Cost of campaign advertising to hit $3,000,000,000.00

[Jenksismyhero]

For an example of how it matters, take John Edwards...who grew up in a decidedly middle class family but was able to go to college and become a highly successful attorney before entering politics. He now gets criticized for advocating anti-poverty programs because he's still rich and hasn't given up everything he owns to help the poor, but he also is, as we've heard many times, the son of a mill worker.

 

 

Is it really wrong to expect someone like that to give up some of their earnings? The problem is people with money fail to distinguish between their peers (people with millions) and the normal everyday joe. He's asking people to either a) give up more money out of their own pocket on their own initiative, or B) give up more money out of their own pocket in the form of increased taxes and more social services programs.

 

He fails to understand that people aren't as fortunate as him. He's asking the public to give up .5% of their income when he gives up .0005% (made up numbers yes, but you know what I mean). I think it's fine to expect him to do more than the average joe. The argument is the same for the guilt-ridden as*holes out in hollywood.

[Balta1701]

Is it really wrong to expect someone like that to give up some of their earnings? The problem is people with money fail to distinguish between their peers (people with millions) and the normal everyday joe. He's asking people to either a) give up more money out of their own pocket on their own initiative, or B) give up more money out of their own pocket in the form of increased taxes and more social services programs.

 

He fails to understand that people aren't as fortunate as him. He's asking the public to give up .5% of their income when he gives up .0005% (made up numbers yes, but you know what I mean). I think it's fine to expect him to do more than the average joe. The argument is the same for the guilt-ridden as*holes out in hollywood.

Last year, according to tax returns, John Edwards's family earned somewhere around $1.2 million in income last year, and donated roughly $350,000 to charities including Habitat and the International Rescue Committee.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index...cookieattempt=1

 

Add another $333,000 to that as well, because he donated all of the royalties he received for his book in 2006 too.

[Jenksismyhero]

Last year, according to tax returns, John Edwards's family earned somewhere around $1.2 million in income last year, and donated roughly $350,000 to charities including Habitat and the International Rescue Committee.

 

Please.

 

He and his wife hold $29.5 million in assets, which is their worth if they cashed out today. They probably make 350k a year in interest on their investments.

 

He gave a whopping 1% of his worth; a 1% he can make in about four days.

[Rex Kickass]

You said he didn't give up .005% of his annual income. When that ended up off by about 49.995% of his annual income, you switched it to Net Worth. Either he does what he asks of people or he doesn't.

 

Maybe its time you let some truth enter your perception.

 

I'm no fan of John Edwards, but it's just aggravating. Either he helps people or he doesnt.

[NorthSideSox72]

You said he didn't give up .005% of his annual income. When that ended up off by about 49.995% of his annual income, you switched it to Net Worth. Either he does what he asks of people or he doesn't.

 

Maybe its time you let some truth enter your perception.

 

I'm no fan of John Edwards, but it's just aggravating. Either he helps people or he doesnt.

Yeah, I have to agree. I don't like Edwards, but I think its safe to say the guy does give plenty back to society, at least financially. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Edwards - this isn't one of them.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

When did I claim that he didn't give anything? And why use an admittedly made up figure against me? My point was that he, being a rich guy who could easily make millions a year if he wanted to, is in a better position to afford the cost in giving money away. Therefore it's acceptable, IMO, for people to hold him to a higher standard or to expect that from him, especially since he's such a big advocate of helping the less fortunate.

[Texsox]

Is it really wrong to expect someone like that to give up some of their earnings?

 

What would you thyink about him being taxed higher?

[Jenksismyhero]

What would you thyink about him being taxed higher?

 

I would have no problem with it. Flat tax is unfair imo. 20% on someone with 100 million versus 20% on someone with 50k on paper seems fair because its the same %, but in reality the standard of living has changed for only one of those taxpayers.

 

Of course I also have a problem with the fact that something like 20% of people in the country pay $0 in tax, but whatever.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

When did I claim that he didn't give anything? And why use an admittedly made up figure against me? My point was that he, being a rich guy who could easily make millions a year if he wanted to, is in a better position to afford the cost in giving money away. Therefore it's acceptable, IMO, for people to hold him to a higher standard or to expect that from him, especially since he's such a big advocate of helping the less fortunate.

