Campaign contributions for 2010

[Askthepizzaguy]

As we're gearing up for yet another election cycle, political parties in the united states will be asking for your campaign contributions.

My reaction: -------> :laugh4:

I've been feeling slightly less than enthusiastic about these politicians lately, so I had a better idea. How about, instead of giving any candidate any campaign contributions, we tell them to go (expletive) themselves, and instead, we give to the Red Cross, or other charities. You know, with the whole Haiti situation going on.

I never give to any political party anyway. But how about people pledge how much money they aren't giving to politicians this year? We'll make it nice and fair. For every dollar not spent on republicans, maybe there will be a generous donor who will not spend a dollar on democrats. That way we won't handicap one party to benefit the other. How much money will you not give to politicians this year?

I don't see too many politicians who deserve a dime, and I see much better causes. And, remember, the politician of your choice will be getting millions and millions from whatever corporation wants to buy their vote, so don't bother with your pittance... Neither party needs your 25 dollars or 5,000 dollars. But Haiti does. Just something to chew on.

Okay, I'll step down off the soap box now. But before I go, I'm willing to count imaginary dollars not given to either party, as long as you pledge to give that money to a Haiti-related charity. if you already have given, let me know, privately if you prefer, and I'll add it to the total. Also mark down which political party didn't get your money this year because of that. :2thumbsup:





Amount of money pledged to NOT be given to a political party

Not given to Republicans:
Not given to Democrats:
Not given to third parties:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Look, I feel for you man, that your political efficacy is low, and your personal disillusionment is high, but before you take the political-version-of-an-existentialism-trip, chew on this (and lay off the clichés before my cliché-detector is irreparably traumatised :tongue:):

Say what you wish about the 'lousy politicians', and no matter how ineffective their policy-making may seem, they (the US politicians) still control the most powerful, in countless respects, state in the world. Two (in truth) nearly-identical parties, but with distinct agendas tailored for maximum electoral appeal and outreach without the compromisation of the core beliefs do make a difference. Your monetary contribution does matter, just like your vote - alone, it is like soggy toilet paper - but if enough espouse your ideals, then we have a problem.

Charities are splendid, but for one, they have a limited scope & focus. What is worse, Dafur or Haiti? Sahel or North Korea? Babies with Plasmodium falciparum or babies with Mycobacterium tuberculosis? And just how much difference your money will make? How much can you give compared to the US government?

A political party seeks as total of a control of the national government as it can attain within legal constraints. Once in power, the party has a large say over the national budget. US gives comparatively titanic amounts of foreign aid. Your money is likely to make more difference when invested in a political party than directly into the humanitarian organisation.

If Dems win, with their traditionally higher tolerance for big government and ample spending, are likely to give much to Haiti. Republicans, on the other hand, will seek a tighter budget (in theory - I have yet to see a Republican succeed in breaking free of deficit financing). They will skimp on Haiti, and claim they promote 'self-reliance', 'long-term stability' and not 'dependence on welfare/aid' - read: you sort out your own :daisy: - you are on your own. Then, a Republican will ensure that the so-called 'defence' industry is not slighted, and lavish on military hardware (which is due to be wholly replaced in ten-twenty years or so). Also, forget not that friendly dictatorships need care too, and that means moreweapons, so more money will go there. But hey, weapons keep peace, right? Right? Ronnie, can you hear me through the fires of Tartaros?

So yes, it does matter who you vote for, and to whom you contribute.



*waits for the impending conservative storm*








Amount of money pledged to be given to a political party

Given to Republicans: Only after I receive money from your national healthcare plan - you do have one, right?
Given to Democrats: I will see what I can afford in 2012.
Given to third parties: Might as well flush it down the toilet, or smoke the Benjamins, but if I had to give, I would target third party splinters of the GOP, the far right, Constitution Party, or some Religious-Right excuse for a party. That way, I can draw enough voters from the mainstream right so that the left can score one. Huzzah for non-parliamentary, winner-take-all system!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Say what you wish about the 'lousy politicians', and no matter how ineffective their policy-making may seem, they (the US politicians) still control the most powerful, in countless respects, state in the world.

And that's an excuse to drive the bus off a cliff? The ship of state is taking on water and the economy is bad. Why should we be satisfied with a good thing as it gets steadily bad? Don't I have a right to be disillusioned, especially when both parties are bought and paid for, and don't need my money?


Two (in truth) nearly-identical parties, but with distinct agendas tailored for maximum electoral appeal and outreach without the compromisation of the core beliefs do make a difference. Your monetary contribution does matter, just like your vote - alone, it is like soggy toilet paper - but if enough espouse your ideals, then we have a problem.

If there's a decent politician they may have my vote, and that is all they shall get. And they may not have it in the coming election cycle either.


Charities are splendid, but for one, they have a limited scope & focus. What is worse, Dafur or Haiti? Sahel or North Korea? Babies with Plasmodium falciparum or babies with Mycobacterium tuberculosis? And just how much difference your money will make? How much can you give compared to the US government?

That's true, if I could only save 3 people from a burning building out of 100, I guess it's not worth it.


A political party seeks as total of a control of the national government as it can attain within legal constraints. Once in power, the party has a large say over the national budget. US gives comparatively titanic amounts of foreign aid. Your money is likely to make more difference when invested in a political party than directly into the humanitarian organisation.

Yes, I could spend money on campaign ads for a politician who may or may not do a darn thing I asked of them with my 10 dollars and one vote, or I can go directly to the charity of my choice. And the Red Cross, unlike the federal government, is less likely to be spending money that will end up being used to buy weapons in a foreign country.


