The most recent numbers from the Bush campaign note that Bush has collected over $110 million for the next campaign season, which prompted Oliver to ask:
Can you think of more patriotic uses for the $110 million in political donations George Bush has amassed so far?
– Unemployment benefits for the 2.5 million plus who have lost jobs since he was sworn in
– Funding schools for the children of veterans, which he cut?
– Paying for health care for disabled veterans he sent into war in Iraq?
– Cover for the medigap coverage he cut for seniors?
According to OpenSecrets, when the last reports were filed (which lag behind the $110 million report), Bush had raised $84,583,768, while the Democratic candidates combined had raised $98,556,587. Again, attempts to portray the Democrats as poor, or unable to compete with the President finanacially are just a ruse (and a rather transparent one). Their problem is they simply have neither a coherent message nor a viable candidate behind which the party has congregated. Bush’s main fault seems to be a loyal base.
The question I want to ask is, can you think of more patriotic uses of the $98 million (which, again, is probably much larger now) the Democrats have raised. And let’s not even bother mentioning all of their interest groups, George Soros, or MoveOn. Here are some suggestions from me:
– Finding Dennis Kucinich a real date.
– Shipping Carol Moseley-Braun somewhere without microphones.
– Jailing Al Sharpton again in Vieques, but this time for crimes against humanity and decency.
– Sitting Wesley Clark down and forcing him to give a straight answer about how he would have voted on Iraq.
– Anger management lessons for Howard Dean.
– Give Dick Gephardt a cushy job somewhere and allow him to take a vacation. Poor man has worked his ass off for this country for thirty years (I disagreed with him a lot throughout the years), and it seems like the Democrats respect him less than Republicans.
At any rate, yes, George Bush has outraised all of his opponents. Just ike Clinton did. Just like the incumbent after George Bush will. The point is that the Democrats are not hurting for money, and every time they try these shenanigans, it is just laughable.
Oliver
As you’ll note by my post, I never said the Dems were hurting (although they will lag the GOP) but I asked if Bush could use the money he’s gained to fix the problem he’s made.
Moe Lane
“but I asked if Bush could use the money he’s gained to fix the problem he’s made.”
The answer is no. We gave him that money* so that he’d win re-election: kindly stop advocating the stifling of our speech. The Supreme Court was bad enough.
Moe
*Check went out this morning, actually.
Slartibartfast
I guess I’m going to have to return fire and ask Oliver if maybe GWB should ask Clinton and Gore for donations for that fixing-the-problem thing, since it’s a problem Bush inherited from them.
Not serious about that, really. But Oliver appears to be even more unserious on the topic.
Emperor Misha I
You know what, John?
I’m certainly no fan of “Dickie mein Dickie”, but you DO have a point there.
I mean, the guy works his fingers to the bone for the Donks for 30 years, and now they all treat him as if he didn’t exist, while drooling down their bibs over their newfound one-day-wonders.
Like him or not, I can’t help but feel a mite peeved on his behalf.
Ricky
Perhaps someone should inform OW that the items he listed are under the auspices of the federal gov’t and he’s compaining about the decisions made by private citizens & their own money.
Hell, I’ve been waiting for over a year for ONE Democrat – ONE – to post their cancelled check from where they returned their Bush tax cut so that the federal treasury could spend more on such items as OW listed. Too bad they’re greedy when it comes to THEIR money & so willing to spend it on their pet programs when it’s yours, eh?
Kimmitt
I’m delighted to pay more in taxes, when I will actually receive more in services for them. Paying taxes is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Sending donations to the Fed does not change the budget situation and does not get me any services.
It’s a cute ad hominem attack, but it’s also completely nonsensical.
Ricky
***I’m delighted to pay more in taxes, when I will actually receive more in services for them****
I’ll pass that along to the ‘rich’, Kimmitt.
It’s called consistency, Kimmitt. If you want it to be illegal for you to pay lower taxes, it would then be hypocritical for you to pay the lower taxes that you didn’t want to pay.
That is, unless you didn’t think it’d be hypocritical for Jerry Falwell to start performing abortions because they’re legal.
If you want to pay more, pay more.
Steve
“Can you think of more patriotic uses for the $110 million in political donations George Bush has amassed so far?
– Unemployment benefits for the 2.5 million plus who have lost jobs since he was sworn in”
What? We’re going to give them all $4 and change? Even if you accept the figure of 2.5 million jobs lost (since the Labor Dept.’s Household Survey now says there are more people working than there were in 1/2001), $110 million is peanuts.
steve
Oops, make that $40 and change. Damn reading glasses…
charles austin
Did Oliver just question George Bush’s patriotism? Isn’t that, well, un-American?
Kimmitt
“It’s called consistency, Kimmitt. If you want it to be illegal for you to pay lower taxes, it would then be hypocritical for you to pay the lower taxes that you didn’t want to pay.”
That’s a cute line of argument, but it doesn’t make any sense — my reason for wanting taxes raised is that the only way for us to get out of our fiscal hole is for everyone to pitch in, not because I have a personal love of sending quantities of my paycheck to another entity.
This is a variant on the whole “deny the existence of communal resources and values” thing which is a hallmark of the Libertarian approach.
Ricky
***my reason for wanting taxes raised is that the only way for us to get out of our fiscal hole is for everyone to pitch in,***
No, it’s not.
It’s for you to only be forced to pay against your will (since you won’t send it back) when you’re able to vote in politicians who will force others to have their earnings taxed against their will.
It’s nice to spend other folks’ money, but if you want your tax rate to be at 15%, pay at 15%.
