Obama '08?

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

So, would it be wrong, in your mind, for Willard ("Mitt") Romney to fund a conservative think tank or a conservative information center?

That would actually be nice, but he doesn't need to, we already have some good organizations, example the Heritage Foundation. Even if Romney did, at least it would be by somebody other than Soros, who was not even born in this country, plus he is a convicted criminal of insider trading in France.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-soros.1974397.html
"PARIS — The highest court in France on Wednesday rejected a bid by George Soros, the billionaire investor, to overturn a conviction for insider trading in a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career."

3 Replies

@okie,

Oh! Is Soros running for office?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

He might as well be. After all, he thinks he should own the Democratic Party, after all he paid for it.

And right now Obama is out lying about foreign donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funding campaign ads, and he got the information from one of the organizations helped started by Soros. By the way, I used to be a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I believe they are far better than most of the radical liberal organizations like Soros started. I can tell you my membership dues were not foreign, which is something even Obama cannot claim for his campaign donations. We will never see a serious investigation of that corruption, because Obama and his buddies will prevent justice.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

He might as well be. After all, he thinks he should own the Democratic Party, after all he paid for it.

You could say the exact same for Mellon-Scaife and the Koch brothers, on the right side of things. Yet you never mention them once, despite the fact that they actively and regularly spend millions to fund your party.

Quote:

And right now Obama is out lying about foreign donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funding campaign ads, and he got the information from one of the organizations helped started by Soros

How is he lying? Be specific. The Chamber of Commerce takes money from foreign businesses and governments and uses that money to fund attack ads against Democrats. The new Citizens United decision by the Conservative SC allows them to do this in secret without ever revealing where the money is coming form. Where's the lie, exactly?

Quote:

By the way, I used to be a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I believe they are far better than most of the radical liberal organizations like Soros started. I can tell you my membership dues were not foreign, which is something even Obama cannot claim for his campaign donations. We will never see a serious investigation of that corruption, because Obama and his buddies will prevent justice.

Oh, you believe that groups which support your cause are better than those which support the other guys' cause?

Somebody stop the ******* presses!

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

... Soros, who was not even born in this country, plus he is a convicted criminal of insider trading in France.

That ruling will be reviewed by the European Court of Human Rights.

0 Replies

@okie,

What do you mean, "he may as well be?"

You don't understand US election laws do you? How does "pay for it" become electable donor?

In California, Whitman has contributed over $119 million to her own campaign. Do you think her money makes her electable, or that she will win?

Where did you learn American history? Or better yet, I doubt you've learned anything in school worth the cost. You are one confused dude, who doesn't understand balance or critical thinking.

0 Replies

Here is a good commentary on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce campaign ads and foreign money accusations by Obama and the Democrats. It pretty much exposes the Democrats hypocrisy, which many of us are very informed on. I post the whole thing because I think this is highly pertenent and informative. It seems to me that even Mother Jones recognizes Democratic Party hypocrisy here.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/10/us-chamber-of-commerce-foreign-money
"Democrats, including the president, spent the weekend ramping up their attacks on the US Chamber of Commerce, the big business lobbying group that's spending tens of millions of dollars of corporate money to elect Republicans this election cycle. But the Democrats, as usual, are missing the point. Instead of focusing on the plain facts—that big corporations make huge, secret, unregulated donations to the chamber to elect Republicans and evade accountability for it—the Dems are seizing on the idea, first explained in a ThinkProgress report, that some of the money is coming from overseas. Foreign companies that have US subsidiaries can participate in US politics, but the companies themselves cannot. So the legal experts ThinkProgress spoke to suggested that "the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections."

Mother Jones has criticized the Chamber's pratices in the past (see our full coverage here), but, in this case, there are a number of problems with the Dems' "foreign money" attacks. If the Chamber is indeed funelling foreign money into campaigns (and that remains an open question), it's a relatively small amount—perhaps several hundred thousand dollars. That's a tiny percentage of the Chamber's overall ad spending—the group aims to spend $75 million this cycle. But there's also an accounting issue here. Kevin Drum hinted at this in a post this weekend, when he asked whether foreign donations to the Chamber go into the group's general fund. The Chamber has said that it has a "system in place" to prevent foreign money from being used to fund political ads. It has also said that "No foreign money...is used to fund political activities." That's pretty explicit, and it suggests that the Chamber almost certainly has some sort of accounting scheme in place to segregate funds from foreign and domestic sources.

