Democrats & Liberals Archives

For Sale At Knockdown Price: Presidency of the United States

New numbers today revealed just how much money the primaries are going to cost the top candidates for the Presidential nomination. And they don’t even come close to the $800 million that experts think the actual race itself will cost.

Mind you… is $800M really that much money, to become the most powerful person in the world?

Think what else you could buy for that kind of money.

Three days of pointless war in a middle-eastern country…

Half of YouTube…

A 30-year contract with A-Rod…

11 houses in Aspen…

Suddenly $800M doesn’t seem quite so much, does it?

It’s approximately $2.64 per individual in the country, in fact. A lot less than the $625 PER FAMILY EACH YEAR that the Iraq fiasco is costing – a figure that will eventually end up at $5,000 total per family when we hit a trillion.

But if a Democrat gets in to the White House, we can look forward to a sensible withdrawal of troops that will save us all billions and billions, as Carl Sagan might have put it.

By the numbers alone, it is obvious that it is absolutely incumbent upon us to elect such a Democrat. It will be worth every cent of the $800M we spend on electing one if we can get the hell out of that country – and start paying off the debt that we’re leaving to our children and grandchildren.

Barack Obama it is, then.

Posted by Jon Rice at October 16, 2007 3:48 PM
Comments
Comment #236243

Jon, one flaw in your argument. A Democratic President will not pull out of Iraq and veto the money spent in Iraq added into the budget for other purposes. Thus, a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress will have full access to the cookie jar to buy election votes from their constituents for years to come, all the while adding more and more to the national debt and the bankrupting of our children’s futures.

The temptation experienced by a one party government is just too great when incumbents are reelected regardless of how they devastate our nation’s and children’s future. The so called “fiscally responsible” party over the last 7 years has proved the temptation is just too great when the opposition is too weak to act as a check and balance.

The only way our children and seniors are going to see their future’s NOT deteriorate is if voters increasingly remove incumbents from both parties until their replacements get the message: “Reelection depends upon responsible RESULTS, not failed promises and excuses”.

Anyone who believes these Democratic candidates talk of fiscal responsibility, have no insight into our history, recent, or past. There is no motivation for incumbents to cut spending, salvage our future, and incur the political backlash that will result, as long as voters keep voting incumbents back in, regardless of results.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #236250

Jon, I can’t find a Dem candidate who will say publically in a debate that they will end the war by the end of their first term, much less, shortly after they enter the West Wing. Hillary is already spending your so-called “war dividend” with Schips for 25 year olds and for families making up to $83,000 per year. She has also proposed the “$5000 Baby Bond” and God only knows how much her Socialist Health Care program will eventually cost. And, I believe she is just getting started in promised spending to get elected. My guess, by the time the actual election is held in November ‘08, and if Hillary is the Dem Candidate, she will have racked up at least a trillion in new spending. How many homes in Aspen will that buy? Every single Rep candidate is calling for fiscal discipline. Well, since all politicians will lie, I’ll at least go with the liar I agree with.

Posted by: Jim at October 16, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #236261

Obama?! You’d better start thinking about Kucinich if you want out of Iraq.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 16, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #236270
Jon, I can’t find a Dem candidate who will say publically in a debate that they will end the war by the end of their first term, much less, shortly after they enter the West Wing.

Bill Richardson said he’d end the war the day after inauguration…

Posted by: Rachel at October 16, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #236279

If you want out of Iraq and want to bring all of our troops home to protect our borders, and want a balanced budget,and want the U.S. to bring its jobs back to this country, and want the goverment to work within the laws of the constitution,(ie. no spying on its citizens), If you want a simpler tax system,and a dollar that is backed by golds and silver and not worthless paper Then Ron Paul is your man. Now if the thought of voteing for a Repub. that will do this, still turns your stomach then theres Mike Gravel. But I think Ron Paul has a much better chance then Mike thou.

Posted by: Papioscar at October 17, 2007 12:03 AM
Comment #236286

Ron Paul would devastate this economy PDQ by attempts to return to a commodity based dollar value and banking asset system. He doesn’t understand that if the EU, China and India, and most other of our trading partners don’t / won’t / can’t also shift their currency, America goes into an economic depression that would make the 1930’s look like an FDR Party.

I agree with and like some of Ron Paul’s thinkings like ending the utterly failed war on drugs and the Iraq occupation while pointing out to the Middle Eastern nations how their own wealth, sovereignty, and peace will be destroyed if THEY don’t cooperate to contain the Iraq sectarian and terrorist violence. But he would devastate our economy and drive 10’s of millions of Americans into abject poverty with his half baked “let’
s return to the good old days of the Roaring 20’s” economics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 17, 2007 6:17 AM
Comment #236292

Nothing could have been more remarkably stupid than than Hillary’s statement that she would use force against Iran.Bush obviously did not have the capacity to understand that invading another country(Iraq)could not have been a popular venture of violence any where in the world,much less with the Iraqis.This lady is known to be educated,bright and wise and careful at assessing public opinion.One wonders if the americans would find it as a palatible action on the part of a future leader/President of their country.if she is correcect in her estimation, then God help the Americans;they are doomed.

Posted by: ehsan saeed at October 17, 2007 8:36 AM
Comment #236297

Ron Paul…
Bill Richardson…
Mike Gravel…
Kucinich…

All the front runners…
I think we’ll be OK…

Posted by: cliff at October 17, 2007 9:27 AM
Comment #236305

Jon:
“Barack Obama it is, then.”

I’m still leaning toward Edwards, myself. But Obama is far and away better than Hillary for many reasons. Aside from that, I have a big problem with the idea of Bush (Sr.), (Bill) Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush (Jr.), (Hillary) Clinton. I really think it’s time America had a president that doesn’t carry either of those two names.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #236306

Adrienne -

I couldn’t agree more. It’s frightening to look at that list. The idea of the entire country being ruled by two families for a quarter-century seems monarchical rather than republican (with a small ‘r’).

Posted by: Jon R at October 17, 2007 11:32 AM
Post a comment