Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd rather she spend her own money than be on the hook to the unions, trial lawyers and other special interests that Jerry will owe.
And for some odd reason, it didn't seem to bother the Left when Corzine spent $60 million of his own money to win in NJ. Why is that?
Will owe, he already owes them. How is he gonna payback his chronies if he doesn't win. Who can he throw under the bus next, another latina?
See the pattern of how he degrades women to achieve his political aspirations?
My problem is wondering what she is doing spending $140 million to win a job which pays a whopping $200,000 a year. Is she out of her mind?
Since she is a billionaire and her investments are tied with big business, my guess it it's not the governers salary she's concerned about- it's being in a position to protect the interests that serve her. Just a guess.
I have a hard time believing that a billionaire will be fighting to lower taxes for the middle class and providing services for the "less-thans" that she can't relate to.
I'd rather she spend her own money than be on the hook to the unions, trial lawyers and other special interests that Jerry will owe.
And for some odd reason, it didn't seem to bother the Left when Corzine spent $60 million of his own money to win in NJ. Why is that?
Not far off the mark. I read that to be elected on a national level the average spent is $35 million and a year of campaigning. That's what the dreams of the forebears has turned into. Think about it. They expected some locally elected official to volunteer their time and serve one term. The nitwits we've been electing have turned it into a lucrative career.
There should be spending limits in place. Spending THIS much money to get elected to (cough cough) serve the people is just obscene.
It is money that won't be coming out of the taxpayers' paycheck to "stimulate" the economy.
Afterall, she's running for the head of the state with the largest economy in the nation. In fact, California's GDP is nearly $2 Trillion, larger than most of the European country economies. Furthermore, she's running against a guy who has been on the public payroll for nearly half a century. She does have to purchase name recognition.
Not far off the mark. I read that to be elected on a national level the average spent is $35 million and a year of campaigning. That's what the dreams of the forebears has turned into. Think about it. They expected some locally elected official to volunteer their time and serve one term. The nitwits we've been electing have turned it into a lucrative career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opyelie
There should be spending limits in place. Spending THIS much money to get elected to (cough cough) serve the people is just obscene.
But......$750 Million to get elected is noooooooooo problem, right?
But......$750 Million to get elected is noooooooooo problem, right?
I'm not sure why you posted that comment in response to mine.
I think there should be spending limits in place for ALL politicians.......AND term limits for ALL.
As Melvin said, this was NOT how it was supposed to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
