>> ^my15minutes:
and it's not that fiscal conservatives are heartless, necessarily. most would simply want charity to be left in private hands, and can present equally sound reasons and priorities for it.

I agree, I don't think conservative citizens are heartless (for the most part), I just think the leadership of the Republican party is completely heartless -- and that people for some reason wind up backing a party that fights efforts to control carbon emissions, fights efforts to improve education, fights efforts to improve health care, and wants us to "compete" with third world nations for the lowest common wage.


for starters, it's more efficient. if you give directly to a charity, the state doesn't have to take a cut, to maintain their staff and expenses. so when i give to a charity, one of the first things i check is the percentage of all donations that is necessary for the upkeep of the charity itself.
http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/All.aspx?bureauID=9999#H
American Red Cross - Programs: 95% Fund Raising: 2% Administrative: 3%
promote!


Private organizations aren't always better: Medicare has similarly low overhead (3%), while Aetna has overhead costs approaching 25%.

For things like feeding, educating, and providing care for the less fortunate, why do we have to make it voluntary? Don't we have a collective responsibility to help?

I understand the intellectual arguments from conservatives, but they're usually based on an automatic assumption that private organizations are always better for every purpose, and that just isn't the case.

There's also an ethical calculus at work behind it that seems foreign to me. To me, paying more taxes to improve education, provide better health care, and fund research into alternative energy sounds like a great idea that will end up benefiting everyone. To conservatives, it's stealing their hard-earned cash to give to "people who didn't earn it".

The higher minded make into a conversation about whether we can trust the government to use our money for things like education, and not booze, hookers, and wars in Iraq, but that's a whole different problem -- one we can fix with ballot boxes, or failing that, torches and pitchforks.

...but I'm ranting again. Thanks for the promote.

^ oh, absolutely!

and there'll be plenty of Democrats, like yourself, who really are Democrats. who have very solid reasons why they are fiscal, as well as social, liberals. an honest belief that one of the roles of government is to help the less fortunate get a leg up. i think that's a fair assessment of how a true Democrat would see, that which others might deride as a 'welfare state'.

and it's not that fiscal conservatives are heartless, necessarily. most would simply want charity to be left in private hands, and can present equally sound reasons and priorities for it.

for starters, it's more efficient. if you give directly to a charity, the state doesn't have to take a cut, to maintain their staff and expenses. so when i give to a charity, one of the first things i check is the percentage of all donations that is necessary for the upkeep of the charity itself.

http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/All.aspx?bureauID=9999

American Red Cross - Programs: 95% Fund Raising: 2% Administrative: 3%

*promote!

Hard to believe that the man still shows such a strong band of followers this far into the race. But i suppose with all their fund raising it'd be best to see the old man's campaign through to the end.

Sure the man has some nice things to say but he has has some very strange ideas. Like issuing letters of marque & re-instating the gold standard.

Yes there are intelligent voters there, same as there are in the South and in other places. Last polls I saw from there showed McCain up by quite a bit and I'm pretty sure Bush won both times there as well so they aren't going to vote for Clinton or Obama in the end, debating how to please them is a loss to start with. Even if they do and maybe it's possible with Clinton it's just 5 electoral votes. They aren't our target audience.

We do want to build consensus and that's exactly why Clinton can't be on the ticket. If you think she's been vetted and can't bring new controversy take a bit of time to read the following article.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Hillary39s-woes-take-their-toll.4071541.jp

So far Obama hasn't touched her on most issues she's open on, she flung Wright and Ayers out there but he stayed more classy and that had a bit to do with why he'll win. She's still open to all of that and more though, so far it's been just amateurs and the press poking at her. The repubs will tear her up on that stuff and more. Most damage she's taken in the campaign has been self inflicted anyway and I don't see how she can possibly be vetted for what she insists on doing to herself.

With the court on the edge of spit decisions on everything from Roe v Wade to torture to how we can try and hold suspects and open seats likely in the next few years there's a lot at risk even before we consider the economy, the war, and so on. Most who claim they won't show now probably will when we come to it because the cost is too high for angry gestures, those who won't were just Limbaugh's chaos or too prejudiced to be any help anyway.

She'll bring us fewer voters than we think and for every one she brings she'd drive at least one more away, independent and crossover voters who like Obama and are looking for a change but don't like her or believe she's any part of change. She's probably dead weight or break even at best and that's before we even consider how she'll energize the repubs in both fund raising and voter turnout. They don't much like McCain otherwise, they are hoping for a reason to care and she's it.

Then there's personality, the VP's office isn't the back seat ride along that it used to be and you CAN NOT fire the VP, they are an elected official just like the President is. They can be impeached and convicted but not fired. Once in office the chances of her trying to run things her way from the VP office is too large and nothing about this campaign suggests she'll take a back seat to or stop for anyone once she sets her mind to it. It's a violent conflict waiting to happen.

It's a real bad idea, best chance the repubs have for a win. Either her alone or him behind her would have worked better, but not her behind him and not now, not after this campaign. He can do better and so can we.

