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.
The funds that are being thrown at this election are eye-popping in magnitude. The Center for Responsive Politics has estimated that total cost of the 2012 elections could approach $6 billion. Now in this economic climate that's alot of money.
Now given that no candidate for the Presidency of the United States can realistically run without the approval of the biggest financial sector fundraisers why waste all this money on a brand of democacy that is determined by the whims of the fundraisers anyway?
Both candidates have to appease their corporate benefactors. Both cndidates will have been lobbied and lobbied again until (like Bill Clinton repealing the Glass Seagal Act in 1999) they agree to promote a palatable agenda for the conglomerates of corporate finance.
Given this criteria for even standing in an American election I would like to know whether or not it might be better to have a Donald Trump style boardroom television series instead where ruthless, cut-throat candidates can squirm and squeal in the boardroom and eventually deliver that sparkling speech that will encapsulate the American dream.
Think about it. Both parties could agree to invest $6 billion dollars in the economy instead and the whole election could just hinge upon three or four live debates where the public could phone in and generate even more revenue streams for the United States. Look at how Romney has bounced into the lead in the polls after one debate.
This proves one thing, that up until now, no-one was really listening and all those billions squandered thus far have been a waste of time. So just amend the constitution to abide by these terms and instead of $6 million squandered on cheesy soundbites and the usual hyperbole you may actually get more investment rather than the same broken promises and preactically the same agenda whoever wins.
This would make America a fully privatised state. We keep hearing that businessmen make the best Presidents so why not cut out the middle man? Just let the businesses run America? And get the popcorn out and see who we think is best in a live televised confrontation? Who are the American people to interfere with market orthodoxy anyway?
Why not let the business community decide and be done with it?
Last edited by Fear&Whiskey; 10-14-2012 at 08:04 AM..
The funds that are being thrown at this election are eye-popping in magnitude. The Center for Responsive Politics has estimated that total cost of the 2012 elections could approach $6 billion. Now in this economic climate that's alot of money.
Now given that no candidate for the Presidency of the United States can realistically run without the approval of the biggest financial sector fundraisers why waste all this money on a brand of democacy that is determined by the whims of the fundraisers anyway?
Both candidates have to appease their corporate benefactors. Both cndidates will have been lobbied and lobbied again until (like Bill Clinton repealing the Glass Seagal Act in 1999) they agree to promote a palatable agenda for the conglomerates of corporate finance.
Given this criteria for even standing in an American election I would like to know whether or not it might be better to have a Donald Trump style boardroom television series instead where ruthless, cut-throat candidates can squirm and squeal in the boardroom and eventually deliver that sparkling speech that will encapsulate the American dream.
Think about it. Both parties could agree to invest $6 billion dollars in the economy instead and the whole election could just hinge upon three or four live debates where the public could phone in and generate even more revenue streams for the United States. Look at how Romney has bounced into the lead in the polls after one debate.
This proves one thing, that up until now, no-one was really listening and all those billions squandered thus far have been a waste of time. So just amend the constitution to abide by these terms and instead of $6 million squandered on cheesy soundbites and the usual hyperbole you may actually get more investment rather than the same broken promises and preactically the same agenda whoever wins.
This would make America a fully privatised state. We keep hearing that businessmen make the best Presidents so why not cut out the middle man? Just let the businesses run America? And get the popcorn out and see who we think is best in a live televised confrontation? Who are the American people to interfere with market orthodoxy anyway?
Why not let the business community decide and be done with it?
Actualy that money being spent does go into the economy. Where else would it go?
But it can be.
Every lobbyist who goes to DC and offers $$$ to any politician, the politician receiving the $$$ should put 10% into the US Government kitty, as a service fee. WT Heck, cable and phone companies charge service fees, so why not Uncle Sam?
This would make America a fully privatised state. We keep hearing that businessmen make the best Presidents so why not cut out the middle man? Just let the businesses run America? And get the orn out and see who we think is best in a live televised confrontation? Who are the American people to interfere with market orthodoxy anyway?
Why not let the business community decide and be done with it?
Is this the poppycock they teach in college these days? You really believe this garbage?
It's illegal to solicit contributions from foreigners, but citizens of China, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Egypt have received emails seeking donations to President Barack Obama's campaign, according to the Government Accountability Institute, a private think tank.
Shanghai-based Obama.com is the largest of "thousands" of foreign websites which link to President Obama's official site. It's owned by Robert Roche, a businessman with ties to the Chinese government
Actualy that money being spent does go into the economy. Where else would it go?
Of course it does but it is not going towards economic growth or investment in America's future and that is the fundamental point surely?
Politicians are always talking about tightening th epurse strings, "thrift" and expediancy but at a time when America is struggling isn't it rather telling that election campaigns are wasting record amounts of money?
This only proves the fact that there is no shortage of assets or wealth in America but a lack of planning, organisation and re-investment when it comes to improving American and fuelling growth in the future.
Election campaigns for American politicians wouldn't be my priority and the fact that election campaigns are one of the few pointless sectors of the economy that appear to activate the hugre reserves of America's corporations only proves how futile this whole process is.
If the financial sector can afford to lavish billions on the campaign trail then surely it can afford to service its own debt. Even Hayek would agree with that or are you one of those Americans who believe it is the American taxpayer's role to bail out "too big to fail" corporations.
The only one who adhered to that morality was Harry Truman.
Most of the ones you've had, go in at one level of wealth and come out a whole lot wealthier with boards of directorships coming out their whazoos to thank them for favours while in office.
Hell; forget your average CEO. They're arguably as crooked as any politician.
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.
?
