http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … ml?hpid=z6
For the month of February:
RNC raised $5.2 million
RNC spent $5.3 million
RNC ended month with $2.1 million in the bank
DNC raised $7.1 million
DNC spent $5.7 million
DNC ended the month with $10.5 million cash on hand
RNC $21 million in debt
DNC $17.9 million in debt
So let me get this straight
1. The Republicans spent $.1 million MORE than they made whereas The Democrats spent $1.4 LESS than they made
2. The Republicans have $8.4 LESS in the bank than the Dems
3. The Republicans are $3.1 million MORE in debt than the Dems
Hey Mighty Mom, I think the part of your post that I left for you to see, should tell you enough about politicians in general. As I've been saying all along.
It's their money.....What's more telling is how they spend "OUR" money.
"You can't even run your own debt, I'll be damned if you'll run mine!"
Good to know we're on the same page.
I added something in bold to your quote.
Hmmmm is right.
The RNC raised money and blew it or whatever, the difference is the money belonged to the RNC.
Its what they do with my money that counts.
Our did you forget that part?
That's Obama's fault. When we declared war on Iraq because there was no other way, we increased our debt. Now we have had to declare war on Obama, and the debt is justified.
Yes. Obama is responsible for the RNC's debt.
He is responsible for my debt. For your debt.
For everyone's debt.
He must be stopped by any means necessary.
Good thing our citizen militia is armed and ready for war!
Yeah, let's gather all the homeless(45million) and bring them to Washington for protest.
The sad part is there are more homeless than military personnel.
I am going to make a correction. The homeless are hard to count, but I think the estimate should be 4.5 million. That's larger than the US military, which is easier to count, about 3 million.
Absolutely no offense intended, Cags, as you are notoriously honest in your posts.
You mean you're going to pass along misinformation.
Incorrect, but nice try. The homeless % is 15% of the population. You do the math.
350 Million citizens(total population- consensus is (resident/households= 306 million)) x 15% = ? (around 52.5 million now- my figures are at least two years old)
Yes it is.
No offense taken, just to be clear.
How many made the choice to be homeless by giving up?
It makes it a lot easier on the conscience, blaming the homeless for their predicament doesn't it?
Hey John, some can be blamed for their own predicament, but most cannot.
Hey Logic, I would say about 10% of those who are homeless, but that would just be a guess, and it would be based on anger about government and it's ineffectiveness to what's best for the country.
45 million homeless, 47 million uninsured.
Sounds like a sizeable march on our nation's capital!
Okay, it seems like you've a misunderstanding Mighty Mom and hopefully I can clear it up for you- There are 45 million homeless...these are part of the 47 million uninsured- the other 2 million had just simply refused to buy insurance because they could pay for their hospital bills without the insurance company, because they didn't go to the hospital that much.
In one way it would be.
I do understand there is overlap between the 45 million homeless and 47 million uninsured.
I was fooling around with adding the two numbers together
But I think you're missing a big portion of the uninsured. That is people who are turned down for healthcare coverage. It has nothing to do with "refusing to buy it" it is being denied by the insurance companies.
People without health insurance are playing Russian roulette. "... they could pay their hospital bills without the insurance company because they didn't go to the hospital that much..."
All it takes is ONE visit to the ER in an ambulance. That is beyond the financial reach of most of us working stiff Americans....
But other than that, the march sounds like a wonderful idea!
Perhaps we should stage this march in Arizona where no one will mind when we bring our concealed weaspons .
And your sunglasses will fit right in (although they would in DC, too).
Thanks, SP. That would be swell.
Can you show me how use those little cross-hairs thingies too?
In all the time I've been alive, there has never been a Republican adm. of any kind that has "managed" money.
They give it to all their special interests, and the hell with everybody else.
I once read a quote from a young woman..20 something. She said, "Our policies favor the very rich and the very poor, and they take from the middle to pay for them both."
We can count the billions that Obama has made available to his campaign donors.
