Cutting the Crap on "Both Parties Are The Same" BS - Campaign Finance Edition

[VeryConfused]

I am just plain sick of this meme that seems to be very popular among the far left “pundits,” that both parties are roughly the same, and are equally corrupt because they both receive money from large corporations. The left wing idiot above, whose Twitter avatar actually depicts a sign reading “I (heart) critical thinking,” might try some, since I am prepared to show that the OpenSecrets.org site shows just the opposite.

What pisses me off about this crap is twofold. One, it poisons the debate, and it makes moderate voters actually think there’s really no difference between voting for a Republican and voting for a Democrat, which generally encourages them to stay home and not vote at all. When turnout is low, the right wing wins.

1. Obama got a huge amount of money from Goldman Sachs and other beneficiaries of the financial services bailouts.

I know you’ve heard this one a lot; I hear it at least weekly. The funny thing about this assertion is that it can’t possibly be remotely true, even if you only look at the surface.

Obama for America ran the most incredible campaign financing apparatus I have ever seen, precisely because he raised such an incredible amount of money WITHOUT huge contributions from donors with an agenda. For some reason, facts have gotten lost in some quarters, but I'm happy to restore facts to the debate.

Check out this list of the top donors to the Obama campaign. As you look at it, consider that Obama raised more than $765 million, and he had more than $15 million left over after the election. How much pull do you think the million dollars from Goldman Sachs, which amounts to 0.13% of all Obama donations, had on the new president? If your boss at your $50,000 a year job gave you a $65 bonus at the end of the year (0.13% of your salary), would you call him a hero or a cheapskate?

MORE

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/08/cutting-the-crap-on-both-parties-are-the-same-bs-campaign-finance-edition.html

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

2. K&R! n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Please point me to the far left.

The Communists are saying both parties are the same? Is that it?

[Bandit]

5. If your President allowed Regressive taxation to continue when all he had to do was nothing

and it would have gone away, would you call him a hero or ???????

[VeryConfused]

6. You wanted to raise taxes on the middle class and cut people's unemployment????

that's what your statement implies.

[midnight]

9. That was the carrot used to negotiate the rich getting to keep their tax cuts...

It does seem outrages that in order for the working people, who had their jobs shipped out of the country so the wealthy could make greater profits, that their taxes they pay to support things like assistance to those in need would have been withheld until the rich get what they want... What this implies to me is that the American worker is being held hostage....

[VeryConfused]

10. No doubt about it, the GOP is holding the American workers hostage

so that they can please their wealthy masters

[Javaman]

13. It shows that you didn't actually read the bill...

The cut to unemployment, in the bill, had nothing to do with the original 99ers. Those 99ers weren't included in the bill, the unemployment "extension" was only to apply to NEW people on the rolls. The old 99ers were shit out of luck.

So let's recap. The rich got their tax cut extension. The old 99ers were screwed out of an extension and the new people on the rolls were the ones that got the unemployment extension.

So how was that good for us?

[Fuddnik]

24. Now you're going to make him Extremely Confused!

[VeryConfused]

26. Yes he thought this was the Democratic Underground

[jpak]

12. and millions of Americans would have lost their unemplyment benefits

and the Firebags would have blamed him for that

can't please 'em

nope

[Javaman]

14. Jpak...

I have always respected your views in the E/E forum, but this time around you are incorrect.

Please refer to my comment at #16.

If you had read the bill, you would have seen that we didn't benefit at all from it's passage, in regards to the unemployment insurance.

[VeryConfused]

17. No need to chase down his other response

there were no facts in that one either.

[Javaman]

29. more rhetoric on your part... Never facts. I'll give you facts, here you go...

Unemployment Extension

http://www.unemploymentextensions.org/a/

The U.S. Senate approved a fourth unemployment extension of benefits for the millions of Americans that are unemployed.

>> Who is Eligible for an Unemployment Extension?

For the most part, Americans who have not exhausted all of their tiers of unemployment benefits are eligible to receive the extension. The length of time a person can receive unemployment varies from state to state.

>snip<

>> Who is Not Eligible for Unemployment Extension?

