New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say

You do realize that statements like this marginalize the good points you make in many of your posts, right?

I don't see this as a betrayal of trust. There were two things he simply didn't know in November that he knows now:


That he could raise almost half of his money in unbundled contributions of $200 or less.
That the primary would deeply fracture the Democrat party.

Public funding was instituted after the Watergate scandal (as was the FEC) to remove the appearance of corruption (or actual corruption) by minimizing the role of the big contributor. In the primary, Obama raised almost half of his funds from individual, non-bundled contributions of $200 or less. He didn't have "Rangers" grabbing $2300 from every CEO in Chicago and passing those on in a bundle to curry favor as his sole financial base. Accepting public funding doesn't do much to remove the appearance of a fat-cat pulling strings when you raise money this way.

As for the damage to the party during the primary, it's going to take a lot of money to right that ship.

I'm not sure either is sufficient by itself, but when considered together, I can't say I blame him. It also doesn't destroy his word.

It doesn't destroy his word, but it doesn't necessarily help the cause of all those who defend him by simply saying "He says he's going to bring about change." That's great, but what has he actually done? When you ask the supporters that, too many are left with a blank expression. Which is a shame, because there actually is some stuff (in the brief time he's been in public office) he has done. Seems to me though that several of his supporters can't say much beyond "Well he said..." And I suspect that's in large part due to the fact that a lot of his supporters are young, first-time voters who are just now becoming interested in politics and elections.

There's a lot at stake in this election, f'ck the fair play b.s. Public financing is a joke considering you have 527 groups doing all the dirty work for the candidates. So long as Obama is taking money from small donors and PAC money I'm OK with it. Anywho, this isn't a policy decision, it's a tactical and a smart one at that. Raise money from 1.5 million donors and implement a 50 state startagy. Can't fault the man wanting to win without cost.

You do realize that statements like this marginalize the good points you make in many of your posts, right?

I don't see this as a betrayal of trust. There were two things he simply didn't know in November that he knows now:


That he could raise almost half of his money in unbundled contributions of $200 or less.
That the primary would deeply fracture the Democrat party.
Public funding was instituted after the Watergate scandal (as was the FEC) to remove the appearance of corruption (or actual corruption) by minimizing the role of the big contributor. In the primary, Obama raised almost half of his funds from individual, non-bundled contributions of $200 or less. He didn't have "Rangers" grabbing $2300 from every CEO in Chicago and passing those on in a bundle to curry favor as his sole financial base. Accepting public funding doesn't do much to remove the appearance of a fat-cat pulling strings when you raise money this way.

As for the damage to the party during the primary, it's going to take a lot of money to right that ship.

I'm not sure either is sufficient by itself, but when considered together, I can't say I blame him. It also doesn't destroy his word.


The weakest argument is the one that says, "Whe he made the commitment to public financing he didn't know how much money he could raise." This is like saying, "When I married my wife, I didn't realize the twenty-two year old former cheerleader was going to move in next door".

I also find it interesting that everyone says that BHO will not be beholden to his contributors. I thought his contributors were all mom and pop salt of the earth types, so wouldn' he want to be beholden to them? The idea that Democratic givers are intrinsically more virtuous than Republican givers is an assumption the media is making that should probably be looked into.

In addition, Obama made the argument that he needs the money to head off GOP 527s at the pass. But the only 527 add I've seen, and I'm in a suppossed battleground area, is one run by AFSCME, the government workers union. So I guess Obama actually is using a form of "public financing". I pay taxes, which pay the buearacrats, which pays their union dues, which bought those adds. The add featured a woman with a baby and the woman telling McCain he couldn't have her baby for the war in Iraq. Apparently the consultants who wrote the add aren't aware that the draft was done away with in the early 70s. Totally over the top. Yet Obama will continue to play the victim.

The baby ad is from MoveOn.org and it's distasteful and stupid ad.

Sq30lapbC9c

I would like to add that even though there are no serious 527 groups attaching Obama now it doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. Also, at the request of Obama MoveOn.org has announced that they are shutting down it's 527 (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/20/moveon-officially-shutters-527/?mod=googlenews_wsj).

I see an error in your post. There, I fixed it for you.

:lol:

The weakest argument is the one that says, "Whe he made the commitment to public financing he didn't know how much money he could raise." This is like saying, "When I married my wife, I didn't realize the twenty-two year old former cheerleader was going to move in next door".
Geez - that completely misrepresents what I said. It's an absolutely valid argument, not to mention a strong one. If the goal is to avoid corruption, how does this fail to do that?


I also find it interesting that everyone says that BHO will not be beholden to his contributors. I thought his contributors were all mom and pop salt of the earth types, so wouldn' he want to be beholden to them? The idea that Democratic givers are intrinsically more virtuous than Republican givers is an assumption the media is making that should probably be looked into.
This is such a fundamentally flawed argument. It's not about being beholden to the interests of all of his contributors. It's about being beholden to the interests of a small percentage of his (or any politician's) contributors simply due to the size of their contribution (either directly or through bundling or other fundraising). That's not what is happening here.

In addition, Obama made the argument that he needs the money to head off GOP 527s at the pass.
I haven't heard this statement. This is the weakest argument by Obama - anyone with an ounce of foresight could see this coming, and, if it was a concern, he should not have made the pledge.

That said, the reasons I outlined above make this no worse than McCain's reversal on drilling (which I did not blast him for, either).

It doesn't destroy his word, but it doesn't necessarily help the cause of all those who defend him by simply saying "He says he's going to bring about change." That's great, but what has he actually done? When you ask the supporters that, too many are left with a blank expression. Which is a shame, because there actually is some stuff (in the brief time he's been in public office) he has done. Seems to me though that several of his supporters can't say much beyond "Well he said..." And I suspect that's in large part due to the fact that a lot of his supporters are young, first-time voters who are just now becoming interested in politics and elections.
Technically, this is change - nobody in the past 30 years has turned down public financing ;)

If you mean the "business as usual" of money in politics, then I see your point, although I don't think it extends to his general platform of looking into new approaches. Whether you agree with it or not, he's offered alternatives in foreign policy (meeting with leaders w/o preconditions) and domestic (elimanating the income tax for some, per above).

Of course, he also has very little record at the national level, so it's easy to demand examples that you know can't be delivered (I mean the royal "you", not you, personally, SS).

You could have made your point without editing my text. That's a bad road to start heading down.

True. While he's probably correct, Obama has proven to be especially untrustworthy, whether we're looking at his words or his judgement.

No shit, Bush and Co. really stunk up the joint. Taxes will have to be raised and belts will have to be tightened. Hopefully there will be fiscal discipline. I do love McCain's fuzzy plan though...continue the war, cut taxes, cut 100 billion dollars in pork even though 18 billion is spent on pork, and of course rely on American ingenuity to solve our problems.

Wow. What an intellectual argument. :D