Both parties are guilty of giving away taxpayer money, that' why they both need to be limited by limiting government.
You can. I see him trying to help people like me!
It's 95% of the population...I'd say we are worth it!
It's 95% of the population? Are you pulling statistics out of thin air now or what?
15% of the population is homeless
20% are millionaires?
So, what 95% are you talking about?
The 95% who are paying the price for the wealth to rise to the top 5%.
Or, is it worse???
I'm sure you have heard...400 people own more wealth than 155 million....
400 vs 155 million......whoah!
You are a walking example of those who do not understand the proper use of America's way of life, known as Capitalism.
Good to know.
*and people wonder what's wrong with America and why people of America, lack any understanding of their own country.
And how much of somebody else's income are you entitled to again, LMC?
And how much of your income is big business entitled to?
Whatever I feel their product or service is worth.
Now would you care to answer my question or will you continue ducking it?
I have in the past answered your question, whereas you constantly evade answering mine!
You have no more say in how much of your tax go to support big business than you have in how much of your tax goes to support those in need.
I would much rather my taxes went to support the needy than to support the already wealthy.
You've been dodging my question from the beginning, and now you're accusing me of the same......this "I know you are but what am I" debate tactic really gets tiresome......
Aw diddums! Sorry I can't give you the answer that you want to hear but I'll try again, you pay taxes to the government and they decide how it is distributed, it isn't up to LMC or anybody else to take YOUR money, your argument is with government.
Now you tell me how much of your money big business is entitled to because you don't seem to care about that, you only seem to care how much the needy get.
Your one track mind is very tiresome, but answer me this if you can, how do you fancy several million people running riot and robbing at will because they have no other option?
One track mind? On success probably, which may go a long way towards explaining why some of us have money in our bank accounts and others (cough, LMC, cough) are red faced with hysteria over that fact.
As I said, (you obviously weren't listening), business is entitled to whatever I think their product or service is worth. If I find it inadequate or too expensive I either look elsewhere for a comparable service.
Or does that make too much sense?
And I'm sorry, but if you are in favor of government redistribution of wealth, then you obviously should have an idea of how much of that wealth others are entitled to. I'd like to think you've at least thought your convictions through to a degree....
No, you're obviously not listening! I'm not talking about money that you choose to spend and can influence who is in receipt of that money, I'm talking about money that you pay in taxes that is redirected to big business with no control on your part.
Frankly, I'd much rather my tax money went to somebody who needed help to put a roof over their head or food in their belly than to some corporation or to wage war to protect the interests of big business.
And you can control money after it leaves your hands?
I think it is safe to assume that at least a part of any money we spend is probably used in some way that we might personally find unaccceptable.
Of course I'm also in favor of corporations taking full benefit of any and all tax breaks that they are allowed by law......I am not in favor of providing more milk for the government teat for the moocher class to suck off of.......sorry about that.
The money the government receives is different than the money business receives. The money government receives should be used how the people want it used.
The people don't have a say in how a business uses the money, unless they are stockholders/shareholders of the company.
That's all well and good, but not when it costs lives of people within society. At some point it is going to become a detriment to the survival of society, then the wealthy won't be able to get their tax breaks.
You're not sorry about it and that's obvious, you just don't care about anyone other than yourself.
Of course you can't control the money after it has left your hands!
Strange how you are in favour of your taxes going to support big business directly but you resist indirect aid to them in the form of wage supplements.
Your attitude reminds me very much of Thatcher whose policies directly put 2.5-3 million people out of work and onto benefits and who then castigated those very same people as scroungers and lay-abouts!
You really need to think a bit deeper and lessen the knee-jerk reaction.
Leaving LMC out of the equation, it isn't about "entitled" to, it's about the sad mentality that many people cannot make their own way within mainstream society, because of people having the mentality you have in your post.
The federal government taxes people(all people) to a certain degree. What it does with the money? Should be specific and based on what the people want them to do with it.
Supposedly, the people have a say in what and how the money government received, yet their are more homeless than there are people serving in the military.