ThinkProgress has suggested that such accounting tricks don't matter, because money is fungible. The idea is that every dollar the Chamber gets from foreign sources and uses to say, pay salaries, represents a domestic dollar that doesn't have to be spent on salaries—and can therefore be used for attack ads. But I remember the health care debate, when almost everyone on the Left was singing a very different tune about the fungibility of money. Back in February, Republicans were attacking Democrats for the "accounting gimmick" in the health care bill that allowed Dems to claim the bill didn't pay for abortions. (Here's the Center for American Progress Action Fund's Jessica Arons, blogging on WonkRoom, ThinkProgress' sister blog, back in February.) Basically, under the Nelson amendment (and current law), people who want to buy health plans that include abortion coverage will have to write two separate checks—one to cover the bulk of the policy and another to cover abortion and related services. But some of those folks will be receiving subsidies for their insurance from the government. That's where the accounting gimmick comes in—the "abortion check" will have to come entirely from the customer's own funds. If you believe in the absolute fungibility of money, that's a ridiculous distinction. But it's the distinction that the White House and Democrats relied on to claim that the bill wouldn't fund abortion. The Stupak amendment, of course, relied on a similar "accounting gimmick"—separate policies as opposed to separate checks.

Here's the point: people believe in "accounting gimmicks." They're used in politics (and business) all the time. They're even used in non-profits: the Center for American Progress, which is organized under section 501(c)3 of the tax code, shares staff with its sister organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

If Democrats really want to criticize the Chamber of Commerce, they should stop harping on accounting and focus on the larger issue: the vast sums of money that domestic corporations are spending, without any disclosure or accountability. It's easy to pick on scary foreigners. But if Democrats don't want to get buried under a tidal wave of corporate cash, they're going to have to toughen up and focus their criticisms on the US-based companies that are trying to take them out. If Dems don't have the stomach for that, they had better get used to the new landscape."

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, It's not necessary to bold your post; it hasn't increase meaning when you do. The whole article by Mother Jones doesn't say anything new about American elections. What's your point?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Here is my point, and the point of the Mother Jones article as it relates to this U.S. Chamber of Commerce issue, if you care to understand it. I think it is an important point to understand, whether you do or not.

The point is that political groups and other organizations use accounting methods to supposedly direct certain funds to certain expenditures. For example, if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a minor percentage of membership dues that come from foreign businesses that operate in the United States, they apparently separate those funds out from the dues that come from domestic businesses, so that the books will show that the campaign ads are funded from the domestic businesses. It is an accounting method that is used commonly throughout many organizations.

I can cite you an example from personal experience many years ago. When I worked for a major corporation, it was standard practice for the company to participate in United Way, which I am sure you are aware consists of many charities. There was even a little bit of arm twisting done on employees, because the corporation wanted to be able to boast of their charitable participation in the community. Since some of the charities I was not familiar with, plus I knew of some that I actually found a problem with their mission, the United Way set it up so that we could supposedly specify which charity we preferred to direct our donations. So I happened to like the program, Meals on Wheels, because I knew of some people that received its service, plus I thought it was and is a very good charity that does good work. However, it was common knowledge, even pointed out to us when I asked how do I know that is where the money goes, that it was mainly an accounting method to show the money is directed to Meals on Wheels. I think the smooth operation of United Way depended upon the fact that not everyone specified a charity, and if they did - that it would not be the same one charity to direct the money, so that the allocations could be done in a reasonable manner as they wanted to do.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How is he lying? Be specific. The Chamber of Commerce takes money from foreign businesses and governments and uses that money to fund attack ads against Democrats. Cycloptichorn

The money from foreign businesses is not used to fund the ads. Accounting methods can keep track of the money, where it comes from and where it goes. This is common practice for many organizations. Read the Mother Jones article that I posted.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How is he lying? Be specific. The Chamber of Commerce takes money from foreign businesses and governments and uses that money to fund attack ads against Democrats. Cycloptichorn

The money from foreign businesses is not used to fund the ads. Accounting methods can keep track of the money, where it comes from and where it goes. This is common practice for many organizations. Read the Mother Jones article that I posted.

