View Full Version : GOP's funds outdo the the democtats
GOP Fundraising Outpaces Democrats
Aug 21 3:37 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/images/envelope.gif Email this story (http://www.breitbart.com/cgi/email_story.cgi) http://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
Republicans trying to hold onto the House raised $12.5 million in July, outpacing Democrats by a 3-to-1 margin but leaving the GOP just $1 million ahead in cash on hand.
The influx of money _ largely from political action committees (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22political+action+committees%22&sid=breitbart.com) _ gives Republicans a slight advantage more than two months before the November elections. Democrats hope to gain 15 seats to seize control of the House.
The NRCC has raised $70 million so far and has $34.1 million in the bank. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Democratic+Congressional+Campaign+Committee %22&sid=breitbart.com) raised $4.2 million in July, taking the group's total to $81 million this cycle and $33 million cash on hand.
"Our phenomenal fundraising in July is the product of our members' hard work and the support of Americans (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22support+of+Americans%22&sid=breitbart.com) who want leaders with a record of accomplishment and a positive vision moving forward," Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22National+Republican+Congressional+Committee %22&sid=breitbart.com), said in a statement. "It stands in sharp contrast to the Democrats, who spent the month of July raising dollars by exploiting the deaths of U.S. soldiers."
Democrats lagged behind Republicans by $6.4 million in July 2004, a gap it has narrowed to about $1 million this cycle. Most of the GOP's income _ $9 million of the $12.5 million _ came from political action committees.
"Americans demand change from the Republican status quo in Washington and they're speaking with their pocket books, in record numbers," said Bill Burton, a DCCC spokesman.
In the Senate, the Democrats' campaign organization enjoys a $14.5 million advantage in cash on hand. The party needs to gain six seats to win majority control (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22majority+control%22&sid=breitbart.com).
"The upshot is that we have the financial resources we are going need," said Phil Singer, a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman. "We can get our message out to voters."
The DSCC raised $4.2 million during July, outpacing its GOP counterpart's $3.3 million. It also raised $77.2 million so far this cycle and has $35.1 million in the bank.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22National+Republican+Senatorial+Committee%22&sid=breitbart.com) has raised $65.9 million this cycle and has $20.6 million on hand.
The National Republican Senatorial Campaign, meanwhile, said the national effort is only part of the midterm spending. "As of the end of the quarter, our incumbents they're targeting had a $24 million cash advantage," said committee spokesman Brian Nick. "We're right where we need to be."
http://img.breitbart.com/images/g_dot.gif
Boogyman
08-30-2006, 15:00
Nothing new there, Tri.
Republicans usually have most of the money. The top 1% of the richest people in the country who have benefited most from Bush's "tax cuts"...
Thanks for pointing this out, buddy! :lol:
Of course it id this way. As vile as the republicans are at destroying our freedom they are not nearly as adept at destroying prosperity as democrats.(They are catching up fast though) So naturally their base is more afluent.
Who can better afford to donate money to their keepers, the crack whore on welfare or the businessman?
Disclaimer.
Not all crack whores are democrats,Not all democrats are crack whores.
Not all republicans are business men,not all businessmen are republicans.
ice-nine
08-30-2006, 15:33
The top 1% of the richest people in the country who have benefited most from Bush's "tax cuts"...
The Top 1% of earners pay 34.27% of all Federal income Tax
The top 50% of earners pay 96.54% of the Federal Income Tax.
if you don't contribute, how can you get a reduction?
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Who can better afford to donate money to their keepers, the crack whore on welfare or the businessman?
Disclaimer.
Not all crack whores are democrats,Not all democrats are crack whores.
Not all republicans are business men,not all businessmen are republicans.
And not all businessmen benefit from lobbying for corporate welfare,
and other legislation that favors one group of persons over another,
but many do.
After all, isn't all the EPA really does is regulate how much one group of persons can profit off of activity that results in poisons entering into another group of persons' air, water, food, and soil?
