Billionaires Funding Romney Campaign

[MystikWizard]

certainly not because Buffett has benefited financially from nearly every action the Obama admin's taken, from Goldman Sachs bailouts to halting the Keystone Pipeline

Has he not publicly stated that he should be paying more taxes?

 

[PrivateTimm]

That's exactly who is supporting President Obama. Obama has small-check donor advantage over Romney

Apples and oranges. At this point in the campaign Romney is not the nominee of his party, Obama is. Obama has raised over $70m from big donors, just like Romney has, but because Obama is already the party nominee, he and the party can appeal to small donors nationwide. Romney doesn't have that advantage. Get back to be at the end of Q4.

 

[Lostlover]

Apples and oranges. At this point in the campaign Romney is not the nominee of his party, Obama is. Obama has raised over $70m from big donors, just like Romney has, but because Obama is already the party nominee, he and the party can appeal to small donors nationwide. Romney doesn't have that advantage. Get back to be at the end of Q4.

You didn't think it was an "apples and oranges" comparison when you posted in this thread and defended Romney's billionaire donors.

LOL.

I rebutted what you said with a link that had cold, hard facts and then suddenly the comparison became invalid.

 

[PrivateTimm]

So the economic collapse is Nancy Pelosi's fault? Okay, sure.....

We all know W didn't have anything to do with it at all. Please tell me what the deficit was when Reagan entered the Presidency and what it was when he left. And do the same for Dubya too.

The House passes budgets, not presidents. Reagan never had a Republican House, his budgets were always declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil. Reagan deficits averaged, 4.2%, Obama's are running at over twice that, 9%. Bush with a Republican House only deficits of 1.8% of GDP on average.

So yes, Pelosi's House blew the roof off spending.

 

[PrivateTimm]

You didn't think it was an "apples and oranges" comparison when you posted in this thread and defending Romney's billionaire donors.

LOL.

I rebutted what you said with link and facts and then suddenly the comparison became invalid.

Romney's campaign does not have "billionaire" donors. The entire thread is red herring as was your apples and oranges when you brought in the campaign donations as opposed to Super PAC donations and Super PACs are not tied to the campaigns by law. As to super donors, they lean heavily Democrat, not Republican.

 

[Kulindahr]

certainly not because Buffett has benefited financially from nearly every action the Obama admin's taken, from Goldman Sachs bailouts to halting the Keystone Pipeline

And he's willing to pay much higher taxes on all that, if the rest of the super-wealthy would turn into patriots and fo the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

The House passes budgets, not presidents. Reagan never had a Republican House, his budgets were always declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil. Reagan deficits averaged, 4.2%, Obama's are running at over twice that, 9%. Bush with a Republican House only deficits of 1.8% of GDP on average.

So yes, Pelosi's House blew the roof off spending.

Is that by honest accounting, or the lies Bush used?

 

[chrisrobin]

if the rest of the super-wealthy would turn into patriots and do the same.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SicFn8rqPPE[/ame]

Mr. Kennedy asks, "when does the greed stop?" Short answer: Never.

He asks again, "Do you have such disdain for hard-working American men and women." Short answer: Yes.

Just a request to any fellow JUBbers... could we leave Chappaquiddick out of this discussion?

 

[Kulindahr]

Just a request to any fellow JUBbers... could we leave Chappaquiddick out of this discussion?

Easy -- no one made a profit off it.

 

[CowboyBob]

Interesting how the thread drifts to Nancy Pelosi and Chappaquiddick. Desperation by the right wing.

 

[CowboyBob]

Romney's campaign does not have "billionaire" donors. The entire thread is red herring as was your apples and oranges when you brought in the campaign donations as opposed to Super PAC donations and Super PACs are not tied to the campaigns by law. As to super donors, they lean heavily Democrat, not Republican.

Please read through the thread before you make comments like that. Here is an article entitled "Billionaire Romney donor uses threats to silence critics" that was posted in this thread.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/


If you watch something more than Fox News you'll know.

 

[evanrick]

The House passes budgets, not presidents. Reagan never had a Republican House, his budgets were always declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil. Reagan deficits averaged, 4.2%, Obama's are running at over twice that, 9%. Bush with a Republican House only deficits of 1.8% of GDP on average.

So yes, Pelosi's House blew the roof off spending.

Oh so Reagan started it Bush continued it?

You didnt mention how under clinton we ended up with a SURPLUS and that George Bush started our current slide into massive debt with tax cuts for the wealthy? Im glad they have suckers like you on their side, the certainly cant fend for themselves.

The economy made the debt and deficit under Obama as there was a stimulus amd extended tax cuts, but hey that doesnt matter, if you really want to look at history with such intellecutal dishonesty we can blame Bush for his incompetence before during and after 9-11 right? I mean, fair is fair?

 

[Kulindahr]

Interesting how the thread drifts to Nancy Pelosi and Chappaquiddick. Desperation by the right wing.

Pay better attention.

The C-issue was brought up in a request not to drag it in, and I made a joke about it.
THere's no way that rates as "Desperation by the right wing".

 

[evanrick]

As much as I hated Bush, it's historical fact that the recession started under the last years of the Clinton admin... Bill just had the luck to leave office before the dam really burst.

you mean the dot-com bust? that was nothing compared to the housing collapse or 9-11, both events took place under george bush. bush destroyed the surplus and didnt make things any better when he cut taxes on the super rich.

i think you argue for the sake of arguing. everyone is guilty in your eyes, nobody is good enough, the status quo works for you, so why should you embrace any ideas at all?