Quote:
Originally Posted by polyphonic
A: Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates can receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections, and to pay for their national nominating conventions The Federal Election Commission administered the first public funding program in 1976. Eligible Presidential candidates used federal funds in their primary and general election campaigns, and the major parties used public funds to pay for their nominating conventions. Alternate political parties can apply for funding that is to be based on the voter turnout from the last election cycle.
B: Congress can still raise their own salaries, and regardless of the fact that the personal raises aren't that much in themselves, when you add it all up...
C: Paying rent at Gitmo isn't the point, the cost of running such a place is.(Moral issues being a whole different topic)
Not to mention that the fact that the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" being old news doesn't disqualify them from being good examples of irresponsible spending.
Obama letting wife take air force one to Chicago every weekend.
100 dollars per pound steaks flown in from japan at white house parties.
Palin can go drop thousands on suits from Saks, Neiman's and Barney's.
There were six candidates in the Presidential Election of 2008. The approximate amount spent by each candidate are as follows:
1. Barak Obama, Democrat, 730 million.
2. John McCain, Republican, 343 million.
3. Ralph Nader, Independent, 4 million,
4. Bob Barr, Libertarian, 1 million.
5. Chuck Baldwin, Constitution, 208 thousand
6. Cynthia McKinny, Green, 145 thousand
These are a blip on the radar screen of examples.
Where is the money really going?
This whole argument is only furthering my original point; we can debate HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars all week, and the fact is that there are hundreds of billions to argue about. With all of the affluent spending going on around us, regardless of financial situation, why not do something good with it?
|
If you really knew so much about the FEC and the fund raising process you'd know you just told a flat out lie. You saying seven hundred and thirty million dollars of taxpayer money went to Barack Obama is a flat out lie. He's the first presidential candidate post-Watergate that didn't accept public campaign funds. Do some research on the actual money spent (or just look at your figures and do some basic addiction) not that much money was spent which is shocking considering how much the campaign money has to cover.
As far as Congress raising their salaries goes they didn't individually raise them that much last time (certainly nothing to cause a fuss over since they're been doing more work now than in previous years) and they don't just raise their salaries at random again and to extravagant amounts (yes, even if you add it up it still doesn't hit the millions let alone the hundreds of billions.)
Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp doesn't cost a ridiculous amount to run. The conditions are pretty terrible and we'd be paying the people who stand guard over it regardless of where they are. It's really silly to bring it up; the defense budget as a whole would be a different manner.
As far as personal Presidential spending goes; it's always been irresponsible. Bringing up Sarah Palin is irrelevant.
I understand what you're saying with all this but you're attacking the wrong thing. The defense budget is overbloated and you barely touch on it (really you look at a very tiny facet; Gitmo) and you ignore the fact that the conditions in which we entered two wars were not stable economic conditions and that there's no regulation of White House spending. I'm not saying you're wrong just that you seem misinformed and you're misdirecting your populist fiscal rage.
All this talk of fiscal responsibility though directly contradicts your demand we send this money to this fund though. You realize we'd just be borrowing the two billion dollars and sinking that much deeper into debt right? It would be stupid to proxy donate money; again I think a country with money should be asked.