In other words, about 39 million dollars in the UK 2010 compared to 5.3 billion for 2008 US.
Advertisement
by Allrule » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:37 pm
by Keronians » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:38 pm
by F1-Insanity » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:02 pm
by F1-Insanity » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:10 pm
Keronians wrote:Sremski okrug wrote:
No idea.
You can see it when you compare the funding of the recent elections.
2010 UK Election - 25 million pounds
2008 US Presidential Election - 5.3 billion dollars
Yeah, you'd expect something like $200 million or so (given America's larger geographical size, and population), but over $5 billion is simply ridiculous.
by New England and The Maritimes » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:28 pm
F1-Insanity wrote:Rep. Debra Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chairman was interviewed on the subject of this Occupy Wall Street thingy. She tried to work it into line with "what we [DNC] have done" and just stumbled along empty handed. And you could tell that she knew it. Everybody expects Occupy Wall Street to favor the Dems. Yet it could not be more clear that the Dems have nothing in reality in common with the protests. After all, they voted even more FOR all these bailouts than the republicans did, and banker/insurer/mortgage giant campaign contributions to Democrats and the DNC are also very telling... plus the fact that Obama is effectively the Goldman Sachs candidate. His list of economic advisers and cabinet members reads like a who's who of the '1%'. They should be scared. Very scared. But to coopt they will try.
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by F1-Insanity » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:31 pm
New England and The Maritimes wrote:F1-Insanity wrote:Rep. Debra Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chairman was interviewed on the subject of this Occupy Wall Street thingy. She tried to work it into line with "what we [DNC] have done" and just stumbled along empty handed. And you could tell that she knew it. Everybody expects Occupy Wall Street to favor the Dems. Yet it could not be more clear that the Dems have nothing in reality in common with the protests. After all, they voted even more FOR all these bailouts than the republicans did, and banker/insurer/mortgage giant campaign contributions to Democrats and the DNC are also very telling... plus the fact that Obama is effectively the Goldman Sachs candidate. His list of economic advisers and cabinet members reads like a who's who of the '1%'. They should be scared. Very scared. But to coopt they will try.
The people have no choice but to support the Democrats. They're the only big tent party left and they're the only one with the organization and funding to take on the Republicans(whom nobody with a brain wants in office,) successfully. Ideally, the Progressive movement is going to take over the DNC from within and people will be a lot more enthusiastic in their support.
by New England and The Maritimes » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:36 pm
F1-Insanity wrote:New England and The Maritimes wrote:
The people have no choice but to support the Democrats. They're the only big tent party left and they're the only one with the organization and funding to take on the Republicans(whom nobody with a brain wants in office,) successfully. Ideally, the Progressive movement is going to take over the DNC from within and people will be a lot more enthusiastic in their support.
There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by Augustus Este » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:39 pm
New England and The Maritimes wrote:F1-Insanity wrote:
There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).
Not really. Obama genuinely believed the things he said in 2008. What's happened is he has taken a back seat to his cabinet in stead of taking strong action. It's my belief he was simply not ready to become the President when he did. Ideally, he's going to realize he needs to take charge after his re-election.
There are literally no realistic candidates in the field that I would prefer to Obama. None whatsoever. I will, however, support Clinton in 2016 if no major progressives take the field by then.
by Drachmar » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:44 pm
F1-Insanity wrote:There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).
by F1-Insanity » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:56 pm
Drachmar wrote:F1-Insanity wrote:There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).
The only reason Goldman Sachs gave Obama over 4 times more in campaign contributions in 2008 is because they identified that he was going to beat McCain in the general election; they correctly predicted the outcome. Had the institution believed the McCain/Palin ticket would win, they would have bought them off instead.
Otherwise, why give to both candidates? They're only buying regulatory policy that favors them.
by Euronion » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:04 pm
Hydesland wrote:Shofercia wrote:Anyone who studied the issue, and was honest, was able to predict it.
