SENSE and SENSITIVITIES

Making Epistemological Sense Out of Existential Madness

Alan Milner

Alan Milner
Location
Florida, USA
Birthday
October 12
Title
Senior Mortgage Analyst
Company
RESMAC
Bio
Brooklyn-born, graduate of Brooklyn Technical High School and City College of New York. Background includes advertising, public relations, journalism, marketing, organizational development and fund raising and, for the past 15 years, mortgage banking. You can still find my poetry at sagemerlin.

MY RECENT POSTS

Alan Milner's Links

Salon.com
MAY 31, 2012 1:53PM

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Rate: 8 Flag

I just donated $19 to the Obama Biden campaign.  I want to tell you why.  As a matter of fact, I've already told everyone on Facebook why I am parting with $19 to put Obama back into the White House for four more years.  Contrary opinions will be graciously tolerated.

 Put your money where your mouth is.

 If you don't want to see the 2012 election bought cheap by the Radical Right, then, please, skip a couple of trips to Starbucks and contribute to the Obama Biden campaign.

Sure, there are Bill Mahers out there who can pony up million dollar gifts, but liberals don't contribute as much as conservatives do.  That's because conservatives are trying to buy something, while liberals are trying to prevent something from being bought.  They just aren't as motivated....but here's the really important thing:  everyone in the media is looking very closely as the fundraising totals that Romney and Obama are racking up because they believe that reflects the relative degrees of support among people who are actually likely to vote.  

The more we contribute, the more the polls will reflect that strength because, once you contribute to a candidate, you become more committed to that candidate's success.  It's rather like betting on the home team....you pay more attention to the game when you have a bet riding on the outcome. 

The degree to which your vote counts on election day has a great deal to do with where you live.  In Florida, folks, my vote is much more important than it would be if I lived in New York. Living in Palm Beach County, my vote probably has even greater impact than it would anywhere else in the state, because Palm Beach County is where Gore lost the 2000 campaign.

Right now, Governor Rick Scott is trying to throw people off the voter rolls for real or imagined defects in their qualifications.  180,000 are on the list in Miami-Dade.  Around the country, other Republican governors are doing similar things.

Here's the rub:  Today, your contribution may count MORE than your vote will in November, especially if you live in a state that has already been conceded to the Republican Party.  (Consider moving to a swing state until after the election.  I would, if I weren't already right in the middle of the main battleground.)

You know that I've put my money where my mouth is....because that's the only way I could post this comment on behalf of the Obama-Biden campaign....but let me give you a tip that the OB campaign won't like:

Give early and often....but give the smallest possible amount so you can afford to give again.  The media see the number of contributions and the amounts, so giving $20 five times is a more potent statement than giving $100 once.

It's called momentum, and momentum is what's going to decide this election.

Sure, you can carp against Obama for the mistakes he's made....and I have deep reservations about many of his decisions....but I also know that we would be much worse off if the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House because there would be no checks or balances on their rapacious intentions.  

It has become abundantly clear that the Republican Party is being controlled by people who don't understand economics because they are ABOVE economics.  They are too rich to ever suffer the consequences of the punitive measures the Republicans will enact against the economic, social and medical safety nets we have now.  Weak as they are, they are better than nothing.  (I live on one of them and another will soon start picking up my absurd medical costs.) 

In the final analysis, this election comes down to one question:  Two of the next three Supreme Court justices who are most likely to retire are liberals.  If either of them is replaced by a Republican President, the Republicans will have a solid majority on the Court for the next 10 to 20 years.

Isnt' it worth a couple of cups of overpriced coffee to help make sure that won't happen?

 (Excuse me for preaching, but you know what happens when men of good fwill do nothing.....) 

 

AUTHOR TAGS:

campaign contributions

Author tags:

campaign contributions

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I'll continue to make multiple contributions to local charities. Who gives a rat's ass about national elections. If (all types of) people are to be believed, there's no difference between the policies of the two major, national parties.
Voting is just another way of telling the elite that they've got the 99% under complete control........ just like they have the politicians we vote for.
.
I disagree strongly with both of you. Joisey, there are significant differences between the parties....which I could enumerate but I'm work, so I will let one suffice. If Obama had appointed FOUR Supremes, included the two he's already appointed before Citizens United, do you really think it would have passed. There are real differences between the parties that range from tax policy to trade policy....but the big difference is that one party actually believes in democracy and the other believes in autocracy.

