POL: Bloomberg (as in Independent) in '08?

[MalcPow]

I did a search but didn't see any mention of this over the last few days. It'd obviously shake things up in '08 if he ran, but I don't know if Mayor Mike really has much of a following nationally. I suppose he could afford to buy a little publicity along the way though.

Bloomberg poised for third-party campaign
By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 15, 2007
________________________________________
Advertisement


New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times.

"He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it."

Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run.

The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion. Earlier, he told friends he would make a run only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race and would spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personal fortune.

A $1 billion campaign budget would wipe out many of the common obstacles faced by third-party candidates seeking the White House.

"Bloomberg is H. Ross Perot on steroids," said former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner. "He could turn the political landscape of this election upside down, spend as much money as he wanted and proceed directly to the general election. He would have resources to hire an army of petition-gatherers in those states where thousands of petitions are required to qualify a third-party presidential candidate to be on the ballot."

Senior Republican officials -- including those supporting declared Republican presidential nomination contenders -- and several top Democrats told The Times they take the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy as a serious threat in November 2008.

The Bloomberg team is studying the strategies of Mr. Perot, the Texas billionaire whose 1992 presidential campaign helped President Clinton to win the White House with 43 percent of the popular vote.

"Mike has been meeting with Ross Perot's most senior people about how they did an independent run in 1992," the Bloomberg business adviser said on condition of anonymity so as to avoid appearing to speak for Mr. Bloomberg.

Talk of Mr. Bloomberg as a third-party candidate comes as Republican voters are deeply divided over their top-three declared candidates -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- and are casting longing glances at former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

"Some of the people on McCain's [presidential campaign] staff have been calling me to see if Mike is running because they are ready to leave the McCain campaign, which is a biplane on fire and spiraling down," the Bloomberg adviser said.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, another independent-minded Republican, dined recently with Mr. Bloomberg and suggested on CBS' "Face the Nation" over the weekend that he and Mr. Bloomberg might make an independent run for the presidency.

But in Albany, N.Y., yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg downplayed that suggestion.

"I think he was probably joking," the mayor told reporters. Mr. Hagel "speaks his mind. ... He's not happy with the same things that I'm not happy about."

Republicans who say they are girding for a Bloomberg entry note Mr. Bloomberg has a 68 percent share of his privately owned company, Bloomberg LP. The company is worth $20 billion (and about $30 billion if put on the block for public bidding) and earns $1.5 billion annually in after-tax profits.

"If Bloomberg runs, he could have more money on hand than either of the two major party nominees," said Mr. Toner, the former FEC chairman. "It would be the first time that happened in the modern era."

A New York Daily News poll of the city's voters finds that Mr. Bloomberg, twice elected mayor as a moderate Republican, is far more popular than Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor who leads in most polls for the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Bloomberg said yesterday he was flattered by that result but downplayed it at his Albany press conference, saying, "The current mayor always has a real advantage."

Social conservative leaders have told The Times they are determined to block Mr. Giuliani from becoming the Republican presidential candidate but that they can't stop Mr. Bloomberg from making a third-party run.

"This much I know, if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, that is the ticket for the Democrats to get the White House in 2008," said Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council. "Many pro-life voters who have been voting Republican will not vote for the top of the ticket if it's Giuliani."

Other top social and religious conservative leaders, in separate interviews and discussions last week, told The Times their movement has decided to support Mr. Thompson for the Republican nomination. They said he has satisfied them that he is reliably supportive of religious-conservative positions on key issues.

"A third-party candidacy is almost inevitable" in 2008, said former Virginia Democratic Party Chairman Paul Goldman, who pointed out that third-party candidacies have affected the outcome of five of the past 10 presidential elections -- including George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, Mr. Perot in 1992 and '96, and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000.

"If the Republicans nominate someone the press can tag as a pro-war social conservative and the Democrats pick an anti-war liberal, Bloomberg will run up the center," Mr. Goldman said. "If conservatives don't rally to stop Giuliani they will get a third party socially conservative candidate who will only help elect the Democrat."

[CamEdwards]

Since Bloomberg's made his key issue gun control, I've been talking about/following him quite a bit.

With just the stuff he's done on the gun issue, I don't think there's any way he'd be a viable third party candidate, but the question is how much he'd take away from the other two candidates. A billion dollars does buy a l ot of advertising.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I like Mike.

[Crapshoot]

Not going to happen. Hiter could run against Ghandi, and 40% of the populace would vote for a GOPer and 40% for a Democrat.

[Anthony]

yeah, seriously, unless he has nothing better to do with his money he's only going to waste it running as an Independent.

[albionmoonlight]

I guess when you have billions of dollars, you end up with different hobbies than others.

I agree with Cam about wondering more about his effect than his chances of winning. I think that each major party has some pretty glaring holes going into 2008. The time is ripe for a third party to come up--not to win, which I think would be almost impossible--but to possibly shift the debate and force a major change in one or both of the big two.

