No worries....got all the money
Posted By: in the world to fix the problem - sm - Starcat on 2006-03-16
In Reply to: Halliburton Didn't Protect Soldiers' Water - PK
Won't be a problem in Iran, either. God forgive us.
Senate Votes to Raise Debt Limit
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago
The Senate voted Thursday to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion, preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes.
The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
The measure allows the government to pay for the war in Iraq and finance Medicare and other big federal programs without raising taxes. It passed hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims.
The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year that would produce a $359 billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The debt limit will increase by $781 billion. It's the fourth such move — increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion — since Bush took office five years ago.
The vote came a day after Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers that action was critical to provide certainty to financial markets that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised.
On Thursday, Treasury postponed next week's auction of three-month and six-month bills pending Senate action, though the move was likely to be quickly reversed given the Senate's vote.
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion. With the budget deficit expected to approach $400 billion for both this year and next, another increase in the debt limit will almost certainly be required next year.
The debt limit increase is an unhappy necessity — the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations — that greatly overshadowed a mostly symbolic, weeklong debate on the GOP's budget resolution.
Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses.
When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records, said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch.
Only a handful of Republicans spoke in favor of the measure as a mostly empty Senate chamber conducted a brief debate Wednesday evening.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Bush's tax cuts account for just 30 percent of the debt limit increases required during his presidency. Revenue losses from a recession and new spending to combat terrorism and for the war in Iraq are also responsible, he said.
As for the $781 billion increase in the debt limit, Grassley said: It is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the federal government.
Before approving the bill, Republicans rejected by a 55-44 vote an amendment by Max Baucus, D-Mont., to mandate a Treasury study on the economic consequences of foreigners holding an increasing portion of the U.S. debt.
At present, foreign countries, central banks and other institutions hold more than one-fourth of the debt, but that percentage is growing rapidly.
Following the debt limit vote Thursday, the Senate was expected to vote late in the day on the budget plan, a nonbinding measure proposing tax and spending guidelines for the next five years.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., appears poised to win an increase of $7 billion in new and real funding for education and health research. The $7 billion would effectively be used to break Bush's $873 billion budget cap for 2007, which represents the most significant vestige of fiscal discipline remaining in Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg's budget.
The underlying Senate budget plan is notable chiefly for dropping Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare and for abandoning his efforts to expand health savings accounts or pass legislation to make permanent his 2001 tax cut bill.
Unlike last year, when Congress passed a bill trimming $39 billion from the deficit through curbs to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan subsidies, Senate GOP leaders have abandoned plans to pass another round of cuts to so-called mandatory programs.
But Gregg's measure re-ignites last year's battle over allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, since it would let Senate leaders bring an ANWR drilling measure to the floor under rules blocking a filibuster by opponents.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
That's what worries me about O...
His plan will surely benefit the lower and middle classes, but in the end, it may just keep them subdued. I don't know if playing Robin Hood is going to really fix anything. There are crooks on both ends of the classes. There are people who are rich who got there by cheating and stealing, and there are people who are poor who got there by poor choices and are cheating and stealing from the welfare system.
I think someone said this before, but what happened to the America where everyone worked hard and people were to proud to take a handout? So often it seems like people feel they are owed something. Everyone wants something for nothing.
I just feel like his plan is going to hurt more than help in the end. It's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. I mean don't get me wrong, extra income and a few more dollars would be great right now, but I'm not sure if taking from the top and giving it to the bottom is the right way to do it. I think we need to focus on education and getting people OFF welfare. We need to take a look at these people who have been on it for years and find out why they can't seem to move up. Is it because they CAN'T, or WON'T?
what worries me the most...
Is that too many have already voted--and for the man who will literally bankrupt our great nation while "socializing" it.
Remember when Maxine Waters said that basically the gov't would run everything? She didn't plan to leak that one out! If you want to see it, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW_FXjbt6wY
Even Jerrold Nadler, a very liberal Rep (D-NY) is concerned about Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. That's huge!
Nadler Challenges Obama's Political Courage
For Not Leaving Trinity Church
Washington, D.C. (November 3, 2008) -- Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks responded today to the comments made by Rep. Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) at a forum in Boca Raton, Florida yesterday. Rep. Nadler, acting as an Obama surrogate, said Obama didn't leave Trinity United Church, after learning of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric, because he "didn't have the political courage to make the statement of walking out."