It's nice to see that you don't care for your fellow citizens and I can see by many of your posts that you were raised not to give a damn. You do realize- selfishness is definitely not a good thing and had you understood that, then you would be more helpful than not.
Tea Party = Tinkerbell Party...a cast of cartoon characters.
You'll forgive me, John, if I am not in favor of the government determining wages.
(sarcasm on) And of course given your reasonable and well thought out arguments, I will do my best to curb the knee jerk if it pleases you (sarcasm off)
But are you in favour of the government subsidizing wages?
Without government subsidy you would end up paying a lot more for the heavily subsidised goods that you buy, or end up with far more civil unrest.
It is hard to enter a reasonable and well thought out argument when the argument is with somebody who is neither well thought out or reasonable, whose mind is closed to reality and humanity.
So what, exactly, did the RNC do with all that money? THEY don't even know. They're not even close to finding all the damage Michael Steele did during his term in charge.
And actually, no. It's not only what they (or the DNC or the federal government) do with the money that counts. It's also about spending within your means (e.g., not incurring massive DEBT).
The point is here we have a party that proclaims to be more fiscally responsible than the Dems and the ones we should trust with our tax money.
The example set by the RNC's budget vs. the DNC's budget doesn't exactly instill confidence.
Exactly. Just as their moral superiority falls flat.Like a squashed banana.
Best moment in politcs was when the Rethugs were going after Clinton, and Penthouse magazine did an expose of all the depravity going on with them.
...Or it was Rep Woolsey(?) standing up on the floor of the House and saying, "I have been married to the same man for 30 years. And I have to listen to lectures on morality from people who are on their third or fourth wife"
It's not a question of "celebrating" it's a question of not being hypocritical about it. The problem comes when a representative (or an entire party) act all holier than thou and try to impose their "morals" on the rest of us while privately they are engaging in the exact kind of immorality they vote against.
The same argument goes for money managing.
The RNC's debt wouldn't be an issue if the Republicans didn't hold themselves out there are money managers supreme.
In both instances, there's a credibility gap between who you say you are (or maybe "think" you are) and who you REALLY are.
Ah, but they tell us they don't want to spend our money!
(Oh wait -- they already DID, from 2000 to 2008!!!).
They now tell us they want to cut spending of our money! At least, for programs they don't approve of -- even if said programs make only a teeny weenie dent in the federal deficit.
Frankly, I don't want them either spending OR cutting on my behalf!
They want to spend OUR money on THEIR friends....
who then kick US in the teeth.
"Go on, take the money and run, yeah yeah yeah,."
by Thomas Byers 7 years ago
What do you think about Mitt Romney being the first president in U.S. History to have millions stashed in offshore Tax Havens. You know I saw this tonight and it really bothers me that we keep letting people like this run for the US President. I'll tell you right up front that I don't support the...
by Gary Anderson 8 years ago
I have been watching the Yahoo boards and people are furious at the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. They are getting the lion's share of the blame for the debt downgrade. Here's why:1. Obama wanted a grand plan. The Republicans rejected it.2. Obama wanted shared sacrifice including taxes for...
by Thomas Byers 5 years ago
Its really sad that we as Americans let the Democrats and Republicans pull games on us and keep our minds off the really important issues that face us as Americans. How can we not demand real solutions to the problems facing us as Americans. You know I set and listened to the Republican...
by SheriSapp 4 years ago
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?Why do the liberals REFUSE to understand that the deficit spending MUST be stopped or the nation will become premanently bankrupt?
by Gary Anderson 8 years ago
The Republicans are sworn to uphold the constitution. The constitution requires, under the 14th Amendment, that the debts of the United States are guaranteed. The Republicans appropriated the money in the budget. They voted for the debt. But now, they want default. That should be seen as...
by mio cid 8 years ago
The republican position is that under no circumstance will they allow any tax raise as part of the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling.They also want spending cuts, right now,significant in quantity,and across the board except on defense , when asked if the only way an agreement could be reached...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|