<p>Add on to the fact that he has 50 million in his pockets still. Hillary has spent over 100 million.</p>
<p>McCain has 60 mill in his pocket.</p>
<p>Then if we add in all of the other candidates and what they spent, before we get to the general election it is probably close to 1/2 billion for the election. The RNC and DNC convention is slated to cost 100 mill. </p>
<p>So if these are the numbers in May, we can be sure that by the time the 527’s and the true election process starts and finishes it will cost @1 BILLION. </p>
<p>That is disgusting to me…I think that we should pass a law where the process is schortened, no 527’s and every candidate must only use the federal funds. Maybe this way more money can be dedicated to organizations that need the money, i.e can you imagine the difference to homeless shelters, poor performing schools, soup kitchens, etc that 1 BILLION would make.</p>
<p>1 billion would not make even a dent in problems like homelessness and poor-performing schools…especially when you think on the national scale.</p>
<p>ESPECIALLY homelessness. You can’t just throw money at the problem and expect it to go away…systemic change HAS to occur before homeless people will leave the streets. And, most importantly, people HAVE to stop giving them handouts…whether it’s money, food, clothes, or anything else. If you really want to give, give to a shelter.</p>
<p>One billion <em>is</em> disgusting, but if it prevents us from electing another moron who blows through one TRILLION on an unnecessary war, then it will have been well spent.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the billion spent on the election will do nothing to prevent that from happening.</p>
<p>Okay, but I would rather see 1 Billion go to charitable places then to pay for ads on the tv, bumper stcikers, placards that line streets and houses, etc! </p>
<p>I understand that it wouldn’t change the world, but as you have stated it would make a dent, albeit small, but still it is better than nothing. </p>
<p>How much does it cost for all of the placards that we see at every campaign stop. Can you imagine if the candidate said we will not have them, instead whatever the cost we would have spent will be donated to the schools, shelters or soup kitchens.</p>
<p>I have incredible respect for 2 singers, Bruce Springsteen and Josh Groban. Bruce Springsteen donates money to every town he performs in to their soup kitchen. Josh Groban hires a local HS choral group to be his back-up and donates money to that school for their music program. To me that is admirable and putting their money where their mouth is! Don’t speak to me about poverty and underfunded schools when as a candidate you are spending money on items that will be in the garbage tomorrow, especially if you have the chance to feed a family for a yr on what it costs to buy the placards in the area you stopped in for your personal goals.</p>
<p>Even more so when you hear Hillary loaning 11 million to her campaign…I live in a small town, where they have not been able to build new schools due to budgets, Bill Clinton was here for a stomp, lets say they spent 5K for the stomp. 5K is about 50 new books for the school, or in other words 2 classes in the HS would have brand new books, it’s pretty sad my 16 yr old got a book that our friends daughter had. Their daughter is 24. The books do not leave the class and are used by every student the teacher has, because they can’t afford to buy enough for everyone, thus, two different teachers would at least have new books. The class I am speaking of is our US History class…I am pretty sure there are newer history books that would help them learn more</p>
<p>With the current campaign set-up, it’s virtually impossible NOT to spend all that $$. As I’ve said before, the fact that the campaign lasts for so very long is ridiculous. I get sick and tired of the campaigning here in Canada around election time and here they are limited to five weeks…period!</p>
<p>I have stated to my DH, we should enact a law that no fundraising can begin before 1 yr prior to the election. Have a national primary on 1 day (june would work to get to know the candidates) and move onto a general in Nov. This way many of the candidates would work longer at their job. Think about McCain, Obama and Hillary have been running now for about 2 yrs</p>
<p>I see your point, b&p, and share much of your feelings; but keep in mind that the placards, the restaurant meals, the hotel rooms etc… are provided by vendors who appreciate the purchases (when they do get paid! file under Clinton campaign). So not all the money dissipates into thin air or goes into the pockets of those who already have lots of it.</p>
<p>A longer campaign allows insurgents to build up name recognition. If it had been shortened, Clinton would have benefited hugely–she was banking on it and did no allow for Obama’s ability to campaign past Super Tuesday. But longer campaigns, in all 50 states, also cost lots more money.</p>
<p>If it was shortened to 6 mos. I am sure Obama would still be sitting pretty. Lets remember Obama and Oprah hit SC in Dec 07 and that gave him a huge national exposure. I can’t remember the number that showed up in SC for the kickoff, but I think it was 20K…even if all 20K showed up to see Oprah, that is 20K that showed up and listenend to him. I think it also would have helped him…Obama announced his candidacy on Feb 10, 2007, Rev Wright issue did not occur until a yr later(Mar 08)…in a shorter campaign Obama might have never had to address the issue.</p>
<p>The campaign has lasted so long because it is close enough that Clinton is not willing to concede–and she has every right to go on campaigning. The Republican primary ended long ago.
Just because Obama did well on Super Tuesday does not mean that another insurgent candidate would, and could triumph over an incumbent or (spouse of a former incumbent).