Money is Fungible; money that is used to pay for bills, so that other monies are freed up for attack ads, is money that is used to pay for attack ads. It's just a trick to pretend otherwise, and the Mother Jones article makes that perfectly clear.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

When are you going to act like a man in his late 60s rather than like a six-year old?

Apologize to you?! What a git.

You think my posts are inane because they are in standard English, a language you don't understand.

0 Replies

@okie,

So Romney can donate money to causes and to information services but George Soros can not. Wow! I guess you are a right-wing totalitarian, dictating the lives of others.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

He might as well be. After all, he thinks he should own the Democratic Party, after all he paid for it.

Is George Soros really Emmanuel Goldstein?

Do you check under your bed each night to see if George Soros is hiding there?

Who needs Letterman and Ferguson and Stewart when we can just turn to a2k and read okie? I was laughing out loud over this gem!

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

f you care to understand it

Stop talking down to people. You are a rude little git who fails to remember his own posts and yet you go around like a crown prince, demanding apologies for things you don't understand.

This tone of yours -- this permanent expression of "I am superior to all of you" -- is ridiculous. You are a pompous, disrespectful git.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Plainoldme, stop talking down to people. You are a rude little girl who fails to remember her own posts and yet you go around like a crown princess, demanding apologies for things you don't understand.

This tone of yours -- this permanent expression of "I am superior to all of you" -- is ridiculous. You are a pompous, disrespectful girl.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
f you care to understand it

Stop talking down to people. You are a rude little git who fails to remember his own posts and yet you go around like a crown prince, demanding apologies for things you don't understand.

This tone of yours -- this permanent expression of "I am superior to all of you" -- is ridiculous. You are a pompous, disrespectful git.

Another example of projection from the master.

0 Replies

Quote:

WE MUST ALL STAY TUNED IN AND ON TOP OF H.R. 2378" --(AND WATCH OUT FOR LAME DUCK SESSION, AFTER NOV.2 ELECTION, TOO!)! -dp

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. - http://blog.heritage.org -
Morning Bell: The Protectionist Threat of Another Great Depression
Posted By Conn Carroll On September 29, 2010 @ 9:21 am In American Leadership | 10 Comments

A financial bubble fueled by easy money and loose credit bursts. Unemployment shoots up, and gross domestic product falls sharply. Some in the U.S. Congress blame foreigners for unfair trade practices and pass a trade bill that prompts widespread retaliation, exacerbates the popping of the bubble, and sends the country into further economic trouble. That is what happened with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 [1], the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 [2] and the Great Depression [3]. Americans might hope our leaders would learn from our past mistakes. But the leftist majority in Congress, aided by some misguided members of the minority, is trying to repeat this terrible history.

At issue is H.R. 2378 or the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. The bill would grant new powers to the Obama administration, allowing them to raise tariffs on imports if the Commerce Department determines that an exporting country is manipulating its currency. Its not known what President Obama would do should this bill hit his desk. A real leader would let it be known loud and clear that it faces certain veto. The protectionist proponents of this bill believe that Chinese currency manipulation is artificially lowering the price of Chinese goods imported into the United States while inflating the price of U.S.-made exports. In 1930, the protectionists thought they could help American manufacturers by punishing foreigners. They were tragically wrong. The same misguided logic is being applied to China now. Heritage Foundation Research Fellow Derek Scissors explains [4] why higher tariffs on Chinese imports would not help the U.S. economy:
Applying duties to Chinese goods would not suddenly make the American textile, toy, furniture, or even computer-assembly industries globally competitive, and these are the primary imports from the PRC. Globalization means the U.S can punish China, but it cannot simply turn Chinese losses into American gains.

The Congressional Budget Office certified this analysis yesterday when it released a report showing that the new tariffs would raise only $20 million a year compared to the more than $1 billion a day in trade the United States does with China. The reason [5]: “Many imports do not injure domestic firms because there are no competitors currently operating in the United States.”

