Interesting stuff about campaing contributors

[Niko Igorevich]

It is interesting to check the differences between obama's and romney sponsors... if you check, obama is pretty much sponsored by important universities, while romney is sponsored by dark companies...

check obama's clnk.me/1wDzf ,

and romney's clnk.me/1wEaE ,,

contributors... and then see the difference

I know obama will not be the best... but... at least there are no dark interest behind him and he promotes national products

[Rob W. Case]

Both parties receive campaign contriibutions from businesses, corporations, and those who have an awful lot of money.

Forbes magazine, every year, has an issue where it cites the top richest people in America. When you look up their political party affiliations, you will notice that the top richest people in America largely contribute to the Democrat Party. The thing is, the Democrats relentlessly tout the Republicans as always "being for the rich," and never mention their own ties to large corporations because they have an image (note that, an image) to uphold in appearing as if they are "for the little guy," the average worker. If the Republican Party is supposed to be so far for the rich, then why is a majority of the richest people in America supporting and voting Democrat?

The Republican Party, in reality, is largely made up of middle class people who prioritize practicality, efficiency, and facts over emotionally sensationalized idealism because a middle class person's self sufficiency and income relies very heavily on these things. If a Republican defects from these things, then he is no good and needs to be replaced by someone who honors, respects, and acts on these fundamentals.

Now, you mentioned that the Democratic Party gets a lot from Universities, and yes. But note this. Many of those Universities are PUBLIC, and receive lots in Federal money. When a University raises its tuition, and a student applies for a pell grant or student loan, the government (which gets its funds from you the taxpayer), grants those higher costs and those who work for that University make out very well. Administrators in major universities make a killing. Take a look at this link to view their salaries.

www.collegiatetimes.com/databases/salaries

I believe that Universities that receive Federal funds should not be allowed to contribute to politicians because their contributing to politicians encourages more paybacks but with taxpayer money. It is a conflict of interest, in that the more funds that politician allows these universities, the more they collect in their campaigns from those who work for such places, who do not want the money to stop flowing.

Now, you mentioned that Mitt Romney is sponsored by "dark companies." You then linked to Bain Capital. Bain Capital is not a dark company. Heck, even Bill Clinton and Democrat NJ Mayor Corey Booker praised Bain Capital. The whole negative attitude towards businesses, companies, and so forth is bad because they are where production is made and are central to self-sufficiency. And it goes even deeper than that. All of the money that funds the government comes from us, from what income we are able to produce. When the state, or any large public entitiy spends money or lobbies for Democrats, the people who work for them (who likewise follow and lobby for Democrats) believe that they will either get richer because of it, or keep their current job, when in reality all of what they have is placed on a potential "credit card." In other words, their salaries are largely borrowed. Our national debt is our "credit statement" issued to us by the Federal Reserve which is owned and operated largely by private bankers. The more we drive up that debt, the more the private production sector suffers, especially when it is mixed with higher taxes, out of control spending, irresponsible budgets, and a weak economy.

The public sector is overwhelmingly bloated and trumps the income being generated by the production sector. The whole anti-business, "rich vs. poor" is nothing more than a diversionary tactic and gets its energy from perceived, simple-minded notions, and frequent repetition of those notions.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask or address. I want this country to come roaring back, but we have to attend to practicality, efficiency, and focus on generating income. That's where jobs come from, and the government gets its revenue. We have been moved and swayed for far too long by personality cults, smooth talk, and emotionally charged cliches and slogans that enable deeply rooted belief systems that trigger reactions. We need to get ourselves "together" and think and act in a responsible manner. After all our leaders work for us. We are their bosses, and if any employee ran up their bosses credit card, making purchases the boss did not approve of, that employee would be fired.

We are obligated to honor the decisions our leaders make because we entrusted them to lead with our best interests in mind. The question is, is that currently the case? If so, good. If not, why not?