The Democratic primary process is broken and needs to be fixed (but not in mid-campaign!). Perhaps that will shorten it. But not too much. Incumbents (or spouses of former incumbents) has such great advantage!<br>
In the UK, the parliamentary system means that it’s the Party, rather than the individual candidate, which is voted on. No one will confuse the Tories for Labor and vice-versa. And if Labor is defeated at the poll, as it appears it will be, the PM will not come from its ranks. Unlike the US where it is possible to have Congress and the Presidency from the two different parties (which are more similar than Tory and Labor).</p>
<p>Presumably the money spent on campaigns is spent in this country and on things manufactured in this country, so those expenditures are boons to our economy.</p>
<p>“That is disgusting to me…I think that we should pass a law where the process is schortened, no 527’s and every candidate must only use the federal funds. Maybe this way more money can be dedicated to organizations that need the money, i.e can you imagine the difference to homeless shelters, poor performing schools, soup kitchens, etc that 1 BILLION would make.”</p>
<p>I am less offended by 1 billion spent on an election compared to 12 billion a month being squandered building a democracy in Iraq? Why does the tax payer have to fund Bush’s Big Lie?</p>
<p>So in your thought process the television ads would not have been spent by corporations? </p>
<p>Did you think that the security paid for Obama and Clinton (secret service) could have spent more wisely over the last 12 mos., instead of trailing them?</p>
<p>There was no boon to our county that hit the newspaper when Clinton visited or when Obama was 25 miles down the road…I do not recall reading about more jobs being created, I do recall hearing about how the candidates arrived 3 hrs late, spoke for 1 hr and left. These placards were not made in our town, they were made by a national co. and had no effect on our economy. Reporters didn’t show up in groves to cover it, the local media covered it and the AP picked it up. There was no boon, however the boon to our town would have been a donation to our town instead of the 5 min. bleep on the national level. </p>
<p>I do agree the company that makes the placards, stickers and buttons are make money, but that is the price of CAPITALISM, that is their business, an election is about constituents. </p>
<p>I will not change my opinion the amount of money being spent, large % is donations, would have made a huge difference to the community if people directed to their community. Allow our tax dollars to be used…again it would be an even field since both candidates would have the exact same amt. I am so disgusted by this I refuse to give to any candidate for political purposes…I give to the K-9 patrol, our school athletic and musical programs, Albinism and the rescue society that my dog came from… at least I know that the money is making a difference in day to day lives instead of it being spent on food for candidate rallies, advertisements or internal polling! I can never recall seeing an ad from our local school asking for financial support on our tv, nor have I seen on their website where to send a check!</p>
<p>This thread is not about Bush’s lie…it is about the cost of becoming a President.</p>
<p>The taxpayers are not paying for the election right now, this is what the candidates are spending to get themselves elected through donations. I am sure if you add in all of the MOC’s/Govs we can easily hit 12 billion just in the amt they spend on tv ads</p>
<p>b&p:
Why do presidential campaigns have to spend money only in the localities where candidates happen to be campaigning? I buy fruits and vegetables that I can assure you are not grown in my backyard or in my city; there’s no pig farm that I know of in my area, either. So what is it about presidential campaigns?</p>
<p>The problem is that it’s like the arms race–neither side can stop doing it, because that would give an advantage to the other side. And the party that won the last election has little incentive to change the system that worked for them.</p>
<p>“Okay, but I would rather see 1 Billion go to charitable places then to pay for ads on the tv, bumper stcikers, placards that line streets and houses, etc!”</p>
<p>Don’t you believe in “trickle down”? This is by far the best way to help poor people! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I am not saying that they have to spend money, I am saying instead of spending 5K on placards, buttons and bumper stickers that they hand out at the campaign for the area they are at, they should donate the money to the area.</p>
<p>The placards, bumper stickers and buttons will not achieve anything, but to boost the candidate for their own goal…the same amt of money dontaed to the school sould change the lives of many children. The same amount of money could feed a family of 4 @ 1 yr…IMHO I would rather see a child being fed than some placard handed to a supporter. If no placards were handed out at the stops, people would still go to Wal-Mart and spend $0.69 for a poster board and make one instead of the campaign handing out thousands at $2.00 a pop.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I definetly believe in trickle down without Angelina and Brad emplying 4 nannies, and umpteen security guards we would have higher unemployment. I am not being sarcastic, I am being truthful without the wealthy who would employ them?</p>
<p>I am stating 2 candidates or reps were here, there was no boon to our county… do you believe that the signs, or advertisements were created in our town? The food for the campaign was not an amount that would break a company or put them on the map. The gas to bring them in was not so outrageous that they gas store hired another employee. The trickle down did not occur to effect the citizen, but the 5 K on both sides donated would have. So what the TV stations booked their ads, they would have booked them anyway.</p>
<p>“I am stating 2 candidates or reps were here, there was no boon to our county… do you believe that the signs, or advertisements were created in our town? The food for the campaign was not an amount that would break a company or put them on the map. The gas to bring them in was not so outrageous that they gas store hired another employee. The trickle down did not occur to effect the citizen, but the 5 K on both sides donated would have. So what the TV stations booked their ads, they would have booked them anyway.”</p>
<p>They were created somewhere. In the U.S. too. I’ve never seen a campaign sign imported from China. I’ve never seen a political ad produced in Macau. The food is cooked in your town. This is good ol’ “made in the USA” business, the very best that America has to offer. </p>
<p>And what have you got against Angelina and Brad? Do you feel the same about ALL corporate execs? Where does it end? Do you believe in class warfare? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>So if McCain gets elected then the 1 Billion spent won’t change lives? Same truth for Obama.</p>
<p>This is my pt…it should not be about who is elected we need to address the issue that the money being spent right now could have changed lives. I am just stating when people argue about govt and how money is spent, we need to see that as a nation we are throwing money out the door to elect a president which might have been more wisely spent</p>