Sky, either way, they have the politicians and us under their thumbs, but if we let them simply vote their way into power without a strong opposition the dissenters don't know how strong they really are....and that's important information if you really want to make change happen.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but most of your post isn’t true. I’ll stick with the low-hanging fruit:

Obama has a whopping $147 million in cash on hand, dwarfing Romney’s $61 million. In other words, it would appear the liberals are trying to buy the election.

95% of Romney’s donations were for $250 or less. 98% of Obama’s donations were for $250 or less. That’s close enough cancelling any validity to the charge that large corporations are trying to buy the election.

Personally, I agree with JoiseyShore, one will do a lot more for society by donating to a charity than a political campaign.
George Bush appointed the first black U.S. Secretary of State followed by black female Secretary of State. So yes, I think any qualified minority could/would be appointed to the Supreme Court regardless of which party occupies the White House.

Even the (supposed-)evil-string-puller Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter and supports gay marriage. So really, why get all lathered-up about national politics. Local/neighborhood elections, sure, but not presidential campaigns. Waste of time (and some peoples' money).
Obama is a war criminal just like his masters the Bush’s. The NDAA bill is outright treason. Both of those are capital offenses if I am not mistaken. There in no room for Obama in the White House except if you want to hang him in the Rose Garden. Paul is the only man telling the truth and therefore the only man worthy of holding the highest office in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Ib0BtEDOc&feature=colike
Johnny, one of the problems about misdirection is that it doesn't work in an open forum. I love when people call me a liar too or wrong with my fax. You introduced a statistic - relative campaign fundraising by the presidential campaigns, but that's not what I was talking about....I was talking about the totality of fundraising by both sides, and the importance of contribution to Obama's war chest because those contributions are more visible than the PAC money.

I'm also interested in where you get your statistics, because I haven't been able to verify your figures. Can you cite your sources?

Having been a fundraising executive for 25 years, I am not so sure that giving to many charitable organizations isn't perpetuating the problem. Some yes, some no. The question is whether you are really in a position to tell which is which.

Joisey's subsequent comment left me befuddled. What in the world does it matter who nominated who for which office and which color the office holder was? That was a very strange non sequitur.

This was an experiment. It is interesting that no one has yet spoken in support of my proposal. I find that more disquieting than the odd objections.
Well, let me be your first (loud) vocal supporter. I absolutely agree with you. Not only in regards to this election cycle, but as a life rule. Stand and do something for what you believe in, people! No matter if it is small or large, as I agree wholeheartedly that it strengthens commitment to what you believe in.
I also shake my head at those that believe we would be the same or no worse off had McCain and Palin won the election. Shudder.
r./
I dunno.

I am a member of the team. I got a personal appeal:

"I need your help today.

Tonight is the May fundraising deadline, and it matters.

Please donate $14 or more before midnight:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-Tonight

Thank you,

Barack"

Direct from Mr Barack Obama, leader of the free world.

And I just sent him $14.
I'm confused.


"Thanks so much for your generous donation of $19.00.

We've always depended on supporters like you -- not special-interests or lobbyists -- for every dollar we get. Your donation will help pay for new offices, organizer trainings, and resources like phones and clipboards to support our hard-working staff and volunteers.

If you're interested in finding other ways to get involved with this campaign in your own community, please click here:

http://www.barackobama.com

Thanks again for your generous support,

Rufus

Rufus Gifford
National Finance Director
Obama for America"

I only gave $14.

Unless they charged me another $5.
@Nick, My email from Rufus showed the correct amount of $15.00. Better check your card. :)
There are, as any member of the elite could tell you, any number of paths to oligarchy - I've no doubt that they know them all.