If you can make enough from a polluting activity to sufficiently reward enough members of congress, it almost doesn't matter how much harm your activities do to those that have no say in the matter - that is, insufficient funds with which to counterlobby. This is where groups like the Sierra Club come in, citizens pooling resources to at least try to slow the rate of contamination of the country. The fact that they should have to do this in the first place is manifest evidence of a gross injustice.
The time passed decades ago for the laws to be changed with regards to all this. There was a time when if a region was hopelessly polluted or stripped of resources, people could just move on. But the frontier closed over a hundred years ago, and now the time has definitely come for a new approach to protecting common resources.
cowboy117
08-30-2006, 16:41
http://markarose.com/rightminded/rich_democrats.htm Dems are rich too[not a bad thing]My advise:be rich.You have to pay more taxes,but you can have more fun with large bucks.Plus,the women atracted to you are prettier[by and large].:rolleyes:[Bill Clinton excepted]Can you say Monica?Hillary?:o
Boogyman
08-30-2006, 16:49
The Top 1% of earners pay 34.27% of all Federal income Tax
The richest 1% of households own 38 percent of all wealth.
Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich
A new study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children’s Defense Fund reveals for the first time who stands to benefit from the 2001-enacted Bush tax cuts in each year from 2001 through 2010. Among the key findings:
Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.
For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place.
Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
Boogyman
08-30-2006, 16:57
Wealthy Taxpayers Bank on Bush
Holly Sklar
It would take 17 Donald Trumps to match the $43 billion net worth of investor guru Warren Buffett, the world’s second richest man. When it comes to federal taxes, though, Buffett pays about the same rate as his office receptionist.
“I pay a somewhat higher [federal tax] rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does,” Buffett wrote last year, “But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.”
If President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy keep moving forward, the receptionist will pay a higher overall tax rate than her boss. She already pays a higher rate in state and local taxes. In Nebraska, home of Buffett’s firm, Berkshire Hathaway, the richest 1 percent of families effectively paid 6.4 percent of their income in state and local taxes in 2002, the middle 20 percent of families paid 9.8 percent and the bottom 20 percent paid 10.2 percent,reports the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
http://www.ms.foundation.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=186
Boogyman
08-30-2006, 17:04
The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest
An Interview with Edward Wolff
Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.
Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff: Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.
MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff: Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.
Wealth — strictly financial savings — provides security to individuals in the event of sickness, job loss or marital separation. Assets provide a kind of safety blanket that people can rely on in case their income gets interrupted.
Wealth is also more directly related to political power. People who have large amounts of wealth can make political contributions. In some cases, they can use that money to run for office themselves, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
MM: What are the best sources for information on wealth?
Wolff: The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, where interviewers ask households, from a very detailed form, about the assets they own, and the kinds of debts and other liabilities they have run up. Household surveys provide the main source of information on wealth distribution.
Of these household surveys — there are now about five or six surveys that ask wealth questions in the United States — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.
They have a special supplement sample that they rely on to provide information about high income households. Wealth turns out to be highly skewed, so that a very small proportion of families owns a very large share of total wealth. Most surveys miss these families. But the Survey of Consumer Finances uses information provided by the Internal Revenue Service to construct a special supplemental sample on high income households, so they can zero in on the high wealth holders.
MM: How do economists measure levels of equality and inequality?
Wolff: The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
"The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists - they are too damn greedy." -- Herbert Hoover, President of the US at the time of the beginning of the Great Depression
Why are there so many apologists for economic policies that ultimately only benefit a tiny minority? I'm not talking about wealth redistribution here, but about stacking the deck. It seems there are two ways this happens. One is that many think they or their children will enter the ranks of those that do benefit. Some of these aren't mathematically literate, or they're desperate, and play the lottery. Others are entrepreneurs or professionals, and some of these do make it, but the odds aren't that much better than the high school basketball player with aspirations of going pro. The reality is that there is, for the most part, a hereditary aristocracy of wealth, not only in the rest of the world, but in this country too. They have centuries of experience at manipulating politicians, religious leaders, militaries and paramilitaries, and no matter what catastrophes sweep nations and regions, they, for the most part, come out on top. Rare exceptions such as the French and Russian revolutions are the one phenomena that rightly terrify them, and so to this day demonization of those behind those events infuses our culture. The elite have a great deal of control over the media, and therefor over what constitutes our culture, and they will do anything to make sure such events never occur again. To them, that is.