"Mrs. Clinton's advisers acknowledged that the results of the primaries were far less than they had hoped, and said they were likely to face new pleas even from some of their own supporters for her to quit the race. They said they expected fund-raising to become even harder now; one adviser said the campaign was essentially broke, and several others refused to say whether Mrs. Clinton had lent the campaign money from her personal account to keep it afloat.

The advisers said they were dispirited over the loss in North Carolina, after her campaign -- working off a shoestring budget as spending outpaces fund-raising -- decided to allocate millions of dollars, some key operatives and full days of the candidate and her husband there."

I expect this is one of many strategies we'll see unveiled in the fall, since John McCain's legitimate campaign fund raising ability has been dwarfed by both Clinton and Obama's.

McCain isn't really desperate, if anything going by polls (which may or may not actually mean anything in terms of reflecting people's binding decisions). He's been silently creeping up in general election one-to-one match-offs with both Obama and Clinton, despite wavering and about-turning on potential independent and traditional democrat positions such as aligning himself with Christian fundamentalists, voting for a bill that would allow interrogators to go beyond standard field manual interrogation techniques - something that he previously advocated against. Not to mention he also went against the Bush tax cuts as purely benefiting the wealthy, and reverted his position on this issue as well, but that was some time ago.

With this whole fiasco, I guess it will depend on how people take being told harsh truths.

As for Clinton being desperate, of course. In primaries time and time again she has been shown to be unable to overcome his message through the strength of her campaign, potentially due to anything from staff incompetence to insufficient fund raising, to simply not being able to deliver the same captivation. So no doubt she sees the nomination as his to lose.

Also Cafferty's a college drop out? Wow.

Let's take a poll amongst the sifters to try and guess the fund raising day following this one. My money is on July 4th.

Edwards has his own juggernaut special interest group, and that would be the "American Association for Justice" formerly known as the "American Trial Lawyers Association." (It developed a bad connotation.) That has traditionally been the great majority of his fund-raising.

The true cost of the tort system in America may never be known. It's weaving thru our society like a spider web, making it hard to see. There have been estimates made;
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part01.html

Edwards may lose more and more of the trial lawyers, I'm sorry, Association for Justice, support if he is deemed to be unelectable, but he's still the most dear to their heart. I'm not crazy about Ron Paul, probably won't vote for him, but if you want a guy unencumbered with special interest, he's probably your man.

[Sri Lanka Ministry of Defence] NEW JERSEY / SRI LANKA - LTTE Heavily Involved In Fund Raising For Hilary Clinton In New Jersey

"Well known activists of a banned terrorist group in the United States are involved in the fund raising activities of the US Democratic candidate Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton"

Get 'em!

Fundamentaly, polls attmept to measure no. of Votes.

no. of Votes == Electablity.

Funds Raised == Strength of Opinion.

Funds Raised can be used to gain votes through campaigning but are not themselves an indication of Electability and far from a garuntee of success from campaigning.

For these reasons, Polls get give way more value than cash alone. Both are needed TBH.

I expect, that in the eyes of the avg journalist, internet polls are potentially unreliable at accurately measuring specific localized areas of America with an open demographic to all Americans.

The reasons should be obvious. If a poll is an internet poll, then its available to those who have internet. Thats not "everyone in a specific region" which is how the votes are needed to be to be viable (Bush didnt get the majority of the poular vote, and still won, as its done by first past the post by sub region, not the country as a whole).

Also, internet polls are things you vote on because YOU go THERE to VOTE because you are motivated. Not the avg joe. Ron Poll has a lot of motivated followers, eager to demonstrates that they support him. Thus, their voting only demonstrates that, not public opinion.

Normal opinion polls, attempt to take a cross section of the demographic of a region, go to them, either by phone polling or on the street, and ask their opinion there. its far form 100% reliable, but is way more reliable a tool for a journalist than some internet poll, which possibly got voted on by non americans who like him (I dont know that they did or didnt, so why should the journalists be sure).

Thus, the media acknowledges that hes liked on the internet, but keeps dismissing him, and until an independent demographic on the street/phone poll shows he has grass roots support of 20%+ he'll get ignored as irrelevant.

qruel wrote:

I do have issues in general with assertions not being backed up. Like Paul saying that the judge on his case was appointed by the Clintons (that sounds implausible as they don't appoint judges and the video showed no proof of this).

They showed his name "Judge Howard Matz"...google it and you will see that he was a Clinton appointee.

a few other questions unanswered by the video
so what was Peter Pauls felon (from 2 decades prior ?).

The video showed that too. It was for cocaine possession and trying to swindle money from the Cuban Government (whatever that means)...he pled guilty and served 3 years in prison.

Was he a fugitive at the time of his arrest in a foreign country?

Not a fugitive for the prior felonies....it said he was detained for extradition because he was being investigated in connection for misuse of his brokerage accounts.