. . . before the crisis he was just a regular economics professor consistently prophesying doom and consistently being wrong about it, until now) and a few other financial experts and traders who actually prophesised the crisis . . .
Thomas Paine wrote:"to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
by Hydesland » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:05 pm
F1-Insanity wrote:Check the correlation between 'Obama economic advisers' and 'Goldman Sachs' or one of the other major investment/thieving banks... as Yoda would say 'correlation is strong with this one'...
by Drachmar » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:08 pm
F1-Insanity wrote:Drachmar wrote:The only reason Goldman Sachs gave Obama over 4 times more in campaign contributions in 2008 is because they identified that he was going to beat McCain in the general election; they correctly predicted the outcome. Had the institution believed the McCain/Palin ticket would win, they would have bought them off instead.
Otherwise, why give to both candidates? They're only buying regulatory policy that favors them.
Check the correlation between 'Obama economic advisers' and 'Goldman Sachs' or one of the other major investment/thieving banks... as Yoda would say 'correlation is strong with this one'...
by Hydesland » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:12 pm
by Drachmar » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:14 pm
Hydesland wrote:Has anyone noticed that people can't make up their mind on whether Obama's advisor team is full of academics with no real world experience or revolving door financiers from wall street? People need to pick a cliché talking point and stick to it.
by New England and The Maritimes » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:32 pm
Hydesland wrote:Has anyone noticed that people can't make up their mind on whether Obama's advisor team is full of academics with no real world experience or revolving door financiers from wall street? People need to pick a cliché talking point and stick to it.
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by Tubbsalot » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:44 pm
New England and The Maritimes wrote:His cabinet is made up of academics with some experience in administration. He seems to be picking people with good backgrounds in their relative fields and overall brilliant men, and then, in stead of using them as tools to aid his policy direction, following their orders and letting them tell him what he can and can't do.
by Andaluciae » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:12 pm
Keronians wrote:Sremski okrug wrote:
No idea.
You can see it when you compare the funding of the recent elections.
2010 UK Election - 25 million pounds
2008 US Presidential Election - 5.3 billion dollars
Yeah, you'd expect something like $200 million or so (given America's larger geographical size, and population), but over $5 billion is simply ridiculous.
FreeAgency wrote:Shellfish eating used to be restricted to dens of sin such as Red Lobster and Long John Silvers, but now days I cannot even take my children to a public restaurant anymore (even the supposedly "family friendly ones") without risking their having to watch some deranged individual flaunting his sin...
by Greed and Death » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:39 pm
by Andaluciae » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:13 pm
FreeAgency wrote:Shellfish eating used to be restricted to dens of sin such as Red Lobster and Long John Silvers, but now days I cannot even take my children to a public restaurant anymore (even the supposedly "family friendly ones") without risking their having to watch some deranged individual flaunting his sin...
by Andaluciae » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:14 pm
FreeAgency wrote:Shellfish eating used to be restricted to dens of sin such as Red Lobster and Long John Silvers, but now days I cannot even take my children to a public restaurant anymore (even the supposedly "family friendly ones") without risking their having to watch some deranged individual flaunting his sin...
by Greed and Death » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:45 pm
by Ridicularia » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:03 pm
Andaluciae wrote:Breaking news: Technocratic bureaucrats still doing more than the "occupiers."
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... al_economy
by New England and The Maritimes » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:10 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:New England and The Maritimes wrote:His cabinet is made up of academics with some experience in administration. He seems to be picking people with good backgrounds in their relative fields and overall brilliant men, and then, in stead of using them as tools to aid his policy direction, following their orders and letting them tell him what he can and can't do.
Well, yeah. The President is a figurehead. You don't interfere in things you don't understand - you leave it to the experts. Seems reasonable to me.
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by Romatticus » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:08 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bovad, Faisol, Franovia, Google [Bot], Homalia, Kerwa, Kubra, La Xinga, Likhinia, Neanderthaland, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, Port Carverton, Saiwana, Shrillland, Tiami, Trollgaard, Tungstan, Uiiop
Advertisement