Spin it as “pitching in” all you wish (that was a nice ‘feel good’ description, btw), it’s still hypocrisy. I don’t expect you to understand, Kimmitt. If you understood the hypocrisy you wouldn’t call for what you’re now doing to be illegal (“help stop me from doing this! Vote Democratic so I won’t keep so much money!”)
Ricky
Let me amend the last part about ‘understanding’, because rereading it makes even ME think that I’m coming across as pushy.
Sorry, Kimmitt, that’s not what I meant.
I mean that I don’t expect you to see things the way I see them. You know, you say po-tay-to and I say po-tah-to….
Just wondering can you think of any other instance where you want what you’re currently doing to be illegal & thus keeping you from doing it anymore – yet you do it any way – and you don’t consider it hypocrisy?
Michelle
I’ve said for a while that if a politican wanted to impress people he or she should spend the money not on advertising, but by spending it on charity.
Skip then fund raising dinners and baby kissing and spend the time building a house for habitat for humanity.
Get your supporters to do the same thing. Wear shirts that say “John Smith for President/Senate/Dog Catcher” and then go out and do good works.
That would impress me. (And it goes for both sides of the political spectrum.)
And for what it’s worth, I don’t gripe about paying taxes–and I don’t get a tax deduction for my charitable contributions.
Kimmitt
Michelle, you may be interested in the various Dean Corps activities which have sprung up around the country.
Kimmitt
“Just wondering can you think of any other instance where you want what you’re currently doing to be illegal & thus keeping you from doing it anymore – yet you do it any way – and you don’t consider it hypocrisy?”
I have a great example that isn’t me but really illustrates the point.
Wal-Mart recently moved into the small town my grandfather lived in and did what it usually does — outcompeted most of the local small businesses, then relaxed and slowly raised prices again. Grandpa’s pissed off at them, but it would cause him enormous inconvenience for zero effectiveness if he didn’t shop at Wal-Mart. The only way he could make a difference if he were part of a larger boycott of this particular store in favor of local businesses — if his action were part of a collective. But the transaction costs are enormous, so it’s just not going to happen. Which is why, for example, some small towns zone such that Wal-Marts and the like are kept out, because they understand that individual actions, each insignificant, aggregate into results that hurt everyone.
These are all variants on the theme of the Tragedy of the Commons, and one of the most reliable ways out of said tragedy is state intervention.
Here’s another way to look at it — let’s say that Mexico goes batshit and we’re thinking about invading. It’s pretty clear that this war would require a draft. Would it be immoral to think that the war is a good idea without volunteering for the army? How about if you would serve without hesitation if called up in the draft?
Kimmitt
I don’t know how relevant it is that I would not be a major beneficiary of the actions I propose, except through indirect effects. I have health insurance, and I am both talented and well enough educated to look forward to paying upper-middle-class taxes for most of the rest of my life. I don’t expect to have any kids. But I still think that a strong education policy is what’s good for this country, along with some variant on nationalized health care, and I’m completely willing to pay disproportionately to see that happen. At some point, this has to be about more than what we get; it has to start being about what the community requires, and state taxation is a way to spread out the burden.
Moe Lane
“I have a great example that isn’t me but really illustrates the point.”
I think I see where you’re going with this, and it’s an interesting point. Probably because I too have pondered tragedy of the commons arguments. :)
Kimmitt
The Tragedy of the Commons — and its close cousins, Externalities and the Public Goods Problem — comprise, to my mind, the reason why the discussion should not be “should the government intervene in the economy,” but “what is the best way for us to keep the magnificent productivity of the competitive economy without the brutal destructiveness which arises in the medium and long term?”
Raging Dave
“That’s a cute line of argument, but it doesn’t make any sense — my reason for wanting taxes raised is that the only way for us to get out of our fiscal hole is for everyone to pitch in, not because I have a personal love of sending quantities of my paycheck to another entity.”
Wrong once again, Kimmitt. The government needs to spend less, not tax more. But thanks for playing!
Kimmitt
That’s a series of policy questions, and they are ones I’m happy to discuss.
Michelle
Kimmitt,
It has to be top down. I haven’t seen that yet.
But I am glad that people are doing good things. Hopefully they’ll continue to do so.
ruprecht
Kimmitt, I could be wrong but I think Wal-Mart prices are decided on a higher level then a store-by-store basis. I think the perceaved rise in prices is probably related to things going off sale more than the evil corporation attitude.
In fact I would bet that even if Wal-Mart raised prices the prices are still below what the small businesses in the area had to charge since the small businesses can’t buy in bulk and don’t attract folks from neighboring towns.
Kimmitt
The pattern’s pretty well-established, in general. It’s just what Wal-Mart does. I agree that even the new prices are lower than the ones charged by the previous business owners — it’s just that Wal-Mart’s focus shifted from domination to maintenence; instead of driving someone out of business, all they have to do is make it impossible to enter the market, a much simpler thing.
“It has to be top down. I haven’t seen that yet.”
The Dean Corps stuff is organized on a state-by-state basis and blessed by the national, rather than being routed through them; that’s how the campaign works in general. If you’re interested, toss me an email with your locality and I’ll get you hooked up.
Random Numbers
Look at the papers from the ’70s and ’80s and you’ll find the same complaints about K-Mart. The same for A&P in the ’40s and ’50s. In fact, A&P had a greater market share then than Wal-Mart has now. WHAHAPPENED?
If they forget what they did to get to the top, they will be knocked off by the next upstart to come along with the right formula of price, selection, and service.
This has happened over and over again. Each time the doomsayers have cried out over the “dominant” market share of one company. And each time that one company has fallen to another.
Wal-Mart’s “dominance” is temporary, like all the others.