"It is ironic that Obama's own surrogate recognizes Obama lacks the political courage to stand up for what is right," said Brooks. "Having failed to stand up to anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric in the past, one has to wonder if Obama will have the courage to stand up to it as president? Because Obama has not stood up to this type of rhetoric and because of Obama's choice of associates and advisers, the Jewish community remains deeply concerned about an Obama Presidency. Even Obama surrogate Rep. Jerrold Nadler acknowledges that when faced with tough decisions in the past, Obama lacked the political courage to do what is right."
Watch the video of Rep. Nadler's comments.
|
Dow has been down also because of worries about
nm
Well this worries me...could this be his first test...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_medvedev
MOSCOW – Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election.
In his first state of the nation speech, Medvedev blamed Washington for the war in Georgia and the world financial crisis and suggested it was up to Washington to mend badly damaged ties.
Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from four — a change that could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia and play into the hands of his mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin.
Extending the presidential term could mean a possible 12 more years in the top office for the popular Putin.
Echoing Putin, who made criticism of Washington and the West a hallmark of his two-term, eight-year presidency, Medvedev used the speech in an ornate Kremlin reception hall to cast Russia as a nation threatened by encroaching American military might.
"From what we have seen in recent years — the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO — we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," Medvedev said.
He signaled Moscow would not give in to Western calls to pull troops from Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or rescind its recognition of their independence following the August war.
"We will not retreat in the Caucasus," he said, winning one of many rounds of applause during the televised 85-minute address.
Talking tough, he fleshed out long-promised military measures in response to U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites now in NATO. The Kremlin claims the system is meant to weaken Russia, not defend against Iran, as Washington insists.
Medvedev said Iskander missiles would be deployed to Russia's western enclave of Kaliningrad, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, "to neutralize, if necessary, a missile defense system."
The Iskander has a range of about 280 kilometers (175 miles), which would allow it to reach targets in Poland but not in the Czech Republic — but officials have said its range could be increased. Medvedev did not say whether the missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads.
Russia will also deploy electronic jamming equipment, Medvedev said.
After the speech, the Kremlin announced Medvedev had congratulated Obama for winning the U.S. presidency, saying in a telegram he was "counting on a constructive dialogue with you on the basis of trust and taking each other's interests into account."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack emphasized that the planned missile defenses were not aimed at Russia.
"The steps that the Russian government announced today are disappointing," McCormack said. "But, again, this is not directed at them. Hopefully one day they'll realize that."
Medvedev appeared to be trying to improve Russia's bargaining position in potential talks with the Obama administration on missile defense. His wording suggested Russia would reverse the decision if the U.S. scraps its missile defense plans.
"Moscow isn't interested in confrontation, and if Obama makes some conciliatory gestures it will respond correspondingly," said Alexander Pikayev, an analyst at Moscow's Institute for World Economy and International Relations.
But independent military analyst Alexander Golts said Medvedev's "confrontational tone" could further harm relations with the United States, which plunged to a post-Cold War low over the war in Georgia.
"Russia itself is cutting off the route toward better ties," he said.
Regional leaders criticized Medvedev's missile warning. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said it was "certainly the wrong signal at the wrong time" and urged the U.S. and Russia to see change in the White House as an "opportunity for a new beginning."
Medvedev suggested the U.S. must make the first move to break the chill. The Kremlin hopes the incoming administration "will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," he said.
In addition to calling for a six-year presidential term, he said parliament's term should be extended to five years instead of four and its power over the executive branch increased.
Both changes could strengthen the hand of Putin, who can run for president again in 2012 and now heads the dominant United Russia party.
No worries, icytoes.
I know a lot of people who think both countries are in the middle east and they're not ignorant. When you listen to all that's going on in those countries, it does sound like they are very close in proximity, so it's an easy mistake to make.
Just take the snide comments of everyone else with a grain of salt. So you made a mistake and then corrected it. There are a lot of posts on this board where the OP made an oops - everyone makes mistakes.
You stick by what you believe in and don't let the meanies get you down. =)
No worries, comrade
I'm sure they will still be blaming Bush. That seems to be the only thing dems can say. Well Bush started it. Bush did this. Bush did that. I didn't do it, Bush and the pubs did. It's okay for me to double our deficit during my first couple of months in office because Bush spent so much in 8 years. It is all Bush's fault even though dems controlled congress for the last 2 years of his presidency. The pubs are all out to make dems fail to make them look bad even though the dems didn't do anything good during their 2 years control of congress because they didn't want the pubs to look good either. It isn't right to take free will away from someone wanting an abortion but it is okay to take the rights away from the doctor and not allow him to refuse to perform the procedure. It was okay for dems to wish Bush would fail but not okay for pubs and others to with Obama to fail.