The bill passed does not extend the benefits to Americans who have exhausted all of their tiers.

More at link...

Unemployment Extension Passes; 99ers Left Out
December 19, 2010
http://www.unemploymentextensions.org/unemployment-extension-passes-99ers-left-out/84539/

<snip>

Congress did have an opportunity to help out 99ers the same time they passed the unemployment benefits deadline extension. Senator Stabenow introduced The Americans Want to Work Act earlier this year, which if passed, would have added 20 weeks of benefits (Tier 5) in states where the unemployment rate is greater than 7.5%.

The reader continued by asking, “Do we go on Welfare and deplete that system too?”

Another reader wrote, “Although I know there are many unemployed people who have been blessed by the new bill, I am one of the 99ers a single mother over 35 and unemployed.”

A UnemploymentExtensions.org reader from Ohio wrote, “I am very pleased that the bill was signed to extend benefits for many Americans but what happens to us 99er’s now.” The same sentiment was echoed across many other 99ers.

[VeryConfused]

34. Your facts don't dispute the point that the GOP held unemployment hostage

and the President had to extend the Bush cuts for the rich to free the hostages and protect the American people

[Javaman]

54. That is the most bizarre string of rationalization I have ever witnessed.

I realize now that there is no point in arguing with you. You have this unquenchable desire to get in the last word, no matter how crazy it sounds.

you may now satisfy your infantile urge to have the last word.

I bid you adieu'. Ta!

[VeryConfused]

61. rational thinking not rationalization

your problem is you get so caught up in minutia you can't see the forest for the trees.

[VeryConfused]

15. That's it in a nutshell. If President Obama created world peace, they would complain

about all the defense industry contractors and military people he put out of work.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bertman]

7. Indeed, you are Very Confused. I suggest you look up the totals of donations to

candidates Obama and McCain for the 2008 election before you start talking about the dollars donated.

[VeryConfused]

8. I see words, but I don't see any point made

other than insults. I guess attacking the messenger is all one has, when the facts are against you.

[Javaman]

30. since you appear to always be very confused...

I guess it needs to be spelled out. Both parties drink from the same donation drough.

[VeryConfused]

35. Of course the article goes into detail with fact based arguments that show how wrong you are

It's amazing how you bend and warp reality to form your position instead of using observation of reality establish your point of view.

[Javaman]

49. Okay, so you are trying to tell me that just because the Dems don't take as much from corps

I'm wrong?

LOL hell of an argument there! :rofl:

[VeryConfused]

56. You really should spend the time to read the full article

instead of wasting so much time combing the internet to find any sort of article that fits into your preconceived notions of the world.

[woo me with science]

57. What on earth point are you trying to make?

Of course the corporations have bought into both parties. We know they do. The records show they do. What else would we expect them to do?

Denying the obvious is not an argument.

[VeryConfused]

58. Another person who clearly refused to read the article

because it would ruin their preconceived notions of the world.

[woo me with science]

63. What is your point?

The article you posted cites huge contributions to Democrats by corporations.

Are you seriously trying to argue that because they give MORE to Republicans, that they are not purchasing Democrats, too?

[VeryConfused]

65. From the article

<<But more than that, the assertion is absolutely untrue, and lying to push what you perceive as a “progressive” agenda is just as bad as when the right wingnuts lie to push theirs. In fact, it’s actually worse, since they have to lie to make their agenda seem rational, and we have the truth on our side.>>

[woo me with science]

68. You are entitled to your own opinions.

You are not entitled to your own facts. :eyes:

[VeryConfused]

69. Seems to me that you are the one that dismisses facts

because they don't fit your preconceived notions

[jpak]

11. unreccing Obama has no soul!!!1111 Nixon was more liberal!!1111 Primary him!!111

:rofl:

[TBF]

16. Here is the info on campaign contributions (and you are wrong)

2008 Presidential Race -

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $864,654
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
Wilmerhale Llp $550,168
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
Columbia University $541,002
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $517,908
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

[VeryConfused]

18. By fire bagger logic, the President is in the tank for big Universities

:rofl:

[TBF]

19. I gave you a list of the top campaign contributors and that is your response?

nt

[VeryConfused]

20. Sorry if you didn't like the FACT that the President's BIGGEST donor

is not BIG BUSINESS, but BIG UNIVERSITIES.