[st.cronin]

I think he could have a shot. Perot was able to get quite a few votes, and Bloomberg has a lot fewer negatives (that I can see) than Perot did.

[Logan]

I think we talked about this on here maybe 6 months to a year ago...but I don't have the patience to search for it either.

He might have a shot depending on who are in the R and D positions. For example, an all NY race of Giuliani (a more liberal Republican) vs. Clinton (a woman who some can't stand at all) vs. Bloomberg would certainly be interesting.

I'm still a bit confused though...there was a report out of the Post or Daily News last week that said Bloomberg had his eyes on a run at Spitzer for Governor in 2010.

Busy guy.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think we talked about this on here maybe 6 months to a year ago...but I don't have the patience to search for it either.

He might have a shot depending on who are in the R and D positions. For example, an all NY race of Giuliani (a more liberal Republican) vs. Clinton (a woman who some can't stand at all) vs. Bloomberg would certainly be interesting.

I'm still a bit confused though...there was a report out of the Post or Daily News last week that said Bloomberg had his eyes on a run at Spitzer for Governor in 2010.

Busy guy.

My impression is that he's keeping his options open, possibly waiting to see who emerges as likely nominees. I don't think he would run against Giuliani or Clinton, actually, I think he would prefer to run against somebody like Brownback or Romney and Obama. That's my guess.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm still a bit confused though...there was a report out of the Post or Daily News last week that said Bloomberg had his eyes on a run at Spitzer for Governor in 2010.

Busy guy.

that's more realistic. Spitzer is hard at work making enemies and he hasn't even been in office for 6 months.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

that's more realistic. Spitzer is hard at work making enemies and he hasn't even been in office for 6 months.

Probably because he had a stable full of enemies before he got elected.

Just out of curiosity (I'm no US History buff), has there ever been an election that featured even two candidates whose last positions of office were in the same state? Three would rock.

[MalcPow]

It would be funny to watch what happened if he simply won New York (which I would argue is possible). Some color from Wikipedia on what transpires in the event no candidate gets to 270 electoral votes (also very possible if Mike won New York):

If no candidate for President receives an absolute electoral majority 270 votes out of the 538 possible, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President. In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes, but could not establish a majority of votes in the College. The House votes en-bloc by state for this purpose (that is, one vote per state, which is determined by the majority decision of the delegation from that state; if a state delegation were to split evenly, that state would be considered as abstaining). This vote would be repeated if necessary until one candidate receives the votes of more than half the state delegations—at least 26 state votes, given the current number, 50, of states in the union.

I agree that I don't think he can win, but he could really shake things up. I mean the question might then become, can a Dem win without NY? I think it would be very difficult for that to happen without things going to the House. I don't really think this is some incredibly calculated Republican move to make the Dems truly fight for NY, but the end result might play out that way.

[Anthony]

but my question is why would anyone spend $1billion of their own money just to "shake things up"?. is there a VP bid in it for him somewhere? otherwise, to think he would do this for the pure benefit of helping one party is poppycock.


that's a word that isn't used enough.

[st.cronin]

Yeah, I don't think Bloomberg has any loyalty to the Republican Party. If anything its the other way around, they'll go out of their way to appease him.

[MalcPow]

He can win some day. Right now he lacks a national profile or the party standing to even win the nomination, so spending the money gives him an opportunity to position himself on a much larger stage. Running campaigns builds a network and support for the next time around, and really, I personally think he's wrong, but to hold out hope he could win against the right set of party candidates isn't completely insane. I think he makes a lot of noise in an Obama v. Anyone But Giuliani election, and with a little luck anything's possible.

[MalcPow]

Dola

The billion dollar number is just to mess with people's heads. He probaly wouldn't end up spending that, or need to, but it certainly helps establish that he's serious when he says that. I think he's finding it's very tough to raise any money with just a toe in the water. When a guy says he'll spend that much it scares his opponents, maybe causes some staff defections or withdrawals, and energizes supporters to give to the cause because they know it's for real. (I know it sounds crazy that him saying he'd spend that much from his own pocket would actually cause people to GIVE him more money, but that's politics.) So there are plenty of reasons for him to play this game. His money legitimizes him as a potential national candidate (or as someone who can run a national campaign) and that in turn gives a lot of legitimacy to him launching a viable run.

[JPhillips]

No way Bloomberg could win NY in a presidential election. He'll play much better in New England states. His problem will be that he doesn't have a national constituency. What group can Bloomberg count on as his base? If he has to build from zero he really has no chance to win.

What he can do is push an issue to the foreground, but I don't know what his issue is. As Cam said he's been loud about gun control, but not that loud. I don't really think a "Can't we all get along" message is going to have much resonance when it actually comes time to vote.

A Bloomberg run will make things fun, but in the end he's going to be throwing his money away.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think we talked about this on here maybe 6 months to a year ago...but I don't have the patience to search for it either.