But hey.....when all else fails......just blame Bush and praise Obama.
What worries me most about his plan...
isn't that the supermax prisons won't be able to hold them safely, but what if even one or two aren't convicted? What do we do with them then? Send them home or set them up in the US with their own Medicare card? That possibility isn't even being discussed.
What worries me most about his plan...
isn't that the supermax prisons won't be able to hold them safely, but what if even one or two aren't convicted? What do we do with them then? Send them home or set them up in the US with their own Medicare card? That possibility isn't even being discussed.
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
It takes money to make money. nm
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
money was cut due to war
I have compassion for those affected by Katrina. It is Bush and his ilk that I have no compassion for. This article states that the money was cut in 2003 due to the war. That is why I posted it. Money has been cut to the states since Bush's war, we are strapped in many ways in America due to Bush's war. Open you eyes and see your president for what he is..a jerk, a low IQ imbecile, and for what he has done to America due to his war.
Money.........
Well, if they don't have money for birth control, they sure as shoot don't have it for a baby BUT in my neck of the woods, there are LOTS of illegitimate babies, mostly by mothers who started at 12, 13, 14 and by high school, had 2 or more. They even sit in school and brag about getting a bigger paycheck because they are pregnant again. Now, really, does that sound like someone who is interested in birth control in the first place? Some of these girls who get pregnant at 12 or 13 don't even think birth control. They usually get talked into sex by a guy several years older than them in the first place, and he is a loser anyway, and usually has fathered several babies already anyhow. And, belive me, most of these girls because of community experiences, already know where the clinics are and they can get there. They sure as heck don't have a problem getting there for all the free healthcare their child gets, usually in the ER on Friday and Saturday night because they are too lazy to get to the clinic through the week. Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything positive for them.
No, I would rather the money be used for ..sm
necessities for Alaska instead of asking the lower 48+1 to subsidize them.
The money that has gone to the war...
has been appropriated for that specific purpose. It was not just lying around waiting to be spent, so there is no reason to believe that if the war were not going on that amount of money would be spent elsewhere. That is not how the government works.
If the government did not help these institutions out, it would destabilize the economy which could trickle down to our banks and what little money we have in them. At least they learned from the fannie/freddie fiasco...when they gave the loan to AIG they kicked the top folks who ran it out, with no golden parachute and will oversee it...and in this case, finally...since it is a loan...if they stay solvent and pay it back the interest will benefit us all as it will go back into the coffers with the principal.
Exactly the kind of thing McCain has been talking about for years. Glad Bush finally listened.
yes, you can if it is your money..
I have done it already.
Sure there are.......you want all your money given as
xx
Of course you would....it's not your money
You'd be screaming a different tune. Even those without it have better sense than to believe this is a terrible thing. The more he makes, the more people he can hire. So clueless and bitter
No, that's not where he's getting his money
22
I don't think money should be taken from those
who make more AT ALL. I think there should be a tax PERCENTAGE and it is based on income so it is even across the board. I don't think those who make $200,000 should have a higher percentage than those who make $30,000. There is enough crap out there that doesn't need funding that can go to those who HONESTLY need help.
Those who HONESTLY need help are those who are trying to do something to get out of the whole and can't. Not those who go and buy a house that is way out of their price range, or who pop out 7 or 8 kids just to get food stamps. Not those who live in section 8 government housing for $60 a month and then buy a brand new BMW in someone elses name because they make money selling drugs or working under the table and not reporting it.
I said it is based on grades ALSO. Meaning it is based on both income and grades. Which means if I don't TRY and keep my grades up no matter how little money I make, I'm not going to receive it. That's the difference. No one seems to want to TRY anymore. Everyone just wants more, more, more, and they are doing less, less, less.
My argument is that those who do well for themselves should not have to pay for those who don't give a hoot and don't try to do well for themselves and just sit back and try to let daddy government take care of them.
Where did all that money come from?
Scam after scam keeps coming out. Phony donators sending money with prepaid credit cards that can't be traced. Gee, wonder where the money is coming from ? He is not honest or truthful about anything, and so many people trusting him with their future...sad.
With all the money that
Barrack Obama raised for his campaign.....I wonder who he owes now? I mean....surely some of these people who gave a bunch of money want something in return. Are there promises Obama has promised to keep to individuals who gave him money that we don't know about? This is one reason why I hate political parties. The DNC raised all that money and you have some serious extreme left psychos who gives money and then they want something in return. Does this make Barrack Obama the democratic party puppet now? How does that work?
