lets not forget that half that money was for bail out and now Goldman and Sachs has give it to Romney to campaign. He cares so much he took the American bail out money to use against them. That's a rotten apple for the USA. Thats why he said he is working hard for the rich and super rich. wake up people.
Kynetguy,
Further our military had been desimated by the Clinton administration. We didn't have much left. That requires a ton of money to rebuild.
You people are so st@!#@$..... how in the F@#$ do you forget the "DEFICIT"...
Bush left a 1.42 trillion deficit how can you forget that? you cant lower the deficit in a recession.
Our president has gotten us out of the recession now we are in a recovery. almost 4 millions jobs being created. and the deficit for the 2012 budget is 1.1 trillion. Next year its going to be below a trillion. And all of this while still helping out out the poor and growing the economy.
Bush added debt every year he was in office. Obama has lowered the deficit the last 2 years in office.
smell the coffee WTf!!! . just be quiet and go back to fake news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story_1.html
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=9672706
Also, the National Debt as of 09/28/2001 = $5,807,463,412,200.06 ... as of his last budget year 09/30/2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75 ... thats a little better than doubling it, or increasing by $6.1 Trillion.
You start counting the deficit after the last budget for the president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Budget
Learn something lady....
#6
how Bush and supplemental appropriations were used under him??????
The problem is that the supplemental appropriations process has been extended beyond unforeseen emergencies to entirely foreseeable (and foreseen) non-emergencies. Over the past several years, the most obvious example has been funding for the Iraq War, most of which has been funded, directly or indirectly, “off budget,” as the process is sometimes referred to. It has also been accomplished without offsets.
Why has this been the case? The major reason is that it obscures the amount of federal spending generally and for specific purposes, if it is the desire of any administration to do so. Supplemental appropriations spending does not appear in the annual accounting of federal spending versus revenue collections, meaning it is not calculated into the federal deficit for any given year. The money is spent just like regular budgetary allocations, but when the books are closed, it does not appear as an inflationary impact on federal deficits. This alone made it a particularly attractive device for a Bush administration that was running up record deficits without the impact of supplementals. It also made the cost of the Iraq War and defense spending generally appear much more modest than it in fact was. Moreover, the Bush administration generally provided no offsetting reductions to moderate the impact. Finally, supplementals generally receive nowhere near the public scrutiny of the regular budget, making them an attractive device for in effect hiding potentially controversial expenditures of public funds. Iraq certainly qualifies in that regard.
It does not have to be included Bush made sure of that.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded through emergency spending requests since they began.
#1
you dont start counting the debt as of the last day of the administration, you start counting on the last day of the budget for that year. Presidents come in January 20 and they put in their first budget on Oct 1.
The National Debt as of 09/28/2001 = $5,807,463,412,200.06 ... as of his last budget year 09/30/2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75 ... thats a little better than doubling it, or increasing by $6.1 Trillion
Alex
THERE WAS NOT A FY 2009 Budget. Just Continuing Resolutions. Do you know what they are??
Here Let me give you a hand.
A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. The legislation takes the form of a joint resolution, and provides funding for existing federal programs at current or reduced levels.
Now about that 1.4 Trillion deficit for 2009.
I repeat. The LAST Continuing Resolution SIGNED by Bush was Dec. 2008. It funded the Federal Gov't until Mar.06,2009. OBAMA SIGNED a Continuing Resolution on that date. So HE AND THE DEMOCRATS are responsible for ALL the FUNDING from that date on. Now PLEASE explain how a four month CONTINUING RESOLUTION is responsible for a FULL YEAR of FUNDING.
OK, so in what did Obama spend 1.4 trillion dollars???? When he came into office? All he did was get the books in order to start fresh and let the people know what was really going on with money being spent. About 500 billion is revenue lost because of Bush recession. Bush left a 458 billion deficit add in the 500+ billion in lost revenue and the Appropriations kept hidden to pay for the wars.
financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations and had been since the beginning of the wars.
With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.
Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.
The first graph shows the difference between budget projections and budget reality. In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.
The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.
A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.
In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.
Speaking at a retreat for House Republicans in Baltimore on Jan. 29, 2010, Obama was particularly critical of a question from Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. Hensarling asked Obama, "You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?"
"The fact of the matter is," Obama replied, "is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade."
Please tell me whats factually wrong with President Obamas statement? Actually the only thing i can think off is that he was actually off by about 142 billion because of lost revenue from the recession they did not account for.