I like the guy who says "it's the largest election fraud in the United States ( I guess I considered that laughable for what goes on and doesn't get reported or caught...meaning that's not just a Clinton thing, as it's a problem on both sides of the aisle).

Talk about making accusations without providing anything to back it up. I don't know if the Clinton's are guilty here or not...but to take the stance that "if they are guilty it's no big deal because they aren't the only ones" is what I find laughable.

(i personally don't care about eithers fundraising...it's the policy they push once in office that concerns me)

Well they usually go hand in hand. You can pretty much count on it...if their fund raising is shady then so will the intentions of the policies they push.

This video was about Campaign finances, not policy that she would implement.

A corrupt politician is a corrupt politician.

I'd agree with aaronfr. It seems like the 'quick fix' approach to the issue, similar to how fund raising events raise awareness and money for a short time and then when they are over everyone goes back to their normal lives. I don't particularly like the way people are guilted into fundraising events or into doing things like turning off your TV for a week - it seems a bit pushy and gimicky.

Instead of a reactionary boycott of television the better (though more complicated) message to promote is one of encouraging a more questioning and interactive viewer. That might not change the content that is broadcast, but it will stop us being another barcoded product of what we see.

I would have to agree and disagree here Theo, I believed in the same thing, that any amount of aid is warranted. But the fact is that such methodology should only applied in critical situations, the fact is the willingness and dedication is never there when it comes from the foreign nations, there is a knee jerk reaction at the onset of something terrible which is slowly replaced by something else. I mean look at how the world is just standing by watch Darfur self implode. This does not mean I don't support aid programs to it, I just support aid programs that actually factor in what they are trying to do and not try cause more harm by being there. Such as Oxfam, EWB and others http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Road-Taken-Mdecins-Sans-Frontires

Yes America and such has resources and the same can be said of Canada, but one must also remember these nations were developing nations at one point as well. There was no Great British empire giving aid donations to the New World colonies when they emerged (Boston Tea party?).

Africa is not devoid of natural resources to develop itself, it was colonized specifically for it's natural resources (North and South Rhodesia).

However there is problem when you have the interference of aid agencies. Let me give you an example, the provision of electrical power is very important for the development of any economy. Thats a given fact. Development of such power grids and the lines to support them in Africa was funded by NGOs at first, only what this gave rise to is an infinite loop of waiting for more donations to spread the power grid further. People didn't think about raising themselves out of the problems themselves, it became "let's wait for the NGO to do it", and unfortunately there are hundreds of idealistic organizations out there waiting to come in.

This is totally against the way the same issues were settled in Canada and the US during it's development phase after Nicola Tesla's provision of AC power to the Western world over DC by Edison. The Canadian goverment knew that provision of electrical power to all communities in Canada was an important developmental issue, so they would develop the system via goverment subsidy and provide the service to the population at a loss to itself. This is how cheap, affordable electrical power was provided for.

In Africa what happened in various projects was that local electrical power is provided for in localities by NGOs, the goverment then basically sits on it's hands waiting for NGOs to modernize the countryside. However such development is not sustainable in the long term. The reason the goverment subsidized power grid layout worked in Canada was because you had development from centralized localities outward and not a splotch of various power generators all over various communities the NGOs went to.

My basic point is this, yes aid is good, but only aid that is properly vetoed against it's actual effects on the local populace and development as a long term goal. Aid that is looking to end it's own presence in the developing world so it can become developed.

The sad fact at the crux of it is this. NGOs are beholden to themselves. It is profitable for them not to do their job properly because how else are they supposed to raise money for issues. AIDs is always mentioned as the biggest killer in Africa, its not, it's malaria. But how media sensational is malaria compared to HIV/AIDS? NGO's always use their altruistic aims to cover up serious flaws in their application and usage. Look at United Way, just recently found out to spend more then 50% of it's allocated fund raised cash to basically pay itself and inflate its own growth. The whole Live8Aid fiasco a year ago, where did the money go? How was it applied? Does the average person know? No. It's always going into Africa, like it's some blackhole for cash donations.

This is why I like the approach of Melinda and Bill Gates foundation that is strictly self regulating. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates in 2000. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.

Asian economies in the Eastern rim were also poor and underdeveloped just 50 years ago. Look at how sound goverment policy, education and proper investment in infrastructure has allowed places like Taiwan, South Korea, other Asian Tigers to thrive. There were no NGOs or AID agencies there to do that right?

"the "net roots" are vastly overrated"

I think they are underrated personally. The netroots has done a TON of free volunteer work this quarter, and that will no doubt continue to increase in future elections. Also they do a solid job of fund raising from people as opposed to lobbyists. Finally the recent programs enacted on mydd by chris bowers have been pretty sweet. By these I mean the "use it or lose it" campaign as well as his "google bomb initiative". While their long term results have yet to be proven it is interesting to see people using the internet in novel ways.

RE: Lamont, yeah I sincerely doubt that he's going to win that one. Which is a shame Lieberman is scum, but the consummate politician. Also if Lieberman had not been so strongly embraced by the White House, I don't think he would be winning this one.