Where is all this money going to come from?nm
x
so where does all this money come from and
when do we STOP bailing companies out? I was not a fan of the first bailout. I think that in the end, all of this will make things much worse and we are just slowing down the process. I understand that both McCain and Bush wanted the bailout, but I am capable of thinking for myself. If you want the auto industry to keep up employment, I would think that the best way to make that happen is to buy American cars, bot hand them over a lot of my hard earned money. I think that the money I paid for my car is enough.
where the money comes from
Okay, those are some interesting links. I feel even better about the job banks program now, because, check it out--this program was *created* to discourage outsourcing. The union felt like it made it too expensive for the car companies to outsource jobs. So the car companies obviously did some calculations and discovered that they could pay these guys not to work, AND outsource, AND still make money (that they failed to make money has less to do with those out of work guys, I suspect, than it does with decades of misreading consumer preferences!). So if this program is a big money-suck, it's only because they insisted on outsourcing.
It's also great to see that this job bank was not available for workers until AFTER they had exhausted their unemployment benefits--and that *those* benefits were also being funded by the automakers. So our tax dollars don't really have much to do with the story. As for the bailout...well, personally I'd rather the bailout money help actual people, rather than Wall Street, so I'm not really concerned about some guys playing checkers.
(as for the $31 an hour, I'm still having trouble doing the math on how a $5 billion dollar committment by GM for 4 years for 5000 workers works out to $31 an hour, but I'll let it go for now!)
I fuss (I like that word!) about spreading the wealth from rich to poor, and about these auto workers, because I think they represent an important case for us to learn from. How will we protect *our* livelihoods? Can companies begin to take us into account, and not at the same time do the same stupid mistakes that always bankrupt them, and not make it look like *our* fault that they're going bankrupt?
me too, me too - I want some of that money
Although I don't use sm as my handle. Does that disqualify me. LOL
why not put the money to better use
come on, there are much better things those donors could do with some of that that money than a ridiculously overpriced a party, for pete's sake.
We owe them money. (NM below)
x
Really! Well, that was exactly what the money was
before they used it illegally push Obama into office...... please stop falling for all this mumbo jumbo hype about non-profit organizations. Acorn will get the money regardless because the liberals nut jobs up there will see to it.
I say - take the money and run!!
from what I've seen, Michigan's economy has been in the toilet for decades...you guys NEED the money - let's just hope they don't do idiotic sh*t like build new malls or luxury hotels...........
Them using their own money???????
Why should they use their own money when they've got ours.
Please show me the link that says they are using their own money from their own bank accounts to fund their party. If I see it I will eat my words and apologize. But it's not just the money.
It's them turning the WH into a party house. This is not what the white house is suppose to be for. And in these times when we have so many people loosing their jobs, and homes, and going hungry this is sending the wrong message to America. "Hey, your out of work, getting ready to lose your home, hungry? Well hold on and I'll address that when I'm done partying dude".
But where does the money come from?
Tax dollars, right? So what O'Reilly stated was really true.
BTW, glad to see you admit to watching Fox once in a while, even if you don't agree with them. 
O'Reily's right on the money
I think we should have used more *shock and awe* and less soldier feet on the ground in Iraq.
About the murder and torture investigations--Bill's quote was right on the mark:
What is Murtha's intent? Is this an 'I-told-you-so' because he opposes the war? Murtha should answer that question because 95% of the military is performing heroically overseas. In the chaos of war perspective and fair play are vitally important.*
Sure there some bad apples there always is, but is there widespread corruption and criminal behavior in the military? I highly doubt it.
Money is the root...sm
Presidential Race May Cost Hopefuls $500 million
Those three dollars you've set aside in your tax returns as a good deed toward clean presidential elections? Forget about it. Nobody wants them anymore, the AP says.
Strategists from both parties estimate the White House race in 2008 could cost each nominee $500 million — far more than the Presidential Election Campaign Fund can afford. As a result, this next presidential campaign could mark the first time in 30 years that the Democratic and Republican nominees turn down the fund's millions in both the primary and the general elections.
I agree - they take your money but they never want to pay
You're right. Such premiums are criminal. My ex-husband was in the same boat, had a childhood policy for a chronic condition, and after he had surgery for that condition they raised the rates every 6 months until he was forced to drop it, which is what they wanted him to do.
As long as insurance lobbyists find someone to bribe in Washington, their party continues. They spend more money finding loopholes and rewriting policies so they can deny claims than they would ever spend just paying for the dang healthcare.
I don't think we can afford to police them and force them to pay up either. That's why I like Kucinich's plan, one provider, nationwide, and the rest go out of business.