An Independent Thinker ... NOT KooL_Aid Drinker Yes
The only problem I think we as an economy face, Alex, from letting the Bush tax cuts expire is that it is estimated to limit GDP growth to 1.1%. Now, if the government eliminated the breaks for the wealthy and limited some deductions for the rest of us, we could save maybe $1 trillion over the next decade, plus $1.2 in automatic cuts, Obama's $400 billion Buffet rule, and the rest of Obama's deficit reduction bill. That could save perhaps $4-5 trillion, greatly decreasing expected deficits and giving the government more leeway to start stimulating the economy.
This should be no surprise.. Obama proved in 2008 that he's the kind of politician who would use SuperPac's to gain an edge even if Romney wasn't using them. Obama seizes any advantage anyway he can regardless of whether he previously announced he wouldn't do so. Best you can say about him is that he is just like every other politician, no better.
And remember, Obama and Michelle are always up for a good vacation! How many times has Obama left D.C. when the going gets tough? Simply amazing...
Obama has to play on the playing field created by the Republicans and the Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices, who have decreed that corporations are people and are entitled to "free speech" in the form of pouring unlimited money into political campaigns. We're not going to just let them buy the government, as they are trying to do.
Right Dan - Obama will try to buy it first. (even though he is against that - wink wink)
Supr Pacs are now good (because Obama has changed his mind) and are just another way americans can express their free speech in this wonderful land of ours. Except it appears the "speech" isn't really "free"
The more money one has - the louder their speech is heard by politicians.
If Obama really believes they are wrong and participates anyway - what's that tell you about him as a man?? Is it the repubs fault Obama sold out on his integrity??
Unconfirmed sources released this new flash: Obama: “Integrity is for losers” Excerpt from Obama’s new book: “Re-thinking my Christian Teachings”
Hurry up and buy your pardons, your "amnesty, your "entitlements".
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/major-obama-donors-are-tied-to-pepe-cardona-mexican-fugitive.html?_r=1
Why is it that its only when a Newspaper raises "questions" does it come out?
What more do you need. Two brothers from Chicago supporting Obama hoping to get a pardon for there brother who has been a fugitive from justice since 1994.
Their donation has been returned. Non-issue.
sarah-3519311, Front page on the NYT big issue.
The issue is he was caught. Does it take him getting caught to do the right thing? Not a non-issue. It makes him no different than any other crooked politician.
that's just chicago politics....only beez-a-niss.
obama
liar
spineless
divider
Vote party of NO
NO INCUMBENTS
please he's been campaigning since he got elected and what about the billion dollar war chest we been hearing about for the last 3 months ? oh i forgot he deserves to be re elected and nothing is his fault. more excuses than a 5 year old child
No Sh~t, if he makes what 400K a year were is he getting a billion dollars. My pockets are empty must be from me.
You are right that he has been campaigning since he took office. I have received emails at an average of 3 per week asking for money to be paid to either the Democratic National Committee or to the re-election campaign. He has also bee selling T-shirts and other trinkets to raise funds for his campaign. Then he has had those contests for recruiting people for neighborhood organizers. The prize is dinner with Obama and/or Joe Biden. Fo course he's got a billion dollare war chest. He will use the Super pacs for negative ads that he doesn't want directly connected to his campaign funds.
you are pathetic if you don't think that a Republican would be doing the EXACT SAME THING!
To both sides, this is a horrible precedent. Why even campaign? The one with the most money wins the white house, and then the money could go to pay off the debt they will create. You can leave the people out of the decision making altogether. You will after the election anyway.
and obama wants to look good as a righteous man. what a fraud. what a hypocrite.
Of course, Renee. He doesn't want to do this, but everyone else is, so it is someone else's fault. Bush, Romney, Republicans, everyone.
Isn't that the drum-beat of Oblama. Someone else, someone else, not me, someone else, not me.
If everyone sent in a portion of their food stamp money , wouldn't Obama have a few billion dollars..??
Since when did food stamps come in currecy form? I take it you know nothing about food stamps...just the word.
How about their TANF benefits?
LOL
Send money to politicians ? ....... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Hypocrite. Say, did Obama ever find his birth certificate? There is serious doubt that he is even an American. If he is undocumented he has no business holding that office. It's the law. It's written in the U.S. Constitution. He's wiping his ass with the Constitution, and you allow it. You're a hypocrite too.
Check out BHO's Social Security number. It's from a state he never lived in or worked in. BHO isn't even the original ower of the SSAN. Another example of BHO breaking our laws.
Birther's! Where is the can of RAID when you need it!!!!
@ Morbis and Time
First, if what you were saying had any truth to it whatsoever, Obama wouldn't be the President anymore. He has so many haters like yourselves that would jump at any chance to have him impeached.
