I think it fair to say that you can be certain the fundamentals of the economy are in dire shape when Barack Obama can raise $150,000,000 in September alone. I am sorry. That is not what I meant. I meant what John McCain meant a couple of months ago: the fundamentals of the economy must be quite good. Mustn't they be for so many Americans to be able to tithe to their candidate so generously? Well, perhaps not. But one wonders.
According to one report I heard today, Barack Obama raised more money in September -- a mere 30 days -- than George W. Bush and John Kerry spent on their 2004 campaigns -- combined. [Updated, 20:58: This is apparently not quite true; the report was either wrong or I misheard it. See below.†]
So, where are we? Barack Obama has raised some $604,000,000, almost 2/3 of $1 billion, during a time of great poverty, hardship and financial loss; during the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."
Meanwhile, last month John McCain had $42 million in his campaign coffers. So I think I have this right: the super-rich and money-grubbing Republicans have in hand more than TEN TIMES less money than the Democrats have raised in total, and a mere 1/3 of what the Democrats raised last month. But I thought Republicans always BOUGHT the White House?
Maybe not. But when you have the world's "greatest investor" -- Mr. Warren Buffett -- supporting not only Barack Obama but abject greed (see his column in this weekend's New York Times), it seems that many wealthy souls expect a very large return on their investment in Barack Obama. (In fact, a recent study shows that the very wealthiest in America DO support Barack Obama.)
By the way, isn't it a wee-bit scary that the wealthiest Democrat in the world is telling readers of the New York Times to be "greedy," especially since such advice can only help his portfolio? No wonder Mr. Buffett is the "world's greatest investor." But I digress (again).
I know, I know. I've heard it often: The very foundation of the Barack Obama campaign is that we are all our brothers' keepers. At the very least such a message must make the very wealthy feel better about themselves. And that means a lot, since even they are our brothers -- and our keepers. (Or they soon will be.)
(Where's AYN RAND when you need her?)
©2008. All Rights Reserved.
†I found this a moment ago:
"In 2004, Bush and Kerry had total operating expenses of $572 million. Of that, $312 million — well more than half — went to media consultants to place ads on television and radio. The rest paid for staff salaries, travel, pollsters, fundraising consultants and direct mail. A study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity concluded that all the 2004 presidential candidates spent $457 million on consultants."
What this source at least shows is that Barack Obama has RAISED more money than the operating budgets of the combined campaigns of Bush and Kerry in 2004.
4 comments:
Most of the donations to Obama have been $200.00 or less. I believe people feel it's important (especially given the financial crisis) to do what they can to avoid another 4 years of what amounts to George Bush the sequel.
Your right Barack Obama has raised an unprecedented amount of money. That just shows how strongly people feel about his ability to do a better job as Commander and Chief.
Warren Buffet is exactly the guy we need to help us get back on track. He understands business and the markets probably better then anyone else in the country. His philosophy of contrarian investing is not new and it's quite a stretch to asert that because he uses the word "greed" in an interview to explain why he believes it's a good time to invest he must be condoning greed. Just look at the way he lives. Buffet lives more modestly than most. He's given much of his money to charity. I don't know many greedy people who have done that do you?
Is it not possible that the support Obama is getting from wealthy are from people who just care about America? People that are smart enough to know that the middle class contributes to their success. I've never met a CEO that could being their product or service to market without people from the middle class somewhere in the chain.
You've got it wrong. The middle class has the power and for that we deserve a leader who will work for us. We've been trickled down on long enough.
When we come together incredible things happen. Even you've noticed that (now that it has some zero's after it).
contewww.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.aspraium investing is nothing new
Dear Regular Guy,
It would be interesting to see what "most of the donations" means in the final tally. Just this weekend, Joe Biden collected $1 million at one Seattle event.
Warren Buffett, as you probably know, did not make his comments in an interview: he made them in an opinion column he submitted to the paper. But that's small stuff.
Greedy people do indeed give their money away. In a secular world, where religious ideas do not play much if any role, there is nothing meritorious or noble in a man "giving" money away. The rich man down the street gives a million dollars to a construction company to build his summer camp; another man gives his money to the Red Cross. In other words, both men give their money away, and yes, both men give their money away for their own benefit. The money is spent; it is given to others; it is distributed. Plus, charities SPEND money, just like corporations, or Wal-Mart, or construction companies.
Greed is not to be confused with hoarding. If a man stuffs ten billion dollars under his bed, well, that would be something approaching a sin. But if he hoards his money in a bank, the bank spends that money in loans and other investments, thus blessing and employing many. Saved and invested wealth is also shared, distributed and given away.
Barack Obama IS a trickle-down proponent, though he has a trick up his sleeve. I will write about it in the next few days.
The "middle-class" language in the Obama campaign, in my opinion, is just a ruse. Sorry. This is all about winning votes by provoking class envy. It is presented, not as an economic issue, but a moral one.
Hence, since it is presented in such language, perhaps you don't mind if I ask a few questions. Why should the rich not be as rich as possible? Why should they pay ANY taxes? Why should 1% of the people pay 42% of the taxes, and why should those who do not pay taxes receive a refund? And why should ANYONE care for the poor?
You might be aghast at such questions, but I am not. I am looking for the secular, non-religious answers to my questions, and I hold the suspicion that many answers will always include some reference to envy.
Here's what I hear: Rhetoric used to encourage the middle and lower classes actually enslaves them: it says that one cannot live a full and meaningful life unless one HAS a certain level of income, a certain PROGRESSIVE tax code, and a hand out from the government. It is not the language of liberty, but enslavement. Moreover, having the RICH PAY MORE TAXES only entitles them all the more; they feel that they are the great providers and subsidizers: they are the "keepers" of the poor, lower and middle classes.
Also, I have nothing wrong. I have not mentioned the middle class once in this entire campaign, until this comment here.
If it is true, as you say, that we can do great things if we come together, then let us come together without compulsion, without oversight from the Great Overseers, the Great Distributors.
Peace.
BG
Dear Regular Guy,
Please forgive me. In my haste (and fatigue) I failed to greet you.
Welcome to this lowly website, and thank you for your passionate and decent comment.
Peace to you, and all joy,
BG -- Another regular guy
I find it interesting that so much money is pouring in so late in the campaign.
Are people trying to buy later influence by putting money on the leading race horse, or am I just being cynical?
I think people putting money into the Obama campaign at this late hour could learn a little from my bookie. "You don't win much once the oddsmakers tag your horse to win."
Post a Comment