[Javaman]

32. Yes, and big universities are never to be confused with corporate donations.

:eyes:

what world do you live in?

where do you think those universities get their money from? Solely from tuition? :rofl:

[VeryConfused]

33. So you operate in a world where big business treats big Universities as puppets

who then use their millions to pull the strings of our President. I think you are putting something extra in that Java Mr Javaman

[TBF]

41. Have you gone to university Mr. Very Confused? I attended a research university

and you'd better believe they are puppets for big business. Who do you think funds the grants that are used by most professors/grad students to do their research? It damned sure isn't Barack Obama.

[Javaman]

45. very confused is...

very confused. either that or has just fallen off the turnip truck.

[VeryConfused]

47. Yeah I must not have gone to "university"

Thanks you for your expertise on Universities. You can never have enough self appointed experts.

[Javaman]

43. Here you go...

New Ties Found to Link Lenders and Colleges
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/05loan.html?ref=education

A Congressional report released yesterday found new evidence of questionable conduct, involving gifts and donations to build business, in the ties between colleges and student loan companies.

The report describes e-mail messages and other internal documents from lenders. In them, lenders discuss requests from college officials for donations to help pay for fund-raising golf matches, student activity fairs and intramural sports.

The documents also suggest that lenders viewed such gifts and payments as part of an effort for financial aid offices to steer students their way.

(while this article is 4 years old, the practice hasn't stopped)

Anyone of a number of universities are controlled via donations and through unsavory loan practices that skirt the law. Both corporations and wealthy individuals give heavily to various universities to have either their pet projects or personal stamp on various fields promoted.

If you honestly believe that this doesn't happen that I have a bridge to sell you.

And on top of that, these same universities whom take in huge donations from republican and Democratic donors are at odds to teach concepts and ideas that run contrary to their donors. Some take the money gladly, others take it grudgingly because they need it. Those that take it gladly, help promote and donate to various parties that reflect a huge donors ideas and/or party affiliation.

It's just how the world works. While the repukes take their lion share of donations from corporations, Democrats take a huge amount from Universities. But the Dems also take from corps and the repukes also take from universities.

One is the same as the other. In this day, trying to differentiate between a corporations and a very large university is almost impossible.

Also there is this..

Richmond ends credit card deal with Bank of America
http://thecollegianur.com/2011/04/21/ur-ends-credit-card-agreement-with-bank-of-america/20450/

Bank of America paid the University of Richmond $89,773 in 2009 as part of a controversial credit card program under which the university sold the bank student, faculty, staff and alumni contact information.

The program, which was initially started between Maryland Bank, National Association and the university, was continued by Bank of America when it bought MBNA in 2006.

The so-called affinity agreement, which ended June 30, 2010, allowed students, alumni, faculty, staff and friends of the university to have credit cards that sported a University of Richmond logo, said Louie Love, the director of treasury services at Richmond.

Part of the agreement called for the university to give its database of contacts to Bank of America for solicitation.

(this practice goes on today in many a college)

And here...

Rutgers earned $562K from credit card company last year through marketing deal
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/rutgers_earned_562k_from_credi.html

NEW BRUNSWICK — Rutgers University received more than $550,000 by allowing a credit card company to produce cards with the school's name on it, according to a report on MyCentralJersey.com.

The university earned $562,637 from U.S Bank. There were 5,342 Rutgers alumni cards in circulation as of Dec. 31, including 759 issued last year. Rutgers receives money when a new card is activated and when a card is used to make a purchase.

Almost 1,00 school across the country have similar deals, the report said.

(while the direct practice of quid pro quo has ended between lenders and universities...per say, it appears as if the lenders and/or credit card corps have found a way to get around things via kick backs to the universities via influence peddling of the Credit Card Corps wares)

It doesn't take a genius or a person of average intelligence to follow the trail.

-And I frankly, don't drink coffee. The name comes from archaeological reference.