 

Because you claimed that he didn't give a significant amount of the money he makes to charity. Which is an out and out untruth. You made up a number because apparently you dont want reality to cloud your perception about something. He's a big advocate of helping the less fortunate. And he gives away half of his income in 2006 to the less fortunate. I really don't know how much of a higher standard anyone can expect of him.

[southsider2k5]

Because you claimed that he didn't give a significant amount of the money he makes to charity. Which is an out and out untruth. You made up a number because apparently you dont want reality to cloud your perception about something. He's a big advocate of helping the less fortunate. And he gives away half of his income in 2006 to the less fortunate. I really don't know how much of a higher standard anyone can expect of him.

 

The parable of the woman who gave her last two coins to the church versus the rich people who gave a lot more money, but really didn't give anything that meant anything comes to mind.

[kapkomet]

The parable of the woman who gave her last two coins to the church versus the rich people who gave a lot more money, but really didn't give anything that meant anything comes to mind.

Don't dis John Edwards. He could *almost* be Jesus.

 

 

[Texsox]

I guess this depends on what scale we are measuring him. I am not an expert on every candidate, but is there another candidate who gives more of his/her time, talents, and treasure than Edwards to any pet cause? He may be the best out there in this regard. And yet he gets slammed.

[southsider2k5]

Anyways, getting us away from John Edwards and back onto task here, there are a couple of interesting things I noticed here. First of all I seemed to recall that the first estimates of this campaign were actually only one billion dollars, and that was supposed to scare the life out of us.

 

Secondly with the Democrats outraising the Republicians at a 3 to 1 rate, it is actually the party who was previously championing campaign finance reform, who is actually milking the system most effectively in this election cycle. All those calls about changing the system have gone strangely quiet, lately.

[BigSqwert]

When did I claim that he didn't give anything? And why use an admittedly made up figure against me? My point was that he, being a rich guy who could easily make millions a year if he wanted to, is in a better position to afford the cost in giving money away. Therefore it's acceptable, IMO, for people to hold him to a higher standard or to expect that from him, especially since he's such a big advocate of helping the less fortunate.

So you would give up half of your income to charity if you were a millionaire? A lot of millionaires don't give anything close to what Edwards donates.

[NorthSideSox72]

Anyways, getting us away from John Edwards and back onto task here, there are a couple of interesting things I noticed here. First of all I seemed to recall that the first estimates of this campaign were actually only one billion dollars, and that was supposed to scare the life out of us.

 

Secondly with the Democrats outraising the Republicians at a 3 to 1 rate, it is actually the party who was previously championing campaign finance reform, who is actually milking the system most effectively in this election cycle. All those calls about changing the system have gone strangely quiet, lately.

I think it will have to be a President, in power, who crusades for any sort of real changes to the election system as it stands. Congress, with either party in charge, won't do it.

 

[Texsox]

I think before it is over the money will come up to about even. I've read a couple articles that indicate the usual Republican donors are waiting and seeing before making donations. There could be a lot of late money for the GOP. That could actually help them. I can't see the regulars sitting out this election. And like it or not, some people donate because they do not like the opponent. If the Dems nominate Clinton or Obama, there will be plenty of "anti" money coming out. Way more than say Edwards.

[southsider2k5]

So you would give up half of your income to charity if you were a millionaire? A lot of millionaires don't give anything close to what Edwards donates.

 

Now see this is what I don't understand.

 

When a person talks about how people should live their lives by Christian standards, it seems that you are expected to do that 100% of the time, at a 100% effort. You can't have any deviation from this, or you end up on the front page of the newspapers. The message and the efforts that are made, are never mentioned, only the straying into sin, and the hypocracy of the sinner.

 

When a person stands up a moral authority on race relations, why is it that they are allowed to get away with using slurs and derogatory terms towards races, while other people and races cannot do the samething? Doesn't equality mean all people are equal? When did equal rights start to end with a *?

 

Big picture, what is the big difference here? If we are listening to the message, and ignoring the messenger, why the continuing coverage of Larry Craig? If we are judging people by their actions, why do people like John Edwards and Al Gore get a free pass on what they do wrong, based on their intentions? Why is Jesse Jackson allowed to slur Jews and Caucasions, but is allowed to lead groups like Rainbow Push, while when Anne Coulter says something incredibly stupid and insensative, people are trying to get her fired? In the interest of fairness, it should be one way or the other, but it isn't.

 

Why the gigantic double standards today?

 

[kapkomet]

Now see this is what I don't understand.