When the driver of the bus is under orders to get you from point "A" to point "B", does it really matter which route he uses? The differences in the overall results between choosing a Republican or a Democrat are slim to non-existent. The end goal is the same and it WILL be achieved while good-hearted, well-meaning folks such as yourself get all worked up about the political equivalent of style of the driver's uniform.

Can you spell "RED HERRING"?

It is not who is in the drivers seat at any given moment. The important thing is where you're heading. And that, sir, is not anywhere you really want to be.

So long as you adhere to antiquated political stances and offer your support to any of the parties presently likely to win, you are supporting the present system. The system is owned lock, stock, and barrel, by the elite. If you're not one of that precious few, or someone who likes them calling the shots, then you're about to need a ton of KY lotion.
.
If my comment was somehow a “misdirection” I’d love to know what a direct response to your post would look like. If anything, your accusation is an attempt to dodge my very direct factual contradiction to your post (a la Elizabeth Warren). But let’s keep it civil.

The facts I restated are readily available all over the internet. Even if I did bother to copy some link you’ve already made the assertion that the funding you’re talking about is Super PAC funding. Ironic how you didn’t make that distinction in your post…it was only after I boxed you into a corner.

Look, Obama has wealthy individuals, Fortune 500 corporations, special interest groups, etc. funding both his Super PACs and his campaign. The same is true about Romney. I suppose it’s possible Romney’s Super PACs’ have more money but I would guess Super PAC funding is comparable to campaign funding. This brings us back to my main point, if anything, Obama is trying to buy the election, and you are assisting him in that endeavor.

If giving to charitable organizations perpetuates “the problem” why doesn’t Government spending also perpetuate whatever problems its trying to solve?
When Fever needs facts, he turns on Fux News. But enough swatting at an insect, as you can see from the comments here on a supposed hotbed of liberalism, Obama is in trouble. The same enthusiasm gap that took him to the woodshed in 2010 is even more gaping now.

Obama bears some responsibility for that for over-promising, but c'mon, we're supposed to be grown-ups here, people who long ago put aside childish fantasies about White Knights riding in to save us -- or in this case a Black and White Knight.

Despite my many disappointments with Obama's tactics, and to a lesser extent his policies -- such as the failure to put at least some banksters in jail -- no way in hell would I stay home or vote third-party. Apparently, amnesia is as rampant on the Left as it is on the Right -- but I remember 2000, and I will never forgive Ralph Nader and his followers for cursing us with Bush the Least.
Alan, in citing the Supreme Court openings I think you've pointed to the most important point for re-electing Obama. As for Mr. Fever's claims about the campaign financing, every time I come close to thinking he's a smart guy stuck with a very narrow, U of Chicago Econ 101 worldview, he makes a shill's argument suggesting that Obama has way more available funds and that the rich and the poor are equally divided on Obama and Romney.
I respect you, Jack, but you are way off base. Rand, the last time I checked, isn't even in the running, so what's the point of holding out for a guy who isn't even on the ballot?

Politics is the art of the possible. It's probably not a good idea to quote Otto Von Bismark these days, but he has a point. Politics the process of settling for what you can get instead of pining away for what you want.

Ron Paul occupies an analogous position to the one Ralph Nader occupied in the 2000 election as a spoiler. He can't win, but he can distract us from accepting the possible when perfection is beyond your reach. (I believe Paul is a nut case with some good ideas. His son is simply a nut case.)

The fact of the matter is that every president has had blood on his hands. It's their job to order people to kill and die. So why is Obama so particularly deserving of your derision....unless you fell for the rhetoric. (I didn't vote for Obama. I voted against Palin, and I got exactly what I expected. I didn't get Palin, thank goodness.)

Sky, my answer to your comment is the same: Politics is the art of the possible. There has never been any such thing as a moral government. All governments repressive devices. That's what they are designed to do....control people. The opposite is of course anarchy.

The largest moral community is the tribe, and the basic structure of the tribe is communal. Everyone accept responsibility for everyone else because everyone is related to everyone else because everyone is family.