[VeryConfused]

48. Interesting but absolutely nothing you posted (and it was quite a bit) shows that

your assertion of big business using Universities to control our Presidents is true. In fact in light of the fact that you couldn't produce a shred of evidence despite what was clearly extensive research only shows just how far off you are.

[Javaman]

51. Huh, I posted that, and less than 30 seconds later you replied

I find it amazing that you were able to read all the links I posted in that short amount of time. Let me guess, you are Evelyn Wood.

:rofl:

[VeryConfused]

55. Thank you, sometimes I even amaze myself

:hi:

[Javaman]

52. Also please point to me where I ever said "control".

Influence, my dear neophyte, influence.

[VeryConfused]

60. You need control of you are going to have a proxy puppet master

I would think a self proclaims long time pro would know that.

[indurancevile]

98. where do you think university presidents come from, former teachers?

why do you think all those university buildings are named after rich people?

for whom do you think most university research is conducted?

clueless.

[TBF]

40. Look at number 2 and get back to me. nt

[VeryConfused]

50. Read the article I posted and then get back to me, hell read the except of the

article I posted and get back to me.

[Fuddnik]

21. You expected something else from someone confused?

They're crawling out of the woodwork. It's all they've got.

[VeryConfused]

39. By "they" you must be referring to rational people

[TBF]

42. Yes, "rational" DLC ers... there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one

:rofl:

[VeryConfused]

44. So you label anyone that is capable of rational thought

as DLC. Interesting... I guess that's why you think your incoherent ramblings are so funny.

[TBF]

46. Read my response again - you're still confused. nt

[VeryConfused]

53. I would, but it was intellectually painful the first time I read it

Too many logical inconsistencies and failed reasoning.... it made my brain hurt

[SidDithers]

22. K&R...nt

Sid

[Fuddnik]

23. Unrec

Dis

[VeryConfused]

25. Yup, we can't be posting facts if they don't serve to make the President

look bad... can we?

[Romulox]

27. Just 'cause "both receive money from large corporations" don't mean nothin'!

I mean the corporations that give to Dems probably don't expect anything in return! :rofl:

[VeryConfused]

28. Clearly you didn't read the article

but that's understandable as your statement shows you are adverse to fact based positions.

[Romulox]

31. And I would know you from?

[Generic Other]

81. It says the NEA was the number one donor to Obama's campaign

They even endorsed him this week. Which means he will divide teachers' unions this year. The rank and file do not support the policies of Arne Duncan and the Obama administration where education is concerned. All of the most divisive issues remain unchanged or have gotten worse than under the previous administration. A hideous battle is being waged in public education.

Many of the strongest most energetic soldiers in Obama's grassroots army are also fighting on the education front. We keep getting shot at from our own, and we are fairly certain it is not just "friendly fire."

The majority of low-information voters will not look deeply and critically enough for you to worry about. They support Obama wholeheartedly or they hate him. No middle ground. The further you go up the scale of informed voters within our party though, the more critical the base is.

As a teacher and strong union person, I feel it imperative that I speak out on behalf of those of my colleagues who are not paying attention.

[SoCalDem]

36. If we had had the current media back in WWII, Hitler would have been a guest on Hardball

:(

[VeryConfused]

37. Yes and the pundits would be talking about how all nations invade others

and that it's not just a Hitler thing

[SoCalDem]

38. and how he was only trying to help them get out of paying all those property taxes

[Scurrilous]

59. K & R

:thumbsup:

[mmonk]

62. My cut through the crap:

We are debating how much domestic spending to cut, particularly the social safety net in this country during a mini depression and high unemployment. That's a 100% rightwing centric conversation to engage on and act upon. The Republicans control only the House. Deductive reasoning yields while there may be some differences, there certainly is some similarity.

[woo me with science]

64. Thank you.

And that is just one on a list of egregious corporate gifts.


There are new ones every goddamn week. Yesterday it was Obama's disgusting, full-throated defense of the corrupt banks over the homeowners they devastated.

[VeryConfused]

67. Your overuse of hyperbole marks your statements as flawed

and I am being generous.