 

When a person talks about how people should live their lives by Christian standards, it seems that you are expected to do that 100% of the time, at a 100% effort. You can't have any deviation from this, or you end up on the front page of the newspapers. The message and the efforts that are made, are never mentioned, only the straying into sin, and the hypocracy of the sinner.

 

When a person stands up a moral authority on race relations, why is it that they are allowed to get away with using slurs and derogatory terms towards races, while other people and races cannot do the samething? Doesn't equality mean all people are equal? When did equal rights start to end with a *?

 

Big picture, what is the big difference here? If we are listening to the message, and ignoring the messenger, why the continuing coverage of Larry Craig? If we are judging people by their actions, why do people like John Edwards and Al Gore get a free pass on what they do wrong, based on their intentions? Why is Jesse Jackson allowed to slur Jews and Caucasions, but is allowed to lead groups like Rainbow Push, while when Anne Coulter says something incredibly stupid and insensative, people are trying to get her fired? In the interest of fairness, it should be one way or the other, but it isn't.

 

Why the gigantic double standards today?

I see a pattern here, but obviously, most won't.

 

[Texsox]

Now see this is what I don't understand.

 

When a person talks about how people should live their lives by Christian standards, it seems that you are expected to do that 100% of the time, at a 100% effort. You can't have any deviation from this, or you end up on the front page of the newspapers. The message and the efforts that are made, are never mentioned, only the straying into sin, and the hypocracy of the sinner.

 

When a person stands up a moral authority on race relations, why is it that they are allowed to get away with using slurs and derogatory terms towards races, while other people and races cannot do the samething? Doesn't equality mean all people are equal? When did equal rights start to end with a *?

 

Big picture, what is the big difference here? If we are listening to the message, and ignoring the messenger, why the continuing coverage of Larry Craig? If we are judging people by their actions, why do people like John Edwards and Al Gore get a free pass on what they do wrong, based on their intentions? Why is Jesse Jackson allowed to slur Jews and Caucasions, but is allowed to lead groups like Rainbow Push, while when Anne Coulter says something incredibly stupid and insensative, people are trying to get her fired? In the interest of fairness, it should be one way or the other, but it isn't.

 

Why the gigantic double standards today?

 

Why Larry Craig? His appeals, resignation, withdrawing the resignation, etc. is all new news.

 

I think those that champion a cause are under greater scrutiny, not less. Al Gore's energy use, Edwards' charitable giving and speaker fees, Jesse's racial comments are all discussed and branded hypocritical as warranted. Not only do I think they do not get a free pass, they are given less of a pass than the average Joe for speaking out.

 

Where I believe there is a double standard is how people in institutionalized power wield that power. This country responds favorably to underdogs and abhors bullies. Being rich and white in America is power and we expect those people to use it fairly and without bias. We still view minorities as unfair targets. This may be a situation where right or wrong, on or off, is replaced by a volume control.

[Texsox]

I see a pattern here, but obviously, most won't.

 

Care to share? I see a broader statement in this post that I believe most will.

[Balta1701]

I think before it is over the money will come up to about even. I've read a couple articles that indicate the usual Republican donors are waiting and seeing before making donations. There could be a lot of late money for the GOP. That could actually help them. I can't see the regulars sitting out this election. And like it or not, some people donate because they do not like the opponent. If the Dems nominate Clinton or Obama, there will be plenty of "anti" money coming out. Way more than say Edwards.

The Christian groups right now are sitting on several hundred million dollars that will enter this race at some point. There isn't a clear "Jesus in the White House" guy for them so far yet as there was last year, so that money really hasn't been felt yet.

[southsider2k5]

The Christian groups right now are sitting on several hundred million dollars that will enter this race at some point. There isn't a clear "Jesus in the White House" guy for them so far yet as there was last year, so that money really hasn't been felt yet.

 

Well that is interesting, I wonder why that was left out of every article talking about the campaign fund raising totals, and references to the $3:1 ratio played prominently in them...

[Balta1701]

Well that is interesting, I wonder why that was left out of every article talking about the campaign fund raising totals, and references to the $3:1 ratio played prominently in them...

Because it's the same thing as money I give to a Union or to Moveon.org. It's not actually in the race yet. The campaigns can only report the moneys given directly to them, so the fundraising the NRA is doing, that Moveon is doing, that Christian groups are doing, those don't show up in counts of candidate funds, and for orgs that run as 501©3's, those moneys will be spent but may never be reported at all.