that hillary clinton campaign cost a staggering 200 million? if so how does that work, i mean who would pay the money you usa citizens in tax or what? i think i could spend 200 million on better stuff the drinks all round and cheesy confetti lol
And Obama raised $50 million more than Hillary. In my opinion the US spends far too much on politicians in terms of electing them and in terms of lobbying them. It turns politics into a direct money game and buying and selling influence is the direct result. $200 million for a helluva big party? Sounds good to me.
in england is so different like.. i couldnt imagine gorden brown to be able t raise his eyebrow let alone 100 million lol. also i dont think half as many people vote compaired to the us.. in america do the goverment people stand in like court rooms an were rediculous wigs like here lol? an say things like all those in favour say i *100 people all say iiiiii*
Why don't the capital-hating communists use all of their fund raised money to provide free health care for America instead of wasting it all on their campaign? Do you know how many starving children in Africa that money could feed? Why don't the commies lead by example?
I think that is a very good point, people starving in africa. dont they get aid tho? or is aid like a charity insted of from the goverment? $200,000,000 would feed alot of familys in 3rd world countrys. it would also provide fresh water for drinking too.
I wish! I'd love to watch our senators take part in a British parliamentary system, would be a lot more entertaining.
I've always thought the same thing. I mean take the 200mil and send that out as aid instead of wasting it running about the country buying pantsuits, lol. Instead we decide to send out economic stimulus checks which are a joke and talk about gas tax holidays. Lets get realistic. If you need more than a cou[ple mill to run you're paying off the wrong people.
That is a lot of money. If someone had $200 million dollars to run for President, and instead gave even half of that to help the needy in the US, I'll bet the media would give them free advertisement. It would also make me want to vote for them. What if Hillary said, "I really really want to be the President, but I love the American people even more. I need to give this money to those that are struggling, because I just cannot stand the thought of a child going to sleep hungry." She would get soo much publicity. I don't really even like her, but if she had done that, who knows, I just might have voted for her.
Pretty much. Most candidates are bought and paid for long before they get into office. More people need to wake up to that fact.
Exactly. While the money they spend campaigning is important, the thing you need to be considered "serious" is the editorial approval of a pretty small group of broadcasting networks. The financial agenda of the federal government never really changes.
It's a shocking figure... the American founding fathers are turning in their grave... it's all gone wrong...
WTF are you guys talking about? You act like they are spending tax dollars to fund the campaigns. All that money is donated by private, corporate, and grassroots organizations. You wanna know why it costs so much money to run a campaign? Because it costs MILLIONS to buy advertisements and hire campaign staff. The candidates can't control how much a television, internet, or newspaper ad campaign costs or how much it costs to rent out a major venue for a speech no more than they can control how much it costs for gas. Take Obama for example. Part of his appeal and where he wins over voters is once they get to know him. And that's the ONLY way he won over voters who until this year, only knew "the Clinton Brand". He did that by spending whatever it took to get out there and let people see who he was. Campaigning at its core is nothing more than a nation wide mega ad campaign. Did you not know that? Wake up people and stop making silly uninformed statements.
100% correct And if anything their campaigning promotes the economy because they are spending millions
The fact of the matter is the principle and theory. Why do modern "progressives" make the argument that there is no reason for some Americans to accumulate capital and reap what they sow, but instead, provide for the "welfare" of the country with that money. The theory is a universal one that you will arrive to when you look at humanity collectively and you see that there is rich and poor and wouldn't it just make sense to put all that extra money into the poors' hands? They should start adopting their own theory and lead by example, or is it a lot easier to do the feel good stuff with everyone else's money? The better question I should ask is why the hell that money was donated in the first place? Why aren't these donors going to the starving in Africa or free health care? Is it because their theory is universally flawed?
exactly, and fight for their land (concerns that Africa, many countries using it and its resources and then they advertise on TV the Africa the poor, how bad is that), ppl so brainwashed about Africa, and saying things like "why dont some rich jerk give some of his money to starving people"? Why dont the other countries stop robbing "the Africa the poor", and put their noses somewhere else, South Pole for example? What kind of question is that? First of all you wouldnt give a damn pennie, I know you can say now that you would, but once you get rich - you will change your point of view, thats how the rich gets rich, not by giving smth to some ppl in Africa, he might donate later to get publicity, if thats gonna be needed, rare case. I believe in a saying that "the poor will share with you more than the rich".
Wow. Staggering. They are taking millions out of the economy that would have been put towards savings (capital), and consumption, then redistributing it to the major advertising networks, and providing jobs for all of their campaign cronies. I mean, your statement that they are promoting the economy, is like saying that if I take your food away from you, and give it back, I am promoting your meal. All HAIL St. GUERILLA FOR FEEDING US WITH OUR OWN FOOD! It's silly.
So, are you rich yourself or do you have a network of rich friends that you know first hand that all rich people are cold-hearted and uncharitable or is that just something you found on the DNC's website?
Americans, despite being overtaxed, are tremendous givers of private charity internationally. But much like the debate on health care, giving stuff for (sic) free, doesn't solve the problem, it's just a band aid. The African people need the freedom to develop wealth, to acquire prosperity on their own terms, in their own way. They need to get out from under the oppression of their governments, and be allowed to own and control their own property. Hand outs don't create wealth. They certainly don't create anything sustainable. All they do is create dependence. The African people need to be free.