Why "not any more"?

There were some Wall Street and hedge fund types, media barons, technology billionaires, etc.

But they are part of the 1%.

I'm not even sure whether the Pritzkers of Hyatt and real estate fortune in Chicago feel that they are still loved.

If they enact laws that disolve unions, we need to enact laws that remove corporate money from elections entirely.

Other side didn't.

they don't deserve to be billionaires.

Gave $10.00 that would probably help a lot. People need to realize what they will lose if Obama loses. Isn't it worth $10.00 to keep your child on your insurance? Isn't it worth $10.00 to keep your insurance with a pre-existing condition? Isn't it worth $10.00 to keep Marijuana legal. Oops, Just dreamin.

but just one RWer billionaire more than equals our donations.

and every Cause that would support the Ideals I believe in.

BUT...it's just a drop in the bucket to support the Postage and Phone Calls asking for More Money.

Plus time in Marches against Iraq Invasion and support for "Occupy Wall Street," and local actions I've been involved in just "Trying to Make a Difference."

NONE OF IT HAS MADE ANY DIFFERENCE!

I see you (by your Avatar) still think that Obama "Is ...THE ONE."

Good Luck to 'ya!

and I also think he did the best he could so far with the opposition he's had from Day One. I don't know how you meant "THE ONE," but it didn't sound like you meant JUST the best person to be president.

have a longer time looking in the "rear view mirror" and we aren't happy with what's been going on. Which I tried to tell you...

There isn't ANYONE out there now that I would trust. Neither Obama nor Romney nor others.

We aren't at the point where someone who really "gets it" about the American People and what they've (We've) been dragged through with this Globilized Monetary, Globilized War and Globilized Jobs Situtation can be elected. If such a bold person who has vision...even exists at this point.

I was just saying...we need to keep looking. Whoever we vote for in 2012...will be mostly the same. And, we will lose ground with either of the candidates. Whether it's faster with Romney and slower with Obama... What's the difference when it comes down to their campaign rhetoric and their track record. That's why I'm trying to say.

He's VERY different from Romney.

but, we expected better.

like you will "keep looking" and maybe not even vote for Obama.

How can we hold him accountable for Democratic Principles if he KNOWS he's assured of our votes because the ALTERNATIVE is so HORRIBLE that it can't be allowed to get into the Presidency.

That's what I'm saying.

the end of one of your posts: "I was just saying...we need to keep looking. Whoever we vote for in 2012...will be mostly the same. And, we will lose ground with either of the candidates. Whether it's faster with Romney and slower with Obama... What's the difference when it comes down to their campaign rhetoric and their track record. That's why I'm trying to say."

I'm glad to hear you'll be voting for Obama.

We voted for one CHANGE...and at sometime in the future...we will vote for another.

I'm sorry you read my posts in a way that you seemed feel that I was a troll. But, then, many keep looking at posts without thinking much beyond their view of the what they think about the messenger and not the meat of the post.

as much as could be done with Repubs. hell-bent on making Obama a one-term president (as well as having Conservadems in the "majority.&quot . Passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, ending the Iraq war, ending DADT, refusing to enforce DOMA, and more, is pretty good change IMO.

I never felt you were a troll. I know your posts from a long while back. We just disagree.

We have a lot of millionaire celebrities on our side but just one of their guys could counter all of them alone and not be hurt one bit. We lose this battle in every way.

about 2/3 of all income in the us.

do you think they want to give it up? give some to their "inferiors" in the race for money & power?

will we outspend them?

And Booker is the devil, according to posters here.

They don't care what WE think of them.

The main sources of Dem donations seem to have been:

- labor unions (ostensibly to benefit their members, but Democrat politicians spent it on a lot of other causes that many union members don't actually care much about, like environmentalism, consumer protection, gender politics, civil rights, etc.),

- urban real estate moguls (in order to influence big city politics, ensure infrastructure spending to increase value of their holdings, get favaorable zoning and other permitting done, etc),

- rich Jews (in order to buy military protection for Israel).

There has been some collection of money and donations from environmentalist, consumer, gender politics, civil rights, etc. groups, but they have mostly engaged in activisim and other participatory forms of politics, rather than contributing heavily. At least not in the billionaire class.

He may hold liberal positions on social issues but he's a corporatist economically. He has given to both parties nearly equally.

And I doubt Zuckerberg gives a damn one way or the other. He isn't political at all, only voted once and has no party affiliation. Why would we expect him to throw millions away when he doesn't care?

He could cut a Half billion check without too much
angst I would think.