Secondly, your type always claims President Obama hates thsi country or hates the American way of life. If such were true, he wouldn't need to do anything covertly, he would lock loons like you up. But he hasn't. You are able to sit behind your computer screens and type the lies funnelled to you by corporate interest groups through Faux News and the like.
Ok. you can put your pointed white hat back now.
I've hear of people sniffing "inhalents" - glue, gasoline, magic markers, ets. It takes a real man, a GOPper, to sniff DDT, RAID Roundup - for a contact high. Whats a few brain cells among friends, heaven knows you don't use 'em anyway.
COMPLETE CORRUPTION !!!
Both sides are bought and paid for, WAKE UP AMERICANS !!!
Obama can't even show up for court concerning his Birth Certificate. He's a Fraudulent TelePrompter reading minion that has violated our very own constitutional amendments, but of course he is not even a United States Citizen what would you expect. You all can discuss the 2012 election but if you have not learned by now it is all a fraud also The Global Elite or should I say De-lete dictate who is in and who is out. they already know who are next President is going to be. People please wake up it's all a fraud they do not give a pooh about us all they care about is their Illuminati devil worshiping plan to kill most of us. right now its a soft kill with the GMO's , Fluoride in the water, saying rises in radio active isotopes is OK, Aspartame Etc. You should be worried about which Bio Weapon they are going to release on us and say It's the terrorist so the can imp lament this police state we are in. So you all better figure out which side your on. The fight for freedom as are For fathers fought for even if it means Death or play along with the Globalist and join their Grand Illusion and you will still end up Dead, but without a Soul. Good Luck to all of you and may God bless,
Birther's! Where is the can of RAID when you need it!!!!
Birthers are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Israeli ambassador announced today that obama was weak. He said the international community thinks obama is weak. He also said that israel has decided on what to do with the iranian problem and they do not need permission from the u.s. to defend itself.
mmac, so the Israel ambassador, a war monger, calls our president weak because he won't spend trillions sending our soldiers to die in Iran to help Israel and you mimic their garbage. You're pathetic.
The tail doesn't wag the dog... No matter what Israel thinks. Israel has gone out of its way to poke its finger in the eye of all its Arab neighbors, under the false impressiion that they could drag the USA into covering their collect butts, once the bullets start flying.
Its OK if you want to tweek the nose of everyone, as long as you realize that you will need to face up to the consequences.
Israel needs a lesson in diplomacy. Seems like they are spoiling to get it. Sometimes it better to give the kid a screwdriver, point out where the electric socket is, go have a cup of coffee then let nature takes its course.
Right now, the Arabs are getting a lesson - we are not gong to go in a kick the Butcher of syria out - and take the heat off them. Israel wants to start something with Iran - same deal, go for it.
We'er busy right now - we'll get back to you in a few days. Ya'll have fun... ya' hear!
How Ironic! Barack Hussein Obama and the DNC declared last year that they wanted to (for the 1st time in history) raise $1,000,000,000.00 for BHO's re-election.
Then, we learn at the end of December 2011, that BHO has managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than all Republican candidates combined. Fact is BHO raised a total of $15.6 million from employees in the finance sector in just one quarter. Of which nearly $12 million of that went to the DNC. Pay attention Wall Street Mob!
At least 15 of BHO's “bundlers” (supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and solicit it from others) have raised more than $5 million so far for the campaign.
Now, we see BHO doing the famous "Flip-Flop" dance on this issue as well. Bottom line: Besides wanting 1 billion dollars for his re-election, he wants hundreds of millions more from Big Business and "the rich". You know, the very class of people proclaims he is against. Obviously class war-fare does not exist when it comes to getting re-elected at any cost.
Don't kid yourself..the liar in chief is a 1%'r ALL THE WAY.
God, you old guys are tiresome. Go get some breakfast.
I agree Super Pacs should be illegal and have played a large part in the decay of the country's political standards.
I also agree this is another promise Obama failed on.
I also think that anytime a person sells out his integrity to win an election (or any other reason) - there's not much of a person left.
Super Pac funding was legal when Obama promised he would not engage them - they are still legal now. Obama's word is the only thing changed.
Instead of changing the law (as promised) especially when he had control of congress (1st 2 years) - he abandons his words and beliefs - in an attempt to win re-election.
Integrity is lacking in all politics in this country. I think it's why we are in such horrible shape and getting worse.
This is the dictatorship of the rich.
Mr. Status quo is showing you his true colors... but the question is are you really paying attention or just swallowing the tripe?