While ordinary people too sufferred greatly during revolutions, particularly communist ones (even more in many cases since they couldn't get out as readily), it would behoove those in today's dwindling middle class to remember that it was precisely the worsening conditions of the lower classes that provoked those social explosions in the first place. And the middle classes today are by far the easiest targets for any enraged group. That the global elite continue to pursue policies designed to feed their own insatiable greed with seemingly no regard whatsoever for its impact on the rest of the world should be cause for a political revolution in this country, before it is too late. Globalization has been sold to everyone on the basis that it would raise all boats, and it has the potential to do just that. However, because many of the most vocal propenents of globalization lie about their real intentions, conditions for workers outside the US are, on the whole, not improving, except in isolated cases, which are used as showpieces for globalization but are not the norm. Instead, globalization has only widened the gulf between rich and poor, exacerbating tensions between those groups yet also bringing them in closer proximity - with the exception of those that can afford private jets and gated compounds. They won't be the ones torn from limb to limb during the next riot or insurrection. It will be the poor, squeezed middle classes.
If folks can't be persuaded to vote for politicians that will promote policies that try to help all the world's people to be able to live better lives because it is the right thing to do, perhaps I can at least help persuade people that doing so is in the interest of the American middle class and our children and grandchildren. I really do believe this is so, and that the facts back this belief up.
what is wrong with being wealthy? I work toward that cobstantly. But Im nowhere close yet.
cut taxes and I may make it someday.
what is wrong with being wealthy? I work toward that cobstantly. But Im nowhere close yet.
cut taxes and I may make it someday.
Do you view wealth in solely financial terms, or in terms of overall quality of life? Because if it's also the latter, you might want to think more about what kind of society and future the economic policies today's GOP (and Clintonian Democrats too) are bringing about. What about the balance of trade with China? What about the national debt? What about conditions south of the border that exert pressures that assure that no matter what we do on the border, illegal immigrants will continue to cross the borders? What about the multinational corporations' race to the bottom, where poor nations compete to see who can offer the most inviting workforce, that is, which local elite will enforce no labor or environmental laws whatsoever? What kind of world is that resulting in? Can American workers ever hope to be able to produce goods at those costs? Will we finally have to agree to scrap all labor and environmental laws here in order to compete with countries like China, which barely enforces theirs? And finally, by what right does a company pollute the air, water, food and soil that others have no choice whatsoever but to rely upon in order to live?
ice-nine
08-31-2006, 09:49
what is wrong with being wealthy? I work toward that cobstantly. But Im nowhere close yet.
cut taxes and I may make it someday.
It is called envy. Everyone knows how to spend your money better than you do.
If people don’t think the Government has enough money they can always send theirs in;
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Neither of you appear to see the big picture here.
Maybe you do, but those last posts don't show it.
Neither of you appear to see the big picture here.
Maybe you do, but those last posts don't show it.
I see the big picture quite well. I am being robbed. The money stolen from me at gunpoint is used to enslave me and prop up my enemies.
Do you view wealth in solely financial terms, or in terms of overall quality of life?
Good question.
Wealth is strictly monetary. Happiness,fulfillment and overalll quality of life involve a lot more.
if it's also the latter, you might want to think more about what kind of society and future the economic policies today's GOP (and Clintonian Democrats too) are bringing about.
I am well aware of what lunacy our economic policies are bringing about.
It is much easier to conquer people economically than militarily. This is the goal of the economic policies practiced by both parties.
Reagan was better than current politicians but being better is not good enough.
What about conditions south of the border that exert pressures that assure that no matter what we do on the border, illegal immigrants will continue to cross the borders?
I have said numerous times the only place nation building may have a legitimate use is in Mexico and Cuba. In order to bring about prosperity in these countries.Once they are prosperous and free the burden will be partially lifted from the U.S.