In the same way the Kochs and the Aldelsons of the world are super dedicated fascists? I doubt it.

Buffett’s Liberal Causes
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/buffetts-liberal-causes/

I'll start a superPAC and solicit him.

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2012, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

My suspicion with a lot of these guys is that they professes to be liberal because it helps with the image. I can't back that up with fact, of course, but if you're a hugely rich person who cares passionately about something that doesn't stand a ghost of a chance if it isn't sufficiently funded, wouldn't you try to help? I just don't understand the thought process.

Ultimately, however, the impression one gets is that they don't really care who governs the US. They'll toss out the odd sound bite, but what evidence is there beyond that? We know that the right-wing billionaires care passionately about their cause, why isn't there the same fervour from the ultra-wealthy on the left?

Buffett is not stupid, Soros is not stupid. They know as I do that it will be IMPOSSIBLE for future Democratic candidates to win election without making a massive turn to the right. If they care, if my speculation is completely off-base then they need to get their money out; by doing nothing they are surely offering a tacit acceptance of CU, which will be enshrined forever in the event of a Romney win. Saying, as Buffett did, that he won't donate because he doesn't agree with it is preposterous, it's idiotic, and I don't believe that he's an idiot.

I'm not suggesting that they're aligned with the right because they are choosing not to contribute, but I don't think it's unfair to hope that they'll end up helping the pushback against the cacophony of well produced right-wing distortions handed to the GOP by Koch & their ilk in a big way, or wondering why their has been comparative indifference if they don't.

If Romney, bolstered by his huge pile of Koch money, wins the election this year, don't complain when it becomes essential for Democrats to woo Koch and co by putting together a policy package that is extremely desirable to them; it's the only way they will be able to compete. They'll absolutely HAVE to undercut the GOP on things like taxes & deregulation, that will be an absolute, unshakeable necessity or they won't get Koch onside.

Seriously, what kind of "democracy" is this where we have to beg billionaires for campaign funds? I know it's been like this for years,in some ways, but it's still fucked up.

Citizens United has to go. But in the meantime we can't just sit here surrender to the Koch Bros

than us "small people".

In any event, we would still be massively outgunned. There is no way to win dollar for dollar.

but the PACs are a different story.

but the PACs are what gave Walker the win.

The PACS meant a lot of money, but the fact that they had to wait a year after Walker was elected and the fact that Walker could start spending money in December where the Democrats were only able to start a month ago, provided a situation that was favorable to Walker not being recalled.

As we can see ...there's No Money for FDR type Dems....only for Neo-Libs and Third Way."

It's what it is.

The rest of us who can spare some coins just cannot compete these days.

Sad.

But how 'bout the Gates and Zuckerberg?

you don't get billions by sharing nicely w/ others

...

jeez, people, grow up

why would a billionaire give to the side of equality and decency? hello????? it would be stupid and self destructive

if you could be king of the world and keep all the cookies you would, this is why we need laws and enforcement to stop billionaires from happening instead of praying once in a while one billiionaire might behave decently

the fact that they possess billions says all you need to know about their "decency"

until the general election heats up. Someone made a good point on the Ed show tonight. He said that some people in WI were upset that outside groups played a role in initiating the recall. Yes, there was more outside influence on the GOP side. But, that is different from being a part of an initiation of an agenda to unseat the governor they elected.

A lot of big donors stay out of primaries and local politics so that they can focus their $ and attention on federal elections.

Obama is raising lots of money and will have Democratic pacs working on his behalf too. As far as I know Obama in 2008 is the only election (besides 1964 and LBJ) where Dems actually outspent the GOP in modern times.

the more myopic the outlook.

Seriously, millionaires (as Romney has proven over and over) are completely out of touch with the regular folks and their sole motivation is turned inwards to making more money.

iirc reading the other night, the incumbent being recalled has access to unlimited donations, while the challenger has a limit of $10,000 per donor. The playing field was uneven from the get go.

where as Rep. billionaires get all kinds of favors in return for donating!

to keep us fighting each other and to keep us distracted from noticing their large scale theft.

rich dems, rich repubs, and their monkey parasite politicians all play golf together. they laugh at us.

That includes that bastard Soros.

The repub billionaires don't mind donating big money because if their candidate wins they will gain more power and make money off their donations, but when the dem billionaires donate money, their donations go for the good of the country, not their own pockets. So it is impossible for the dems to bring in the type of donations the repubs bring in.

trade, universal health care, slow down the influence of the MIC, that they pay taxes, and not to destroy the environment, as well as corporate accountability.

We are fuckers!