If Dems win, with their traditionally higher tolerance for big government and ample spending, are likely to give much to Haiti.

And I, with my higher intolerance for middlemen, am completely likely to give 100% of my money to Haiti, instead of some pittance to Haiti.


Republicans, on the other hand, will seek a tighter budget (in theory - I have yet to see a Republican succeed in breaking free of deficit financing).

:laugh4:


They will skimp on Haiti, and claim they promote 'self-reliance', 'long-term stability' and not 'dependence on welfare/aid' - read: you sort out your own :daisy: - you are on your own.

Meh. If they give directly that's their business, as long as they give.


Then, a Republican will ensure that the so-called 'defence' industry is not slighted, and lavish on military hardware (which is due to be wholly replaced in ten-twenty years or so). Also, forget not that friendly dictatorships need care too, and that means moreweapons, so more money will go there. But hey, weapons keep peace, right? Right? Ronnie, can you hear me through the fires of Tartaros?

Precisely why I suggested that the politicians don't need my money. They've got big military contractors, drug companies, banking companies, etc. that have much more to spend.


So yes, it does matter who you vote for, and to whom you contribute.

Bah. *waves hand dismissively* I'd rather help those in need than spend money on a campaign ad directed at republicans who are going to vote republican anyway, and mushy middle of the roaders who are just going to vote out the incumbents or whoever has the best hair. If their vote is based on silly lies and propaganda, that's a shame, but it's not worth spending money on.


*waits for the impending conservative storm*

I'd rather not derail the thread; let's try to stay focused on the thread starter's notion of giving to charity instead of to political campaigns.

[CrossLOPER]

Amount of money pledged to NOT be given to a political party

Not given to Republicans: Still waiting for an offer of some sort of reconciliation for the era that began disintegrating a year ago.
Not given to Democrats: Get that healthcare thing launched.
Not given to third parties: Have some pistachios.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Republicans, on the other hand, will seek a tighter budget (in theory - I have yet to see a Republican succeed in breaking free of deficit financing). They will skimp on Haiti, and claim they promote 'self-reliance', 'long-term stability' and not 'dependence on welfare/aid' - read: you sort out your own :daisy: - you are on your own.

Um, America under George Bush gave a huge amount to Africa. So in reality, that won't happen.

I've never given much money to a campaign anyway. I don't see that changing by fall.

CR

[Aemilius Paulus]

Um, America under George Bush gave a huge amount to Africa. So in reality, that won't happen.

Yeah, I know, if you did not 'catch my drift' as the popular expression goes, I was rather facetious/exaggerating in that post of mine.


@ATPG:
You still sorta missed my main point. Think of giving money to parties as an investment. Sure, giving money directly to the Red Cross is a nice and simple way to help. But it is also selfish - such tithes are for our own conscience as much as for the deprived people of Haiti. A far-sighted, analytical, rational businessman will invest rather than put capital in a bank account. The former provides greater returns. By voting in the Democratic Party, you are hypothetically enabling them to spend much more money than you and like-minded people could ever hope to match by the virtue of their power and party agenda, as opposed to goodwill. That is why, I say, making national election campaign contributions theoretically does more good than straight donations to the humanitarian NGOs.

Remember, there are no simple answers. Nor does the truth normally lie on the extremes of any given issue - in fact, truth, overwhelmingly, lies in the middle, in the 'golden way', in the 'greys'. What you seem to endorse, ATPG, is an overly simplistic, rigidly dichotomous worldview.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, I know, if you did not 'catch my drift' as the popular expression goes, I was rather facetious/exaggerating in that post of mine.

My apologies, it can be hard to read sarcasm.

CR

[Major Robert Dump]

From now on I will just give my money to corporate entities via shameless consumerism, and then let them contribute on my behalf. Now if only prostitutes would incorporate I could truly say my civic duty as a voter is fulfilled.

[Subotan]

Um, America under George Bush gave a huge amount to Africa. So in reality, that won't happen.

I've never given much money to a campaign anyway. I don't see that changing by fall.

CR
He would have given far more, had he not insisted on donating so much lead to Iraq.



From now on I will just give my money to corporate entities via shameless consumerism, and then let them contribute on my behalf. Now if only prostitutes would incorporate I could truly say my civic duty as a voter is fulfilled
This is why I go to fancy dress Christmas parties as a consumer.

[Aemilius Paulus]

From now on I will just give my money to corporate entities via shameless consumerism, and then let them contribute on my behalf. Now if only prostitutes would incorporate I could truly say my civic duty as a voter is fulfilled.
:grin::devilish::yes:

[drone]

Since apparently money = free speech, I'll just assume the reverse, free speech = money, and contribute in this manner to the political parties of my choosing. In other words, I'll just whine and complain about whoever displeases me. Can I deduct this from my taxes?

[CountArach]

Um, America under George Bush gave a huge amount to Africa. So in reality, that won't happen.
0.17% of GNP (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/2006_ODA_GNI.png) is given in developmental aid. That is unlikely to change substantially any time soon. Even then the Bush Administration didn't want a strong Millennium Development Goals (http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-UN/summit_2845.jsp) program:

During pre-summit discussions, US policy-makers were firm in their rejection of any American requirement to contribute 0.7% of its GDP annually to foreign assistance to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of reducing global poverty by 2015. The new US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, even suggested that the term “Millennium Development Goals” be excised from the summit’s final document.