Freedom and liberty always bring about prosperity.
Can American workers ever hope to be able to produce goods at those costs?
Maybe not quite as low. But if taxes were cut,unions busted,frivolous lawsuits stopped and overall fiscal responsibility practiced goods would not have to be as cheap for Americans to be competitive.
Will we finally have to agree to scrap all labor and environmental laws here in order to compete with countries like China, which barely enforces theirs?
No. But Many labor laws are overly costly and plainly ridiculous.
Same with environmental laws.
Lets be responsible conservationists instead of pasiing economically devestating overly restrictive environmental laws.
lets encourage cleaner economic activity not stifle all economic activity.
And finally, by what right does a company pollute the air, water, food and soil that others have no choice whatsoever but to rely upon in order to live?
I guess it depends what you consider polution. I had a lunatic tell me humans should all be killed because our very breathing is destroying the earth.
I see the big picture quite well. I am being robbed. The money stolen from me at gunpoint is used to enslave me and prop up my enemies.
Isn't that just a bit overstated?
But if taxes were cut,unions busted,frivolous lawsuits stopped and overall fiscal responsibility practiced goods would not have to be as cheap for Americans to be competitive.
Business persons have the legal right to band together to form corporations, yet you would deny workers the exact same right? I thought you were opposed to the expedient in favor of principles?
Many labor laws are overly costly and plainly ridiculous.
Such as?
Same with environmental laws.
Lets be responsible conservationists instead of pasiing economically devestating overly restrictive environmental laws.
What environmental laws would you like to see cut? I can guess the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be one, so let's stipulate that will be turned over to the oil companies and exhausted soon enough (and then what?) -- but what other environmental laws would you like to see revoked?
lets encourage cleaner economic activity not stifle all economic activity.
Sounds like one of those oil company ads seen on the editorial pages of many newspapers. Perfectly meaningless.
I had a lunatic tell me humans should all be killed because our very breathing is destroying the earth.
We need a strawman smilie.
Isn't that just a bit overstated?
No.
Business persons have the legal right to band together to form corporations, yet you would deny workers the exact same right? I thought you were opposed to the expedient in favor of principles?
I am for principle. The individual gets paid what he earns. With a union contract the lazy workers reap the benefits the best workers earn.
Such as?
The majoriy of osha regs.Minimum wage laws,PA's ridiculous idea of workmans comp etc.
What environmental laws would you like to see cut? I can guess the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be one, so let's stipulate that will be turned over to the oil companies and exhausted soon enough (and then what?) -- but what other environmental laws would you like to see revoked?
Anything that stifles economic activity.We have the resources and technology to be responsible with the environment without going back to the dark ages.
Look at the idiotic restrictions on oil refineries or the logging stopped because of a spotted owl or even the hydro electric plants thwarted because there will be an increase in water temperature.
Sounds like one of those oil company ads seen on the editorial pages of many newspapers. Perfectly meaningless.
It is very meaningful actually. Look at the lunacy of kyoto. That is a perfect example of stifling economic activity. The goal should be to raise the quality of life by protecting the environment. The only reason this country can afford to work for a cleaner environment is because industry has been prosperous.
We need a strawman smilie. Over my head. Guess you will have to explain that one to me.
No.
Aw come on. You're being "robbed at gunpoint and enslaved"? I'd say you're being overly dramatic, and not only that, trivializing the ordeals of those that really have been enslaved and robbed at gunpoint.
I am for principle. The individual gets paid what he earns. With a union contract the lazy workers reap the benefits the best workers earn.
Nonsense. Lazy workers make what productive workers make whether unionized or not. Unionization not only levels the bargaining table with management, it is the natural right of free workers to associate for their mutual benefit. You advocated "busting unions." To be consistent, you would also have to advocate ending corporations.
The majoriy of osha regs.Minimum wage laws,PA's ridiculous idea of workmans comp etc.