But while raising tariffs on Chinese goods would have no economic benefit for the U.S. economy, it would definitely risk much wider economic harm. Morgan Stanley Asia chairman Stephen Roach warns in today’s New York Times [6]: “China could very well retaliate against American exporters, and buy goods from elsewhere (a worrisome development in what is now America’s third-largest export market).” And former U.S. trade official Timothy Stratford tells Bloomberg [7]: “This step would make it harder for us to export to China, not easier.”

China is no angel here. Its June announcement of an end to the dollar peg was fraudulent, and the exchange rate is only one part of China’s non-cooperative policy [8]. And the mainstream media is just beginning to notice [9] that the country’s Communist Party has been exercising more and more state control over the economy. But then again, so has our government with massive bank bailouts, government ownership of car companies, and a government takeover of the health care sector. Our answer to China must not be, cannot be, to become more like China.

Instead of going down a path toward protectionism and yet more government control of our economy, we must return to our nation’s strengths: free trade, the rule of law and a commitment to free enterprise. We must make the United States a better place to do business. Cutting the corporate tax rate, reducing government involvement in commercial decision making [10], reining-in runaway spending and deficits [11], freeing our businesses from red tape [12], and unleashing our natural resources to meet our energy needs [13]: this is what Congress should be doing to return us to economic prosperity.

Quick Hits:
• Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has notified customers that it will drop its Medicare Advantage health insurance program [14] at the end of the year due to Obamacare cuts to Medicare.
• According to a new Wall Street Journal poll [15], 54% of voters want to repeal Obamacare.
• From amnesty to energy taxes, the leftist majority in Congress is planning to pass as many as 20 bills in the lame duck Congress [16].
• The FBI and the U.S. Labor Department are investigating former SEIU president and current President Obama Deficit Reduction Commission member Andy Stern [17] as part of a corruption probe.
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) will speak at The Heritage Foundation today at 10 AM [18] EDT about the dangers of the Obama tax hikes [19].
________________________________________
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/29/morning-bell-the-protectionist-threat-of-another-great-depression/
URLs in this post:
[1] Wall Street Crash of 1929: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tuesday
[2] Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
[3] Great Depression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
[4] explains: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/targeting-the-yuan-a-feel-good-but-futile-response
[5] The reason: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-29/china-currency-bill-to-have-limited-impact-u-s-agency-reports.html
[6] New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/opinion/29roach.html?ref=todayspaper
[7] Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/yuan-legislation-in-u-s-congress-may-prompt-retaliation-businesses-say.html
[8] Its June announcement of an end to the dollar peg was fraudulent, and the exchange rate is only one part of China’s non-cooperative policy: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/31/discovering-china%E2%80%99s-state-led-economy-years-late/
[9] just beginning to notice: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/20/chinas-not-so-new-currency-policy/
[10] Cutting the corporate tax rate, reducing government involvement in commercial decision making: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/Restoring-the-US-to-a-Free-Economy
[11] reining-in runaway spending and deficits: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/Reining-in-Runaway-Spending-and-Deficits
[12] freeing our businesses from red tape: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/The-Rising-Tide-of-Red-Tape
[13] unleashing our natural resources to meet our energy needs: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/Meeting-America-s-Energy-and-Environmental-Needs
[14] will drop its Medicare Advantage health insurance program: http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/09/28/harvard_pilgrim_cancels_medicare_advantage_plan/?camp=localsearch:on:twit:rtbutton
[15] new Wall Street Journal poll: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCPoll09282010.pdf
[16] 20 bills in the lame duck Congress: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/121223-dems-stuff-lame-duck
[17] former SEIU president and current President Obama Deficit Reduction Commission member Andy Stern: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gysT1InVxATL1alVOEzUFRXSltPQD9IGVB000?docId=D9IGVB000
[18] speak at The Heritage Foundation today at 10 AM: http://www.heritage.org/Events/2010/09/Ben-Nelson
[19] the dangers of the Obama tax hikes: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Obama-Tax-Hikes-The-Economic-and-Fiscal-Effects
Copyright © 2008 The Heritage Foundation.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, Thanks for the lesson, but I already know all that! You see, I try to keep abreast of political news, and I have worked in management and volunteered for several nonprofit organization's boards during my work life.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So, I take it then that you agree that Obama was and is lying about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I am glad you are intellectually honest enough to admit that, and I hope also that you realize he is the guy you voted for. I hope you try to redeem yourself just a little bit this fall.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know