Or at least we could enact laws to make them keep it simple. You pay for coverage, you should have coverage. Any language in any policy starting with "pre" should be outlawed. No more "preexisting", "preauthorization", etc. Even premium starts with "pre"! The laws are written to protect THEM. The policies are written to protect THEM. It takes a lot of time to dig through the fine print in any policy just to see how you're "allowed" to be sick and what your copays and caps are. By the time you figure out what the rules are, you change jobs or your company changes policies, and you have a new set to figure out.
They carry on about people not having insurance - but the majority of people who do have it can't get a claim paid anyway. The policies cost more and more, they deny more and more claims (or discount them down to nothing).
I used to do billing. A radiologist charged $20 to read a chest x-ray. Medicare forced him to take $2.95 in pay for that x-ray and write off the rest. Medicaid forced him to take $2.65 for it. BCBS would pay $7.65, Aetna $5.25, and so on. In what other industry does the buyer tell the seller what they get to charge? That is where the real problem begins that drives up the cost of health care. He has to read more and more x-rays to break even, or see a majority of patients with no insurance - because its legal to charge them full price!
No matter how much we spend on health care, the money does not go to the provider. It goes to the middleman, the insurance companies, and you have to fight to get them to part with a cent.
I never saw so much money wasted as when
Tell me, where is Obama going to get the money for
nm
I think the amount of money that
politicians and athletes make is just crazy. Don't even get me started on athletes. LOL!
I'd want the money but not from that family. sm
The poor have more morals and principles. They make most of their money off of misery, lies, deceit, and thievery. They fund both sides of war conflicts and founded the central banking system, which is robbing everyone blind. She met her husband at a Bilderberg conference.
She did support Hillary and then endorsed McCain, but said she did not trust him because he came off like too much of an elitist. Bizarre statement from someone who is a member of a family who possesses more than half the world's wealth since the early 1900s.
Repubicans and Money
Forget the poor people who can barely keep a roof over their heads and feed their children...we must protect the big corporations, give their executives huge golden parachutes, and protect our richest friends so they can continue to live the lavish lifestyles to which they have become accustomed!
Why waste the Country's money on social programs for people who actually need help when we can waste the Country's money on people who are experienced at spending fast, furious, and frivolously while living in the lap of luxury!
Elitism does not always have to do with money....
it is a perception, an attitude.
2000 Jeep Cherokee with 165,000 on it. Clinging bitterly to my Jeep along with my guns and religion...lol.
That remark about small-town folk in Pennsylvania by Obama WAS an elitist remark. No matter what kind of car he drives.
anyone who invests their money
x
We have been borrowing money from them for
xx
Right on the money Sista!! Thank you!!
You are so right, and thank you for taking the time to explain that in detail. I've always said he's a smooth operator and I have never trusted him. Now, there it is in black and white.
Thank you!
Well sure he's outspending...look where the money
))
Why do you make such little money?
I don't understand how you and your husband only make $24K between the two of you. Working an average of 30 hours a week, I will make close to $40K this year.
Not judging. Just don't understand how as a Transcriptionist you can only be making that much between the two of you.
Obama has money out the
ying yang......what....he couldn't pay for his own way to see his dear grandmama....you know....the one he called a typical white person. To critical Palin's clothing expense, etc. and not look at what the others are spending as well is wrong.
BTW, who is paying for Obamarama's 2 million dollar party in Chicago come election day?
I am voting for him and I don't need anyone's money, thank you! (nm)
:p
CBS follows Obama's Money...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86RAp_iuhOQ
As anywhere else...money talks.
do you have any idea of the combined wealth of Buffet and Soros? Keep sipping.
Yes he did take money from the "big guy"
Sure he may have taken $5 and $10 here and there but he has not been truthful and many people who were mesmerized by him actually believe this hooey. Obama is backed by Brzienski(sp?), Bilderberger, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs. There is a lot more to who gives money to the campaigns besides little ol grandma smith who gave $5. There are not enough people in America that if they donated $5 or $10 (or even $2300) that he would have raised the kind of money he raised. You also have to remember Obama got 52% of the popular vote and McCain got 48%. That's only a 4 point lead. That means 48% of America did not vote for Obama or send him money, and I doubt very highly out of the 52% that voted for him not every single person had money to donate. He won 4%. Not a huge difference as some are portraying it. I talk to one of my family members and they make it sound like it was a huge landslide. I reminded her 4 points is not a huge landslide.
As for not taking money from lobbyists.... he took money from special interests groups and that is who is beholden to and they donated BIG!
|