Those are merely in place as band aids. FDR's administration realized during the Great Depression that the capitalist system itself was at risk, and managed to get congress to pass legislation ameliorating some of the more obvious hardships and miseries of the working classes. That's my take on why many of these laws are on the books, and still are. In some ways, though, I think they actually enable the system as a whole to remain fundamentally tilted in favor of employers, by design, of course. The advantage of mixed economies is in their pragmatism; by reacting to the most vocal complaints, the "squeaky wheels," they can remain functional without the upheavals that characterized so much of the 19th century. Workers can at least count on some safety net, and employers don't have as much to fear from disgruntled or angry workers. Instead, in this type of system, workers tend to keep each other in line. It's brilliant, really, and corporate America is being very shortsighted by removing the safety net themselves and encouraging the Bush administration to dismantle legislation that protects workers. An example of this is the looting by greedy executives of pension funds. CEO's get tens of millions, while retirees get the shaft. The importance of legislation is that it prevents unscrupulous companies from getting a competitive advantage over those that treat employees decently. If current trends continue, as I expect them too, I predict civil unrest within our lifetime. That's not good for business, nor is it good for anyone just trying to live and raise a family.
Anything that stifles economic activity.
There's more to quality of life than "economic activity." Much more.
We have the resources and technology to be responsible with the environment without going back to the dark ages.
True. With the science and technological know-how at our disposal today we could be working towards a veritable science fiction utopia; instead, we continue to burn through resources like it's the 19th century.
Since Republicans dominate the political and corporate realms, and Republicans can't seem to bring themselves to disavow Ann Coulter, it only seems fitting to quote that "conservative commentator" in support of the view that, when it comes to the environment, mainstream America is moving in the wrong direction:
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet--it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view."
That heretical misrepresentation isn't the Biblical view at all, it's the road to hell on earth.
Look at the idiotic restrictions on oil refineries or the logging stopped because of a spotted owl or even the hydro electric plants thwarted because there will be an increase in water temperature.
Environmental changes that affect spotted owls also affect other wildlife too. It's all interconnected. And increases in water temperature change the entire ecosystem of lakes and rivers. Yet you seem to think these are trivial, and to try to avoid screwing natural systems up is pointless. Needless to say, I think you're seriously mistaken AND your priorities are all wrong.
Look at the lunacy of kyoto.
Bush claimed the Kyoto treaty was unfair. Yet, the United States has been an industrial powerhouse for almost a century and a half, and continues to be by far the world's greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses. That means that the United States is more responsible than any other nation for the problem that already exists. It is only "fair" that any international treaty give some lattitude to developing nations. We really do need to get China and India in particular on board for some kind of agreement, or else in the coming decades their output of hydrocarbons could dwarf even ours. Yet Bush couldn't be bothered to develop a counteroffer to Kyoto. He wouldn't even admit there's a problem at all. He's staggeringly irresponsible, and the entire world is going to pay the price for it. Watch and see, the US is going to be blamed when global warming really kicks in, and in some ways that blame will be warranted. It didn't have to be that way. Bush really is at fault here, because he had the option of doing some hardball negotiating, and instead he simply punted that urgent matter to the next administration.
That is a perfect example of stifling economic activity.
It didn't need to be. As I just pointed out, Bush couldn't even be bothered to ask his EPA to develop an alternate plan to Kyoto.
The goal should be to raise the quality of life by protecting the environment.
In conjunction with everything else you've written, those are meaningless words. You don't actually appear to think anything should be done at all.
The only reason this country can afford to work for a cleaner environment is because industry has been prosperous.
Yet they don't tend, in general, to act. That is why legislation is required. I've asked you several times, and you still haven't answered, what gives any industrial firm the right to emit garbage into the air that floats indiscriminately into my and everyone else's lungs? They didn't get my permission to do that; they didn't get yours. They aren't offerring to compensate if we get cancer or emphysema from it.
Over my head. Guess you will have to explain that one to me.
When you write this:
"I had a lunatic tell me humans should all be killed because our very breathing is destroying the earth."
You are ducking out on taking any responsibility for formulating a point-of-view on environmental matters, by insinuating that those that are concerned about such things are lunatics. By standing up and then knocking down such an easy target, you avoid dealing with the real issues altogether.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.