The question is whether you are going to get a few perks from the system or none at all.
Tom, if there were any point in replying to Fever, I would point out to him that he still hasn't cited the sources for his statistics. He must have access to a different internet. The fact is that all we really know for sure is how much they've spent so far. I haven't run into him before, know nothing about him...but I really can't debate someone who insists on using the facts in his possession while refusing to divulge the sources thereof.

But I absolutely agree with you that there's something terribly wrong if we can't get any more support HERE for this call to arms., and that's exactly what I was trolling for.
Abrawang:

During the Bush years, two Supreme Court justices were appointed and the Republicans controlled Congress briefly (albeit without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate), if the Republicans wanted to pursue a “right wing” social agenda they could have. I put “right wing” in quotes because the party isn’t the religious wackos you so often accuse of being.

Obama has more available funds see links below. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/17/romneys-april-cash-haul-nearly-matches-obamas/
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/230183-team-obama-to-donors-get-off-sidelines-and-send-cash-now

The rich and poor aren’t evenly divided. The rich, seeing that Obama has affixed a target to their back, clearly support Republicans. The poor, or should I say the non-working poor with their mouth firmly affixed to the teat of the state, vote for Democrats. The working poor can go either way.

Alan:

Still dodging eh?
"If my comment was somehow a “misdirection” I’d love to know what a direct response to your post would look like." -- Johnny

In your case, Johnny...so would we...

Johnny's figures are accurate, but they or he in no way show your facts to be wrong. You did not address the numbers, nor are those numbers expressive of which side is trying to buy the election. The GOP super pacs have a significant edge in funding now, and probably will throughout. Recently, it was 156 million GOPacs, 43 M for the Dems.

Political parties have no shame and will buy the election to the extent it can be bought. The GOP's problem is they're selling an old dog with old tricks...the guy Joe Sixpack wants to get away from so he can have a beer...a one-dimensional cardboard cut-out that can't relate to Regular People...a guy with Lenin's charisma, after he died and was laying in state.

Johnny opened his irrelevant rebuttal with one of his trite lines, in this case the "low hanging fruit" thing. It's identical to his "You have many things wrong, but I'll just focus on this" ploy. In other words, he wants credit for deconstructing an argument without doing the argument part. It's really pretty funny watching the ways dull people try to conceal their inabilities. They think nobody notices, a trait we can attribute to dullness, so it's self-perpetuating.

The other thing that is equally inept and humorous is his habit of replying with a link, usually from the WSJ. He smugly acts "as if" that is a real argument ("This link destroys your argument!), but it simply shows the issue is over his head, as he can't address it with his own thoughts. Ergo we can assume his own thoughts are even more horribly revealing. It also shows he'll believe anything any hack can put into pixels.

Witness his post today. He cuts-n'pastes a WSJ article about "ObamaCare in Reverse," claiming Maine passed H-Care reform that brought down prices. The funniest thing is Maine designed that legislation to conform to "ObamaCare." A tiny bit of independent thinking and Googling is beyond his ability.

Johnny divides his time between trying to avoid a true argument and proving he can't make one. None of this, of course, would be fun to point out if it wasn't for his hilariously inappropriate condescension.
Misdirection from the trolls and from a Canadian. Lets be clear - the Koch brothers and their ilk have invested billions in their GOP candidates. Nothing like this buy-out has happened on the Democratic side. If you want the candidate opposing corporate ownership of this country to have ads on tv, poll watchers and get-out-the-vote teams in your area, donate.
Alan writes:
"Joisey's subsequent comment left me befuddled. What in the world does it matter who nominated who for which office ... "

Review the comment thread again.

To my first response, you wrote "I disagree strongly ... Joisey, there are significant differences between the parties....which I could enumerate but I'm work, so I will let one suffice. If Obama had appointed FOUR Supremes, included the two he's already appointed before Citizens United, do you really think it would have passed ... "

You, Alan, are the one who first brought-up "who nominated who" to which I responded that no, I don't think the Supreme Court Justices nominated by the current administration would have been vastly different from the previous administration and I gave examples of the diversity in Bush's cabinet.

