PDA

View Full Version : George Soros and all that money


Cochise
11-04-2004, 08:14 AM
Well, as everyone knows by now the Soros' of the world lost in their bid to supposedly spend their personal fortunes to defeat President Bush.

If you follow his cash to the 527 groups, you would supposedly find more than $18,000,000 that Georgie spent to try and knock the President out of office. As a public service to Mr. Soros for next time around, I thought I would create a thread letting him and others know what he could have spent all that money on instead and got something out of it.

16,363,636 loaves of bread
Put 1,058 students through college
Sent 7200 children to a private school for a year
Bought 138 average middle-class homes
16,513,761 pairs of underwear
1,200,000 better haircuts
1,285,714 cases of beer to drink your sorrows away
900,000 basic new cars
9,473,684 gallons of gasoline
38,544 plane tickets back to Budapest
Paid my student loans off 1,125 times

Of course, for a man who's supposedly worth around $10,000,000,000, $18,000,000 million isn't such a big deal. It's like an average American, who has a net worth of around $86,000, buying 2 tickets to a Chiefs game (plus parking, $150)

Anyone got any another things he would have been better served spending his hard earned... uh... well... the rest of his money on?

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 08:20 AM
The money was irrelevant to Soros. Like you or me dropping $100, prolly, so who cares.

The real point here is that I have a very dim view of campaign finance, even in the wake of McCain-Feingold.

Time to think about a new model to eliminate all this unaccounted for money being poured into indirect campaigning. It's simply not good for the process.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:23 AM
The money was irrelevant to Soros. Like you or me dropping $100, prolly, so who cares.

The real point here is that I have a very dim view of campaign finance, even in the wake of McCain-Feingold.

Time to think about a new model to eliminate all this unaccounted for money being poured into indirect campaigning. It's simply not good for the process.

Full disclosure...it's really that simple. I dont understand the desire to over complicate the process.

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 08:25 AM
Full disclosure...it's really that simple. I dont understand the desire to over complicate the process.

I just tend to dislike people buying access to power by funding campaigns indirectly.

the Talking Can
11-04-2004, 08:26 AM
something we agree on....transparency

anyone can contribute anything they want, BUT all contributions (to the exact dollar amount) have to be made public, and a public record should be kept and made available via the internet, libraries etc....

Cochise
11-04-2004, 08:30 AM
something we agree on....transparency

anyone can contribute anything they want, BUT all contributions (to the exact dollar amount) have to be made public, and a public record should be kept and made available via the internet, libraries etc....

That would be fine with me. Remove the limits on contributions to anything, but require any group that airs any kind of political announcement to publish on its website or whatever a full list of people and dollar amounts. The current system is stupid and solves nothing.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:47 AM
I just tend to dislike people buying access to power by funding campaigns indirectly.

I said nothing about indirectly...all money contributions are disclosed.

It's quite simple...this way we can identify how much Halliburton gave to Bush and how much Hollywood gave to Kerry, etc...

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 08:51 AM
I said nothing about indirectly...all money contributions are disclosed.

It's quite simple...this way we can identify how much Halliburton gave to Bush and how much Hollywood gave to Kerry, etc...
So, presumably, you also think Major League baseball has an excellent system and that the Yankees should continue to be allowed to spend many times more than their opponents (as long as they disclose what their salaries are or somesuch)? :shrug:

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 09:08 AM
So, presumably, you also think Major League baseball has an excellent system and that the Yankees should continue to be allowed to spend many times more than their opponents (as long as they disclose what their salaries are or somesuch)? :shrug:

Sorry...I reject the analogy. Totally not related to one another.

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 09:15 AM
Sorry...I reject the analogy. Totally not related to one another.

Suit yourself. Wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in this country. Removing all caps and limits will simply make electioneering the playground of the extremely wealthy (even moreso than it is now).

Someone like Bill Gates, with a well-developed plan (that would certainly include buying one or more news organizations, and then unlimited funding of campaigning), could have an amazingly significant impact on who is serving in Congress and the Presidency.

(or Warren Buffet, if my mentioning a Democrat makes you feel better)

No thanks.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 09:25 AM
Suit yourself. Wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in this country. Removing all caps and limits will simply make electioneering the playground of the extremely wealthy (even moreso than it is now).

Someone like Bill Gates, with a well-developed plan (that would certainly include buying one or more news organizations, and then unlimited funding of campaigning), could have an amazingly significant impact on who is serving in Congress and the Presidency.

(or Warren Buffet, if my mentioning a Democrat makes you feel better)

No thanks.

A red herring...first, there are no limits. All of these laws just change how the money is hidden. Second, Soros tried, and it failed. Your doomsday theory was tried over the last 18 months and it didnt work.

Last, coordination of news organizations is nothing new...it unfortunate the 'big 3' dont have a stranglehold on information any more. As a matter of fact, I think the coordination merely delayed the inevitable.