[woo me with science]

72. There is absolutely nothing hyperbolic about saying Obama sided with corrupt banks over homeowners.

And, yes, the record shows that this is just one in a long, disgraceful line of policies and decisions to carry corporate water over the interests of voters.

Once again, whining and personal swipes do not substitute for an actual argument.

[VeryConfused]

73. True, that statement was simply inaccurate, incorrect, factually flawed

take your pick

[woo me with science]

84. ROFL!

All I can say is that those are some waaaay powerful Obama-colored glasses you have on there. It is always impressive to see flat-out denial of reality carried through an *entire* thread as an arguing strategy.

:rofl:

Thanks for the fun, seriously. It's been a hoot.

[VeryConfused]

87. You are the type of person that would complain

that the President put all sorts of people (defense industry and soldiers) out of work if the President achieved world peace. You have officially joined the ranks of those that refuse to ever admit the President does anything good.

[woo me with science]

96. Yeah, yeah, we know:..

It always comes down to "the type of person" everybody is. :eyes:

Carry on.

[VeryConfused]

66. Reasoning starts by being honest and accurate in one's assessment

saying that "the Republicans ONLY control the House" is neither.

[ixion]

71. take your own advice

because I find your statements neither honest nor accurate.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

82. which means that

a) You've never seen my posts at all; or b) again, you need to take your own advice.

[VeryConfused]

85. LOL! yeah that must be it

I must have never seen your posts. I mean how could I not be dazzled by their self proclaimed brilliance.

[ixion]

91. brilliance is your word... and thanks for that...

and YES, I do realize you were being sarcastic. Off you go now.

[VeryConfused]

94. you're leaving?

I am going to miss your insults that you think are so brilliant and hilariously snarky

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Our poisened well isn't as poisenous as they're poisened well?

So, obviously, we should drink from it. Right?

[VeryConfused]

75. Read the article, it's clear from your statement you didn't

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. I did. And, the statement stands.

Are you really that naive that you think that "our" side doesn't kiss up to the big contributors that run this "democracy"?

[VeryConfused]

83. I guess I should have added with an open mind

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Or, a disclaimer that you only accept appluse for your OPs no matter how naive they are.

[VeryConfused]

88. LOL! Considering you hold a very unrealistic view of the world and politics

do you see the irony in your statement?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

100. It's "unrealistic" to see that the Dems take payoffs just like Repugs do?

And, that they respond favorably to those paying them off, just like the Repugs do?

The irony is that you seem to think that a teaspoon of arsenic should be acceptable because it's "not as bad" as a tablespoon because "our" guys are swallowing it.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. And, those that the money buys are also Goldman's.

[Rex]

89. Far left = bullshit talk to divide up the left.

I keep hearing about the Far Left (from RWing talk show hatemongers) but have yet to meet anyone from the Far Left. Just more bullshit talking points imo. Divide and conquer tactics work so well for the GOP. :eyes:

[VeryConfused]

90. Seems to me the Professional left is the one looking to divide

the PF is looking to divide the Democrats and the liberals. That division will then be readily exploited by the GOP

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indurancevile]

95. NEA = money laundering organization. The fact that NEA donated big has given "teachers"

ZERO influence over this education-killing administration.

NEA LEADERSHIP IS COLLUDING WITH THEM.

AND CANDIDATE OBAMA GOT WAY MORE MONEY FROM GOLDMAN THAN CANDIDATE MCCAIN.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

[VeryConfused]

97. That's it put the bullshit in all caps

that way someone might believe it

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

101. So the logic is that since TeaPubliKlans get more corporate dollars then Democrats are not

influenced by the money they get?

Of course I'm of the school that says take the money and run. Use the resources gifted to fund our causes and don't think it matters a whole lot why our folks cater to the well heeled. Whether it is agreement, ideology, searching for votes, or they are too busy raising money to know heads from tails and let the various lobbies write the bills or some other deal.

It simply is just nonsense to ignore the corporate capture of our government at every level and pretend our guys haven't a thing to do with it. The outcomes, the proposals, the appointments, and who ends up behind the eight ball and who comes out counting more money are all I need to be concerned about.