I was buttressing my previous point that there's no difference between Demos & Repubs at the national level, so what contribute to either campaign's war chest -- use the money to donate to local charities.
Paul comments regarding my blog about ObamaCare on Alan’s blog about campaign finance. If that isn’t a misdirection I’m not sure what is? Kudos on the admission: Fever’s “numbers are accurate”. A second Kudos on another well written insult-laced rant, but please call me Fever.

I can’t wait to read the journal today. I will be sure to cut and paste another fabulously written piece now that I know you’re reading it.
Joisey, that's nonsense. YOU brought up the question of the racial identities of Obama's appointments and my rebuttal was framed around the fact that you introduced this embellishment to the basic discussion about the party affiliations of those appointments. Race wasn't part of the discussion until you introduced it and that's what I didn't understand about your comment. Obama's SC picks have been hugely different from his predecessor's picks, but I never mentioned race as a criteria.

And, Paul, you are actually incorrect, but it's not your fault, because under the Citizens United ruling we no longer know how much money is really being committed to the campaigns because each of the billionaire PACs 0nly announces how much they have spent on their ad buys. They aren't telling us how much they have in reserve....because they don't have to and because how much they have in the bank is irrelevant in the first place when they have hundreds of billions of dollars available to them from their individual liquid assets.

That's the pernicious part of this new world....we don't know how much money we're up against. What we do know is that the Democrats, while having a significant number of equally powerful potential donors, are not getting the same degree of public support.

Name one democrat, other that Bill Maher, who has actually ponied up $1 million. (I'm sure they are out there, but the point is that they are keeping a very low profile.)

As far as inept debating skills are concerned, I am still waiting to see a link to an actual official report from either party or either candidate about how much they have actually raised to date.

And when you find one, let's remember that Romney has been campaigning against Obama since NOVEMBER and that all of his ad buys since then should be counted. In addition, since they were all to some extent campaigning against Obama, should we not also include the total spent by all of Romney's opponents together since their actions in dragging out the ridiculous Republican primary battle enabled them to take one cheap shot after another against the president, who couldn't answer them individually because that would risk claims that he was attempting to tamper with the Republican party's process....or simply exhaust him as one person rebutting the serial arguments of a succession of nut cases.

But I am tired of this argument. Put up or shut up. Gather and present the figures, cite your sources, and we can work from there or go on to the next side show performance.
Alan,
While I wouldn't vouch for the exact totals without further examination I wouldn't waste time on, PACs of any type have reporting requirements.

"After registering with the FEC, PACs must file regular reports disclosing their **receipts** and disbursements. PACs have the option to file these reports quarterly or monthly, and may change their filing frequency as often as once a year. PACs that choose to file quarterly may be required to file certain pre- and post-election reports, depending on their activity."

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml

You could have looked that up as easily as I did and avoided making an incorrect statement. While PACs have to disclose the identity of registered lobbyists, they don't have to disclose the identity of other contributors. However, they do have to report total donations.
Actually, Paul, I am quite well aware of what the law says, but I also know how the law is being subverted. By changing your reporting periods frequently, you can slush funds from one period to another fairly easily because, while there is a reporting requirement, what is the inspection function? The Federal Election Commission receives reports but only of funds actually paid to the PAC as well as disbursements actually made. When you have billionaires committed to writing future checks as needed, the Total Raised Year to Date (TRYTD) figure becomes a joke. As a fundraiser, you always keep two sets of books, and it's legal. One set of books is based on actual cash transits; the other is based upon funds pledged but not yet paid. When you have someone commit a million dollars, you report the million dollars to the media....but the money doesn't show up on the books until it actually received, thus creating another level of discrepancy.

I lived in that world (although not as a political fundraiser per se) for 25 years. However, I admit answer was incomplete and therefore shoddy. I'm just tired of the subject because the point has been lost.

You get the government you can afford.
A fair and accurate assesment, whatever the proglodytes, absolutists and purists may say. I'll be putting some skin in the game as often as I can.
The way things are going pretty much, I think the whole country is more or less doomed. Obama's a nicer guy than Rmoney. Voting for or supporting Rmoney just makes the apocalypse come that much sooner.
May I ask why 19 and not 20? not important just odd.
Also this fits with my comment on your blog about Romney