Found it. Discussion about Bloomberg begins by M Go Blue at post #11.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...1&postcount=11

[Swaggs]

It will be sweet if we have a Giuliani/Clinton/Bloomberg election.

I imagine a lot of folks would sit the general election out altogether and the House and Senate would get an extreme makeover.

[sooner333]

He spoke at my graduation last week. He didn't talk about politics at all...but interesting that he was here at all. After the speech, OU's President (and former senator) David Boren said that Schwarzenegger (too lazy to check for spelling) said that "Why doesn't Michael Bloomberg run for president? Why not?" or something to that effect. Pretty interesting.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by sooner333

He spoke at my graduation last week. He didn't talk about politics at all...but interesting that he was here at all. After the speech, OU's President (and former senator) David Boren said that Schwarzenegger (too lazy to check for spelling) said that "Why doesn't Michael Bloomberg run for president? Why not?" or something to that effect. Pretty interesting.

It's funny, Giuliani spoke at OU a couple years ago as well. Must be some kind of box on the political checklist of potential candidates. They go to Norman and see what happens (Rudy was a hit on campus also, with many of my friends still saying they'd respect his candidacy based on the time he spent there).

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think he could have a shot. Perot was able to get quite a few votes, and Bloomberg has a lot fewer negatives (that I can see) than Perot did.

He also has a lot less charisma, IMHO. I think it's a major factor for any 3rd party candidate.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

but my question is why would anyone spend $1billion of their own money just to "shake things up"?. is there a VP bid in it for him somewhere? otherwise, to think he would do this for the pure benefit of helping one party is poppycock.

I don't think he'll run if he doesn't at least feel he has a chance, but he also has so much money that dropping 1 Billion on a losing presidential campaign won't sink him. I mean, he doesn't need to be serving right now, but he is. Maybe he's thinking "If I win, sweet. If not, f*** it, i'll spend the rest of my life doing whatever I want with my other 4.5 billion."

[stevew]

Isn't the cost of getting on all 50 states ballots probably in the 50-100m range anyways? So if he's going to even do that, then he may as well go balls out and drop the dollars. He only really needs to win, what like 15 states to get to 270?

Then again, I think he'd be lucky to get 200, and more likely to get around 50. I doubt he can win anything in the south, but I think he could win some of the larger independant minded population centers(Ill, PA, NY, NJ, maybe California?)

[Butter]

The article says the GOP is "casting longing glances" at Newt Gingrich. Really? Newt is like the right's version of Hillary. People would come back from the dead to vote against him.

[Logan]

I think it'll be interesting to see how he plays to the common man or woman. Be prepared to hear the "I might be a billionaire, but I take the subway to work everyday just like every other New Yorker" line roughly 200,000 times.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will be sweet if we have a Giuliani/Clinton/Bloomberg election.

I imagine a lot of folks would sit the general election out altogether and the House and Senate would get an extreme makeover.

I don't think I could stomach the bellyaching if this happened. Imagine if Romney has staying power...all those people bitching about east coast bias and the money in NY and Boston ruining baseball, translated to national politics. My head would explode.

I watched some clips of the Republican debate the other night and I honestly have no clue who I could vote for. I was cracking jokes during the clips, then I flipped over to the Comedy Channel and watched Stewart and Colbert steal my monologue! That's a pretty sad state of affairs in my household, let me tell you.

Republican Party looking bad in preseason.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I watched some clips of the Republican debate the other night and I honestly have no clue who I could vote for. I was cracking jokes during the clips, then I flipped over to the Comedy Channel and watched Stewart and Colbert steal my monologue! That's a pretty sad state of affairs in my household, let me tell you.

Republican Party looking bad in preseason.

I think my favorite Colbert joke so far was when he made fun of Romney saying polygamy was the worst thing he could imagine. That show gets funnier and funnier every time I watch it.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by stevew

Isn't the cost of getting on all 50 states ballots probably in the 50-100m range anyways? So if he's going to even do that, then he may as well go balls out and drop the dollars. He only really needs to win, what like 15 states to get to 270?

According to this MSN article, it can be done for 2.5 million

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

According to this MSN article, it can be done for 2.5 million

I guess it must be easier now, I think they said it was somewhere over 10 million when Ross got together all the field offices, etc.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

The article says the GOP is "casting longing glances" at Newt Gingrich. Really? Newt is like the right's version of Hillary. People would come back from the dead to vote against him.

Granted, I am far from what one would consider a core GOP voter. But Newt is my favorite of the GOP candidates. I have several reasons, but in short, his knowledge of and respect for the history, tradition, and systems in this country will be a breath of fresh air.

Gualanni (sp?) scares me the most. He has no regard whatsoever for checks and balances. He wants to run America like it is a city and he is the mayor. And, the one main issue on which he is "liberal"--abortion--is the one main issue where I agree with the GOP.

[Ksyrup]

I keep waiting for "the" election where the Republican Party implodes because of social issues. I guess most of us non-social conservative Republicans have been content to go with the flow of the social conservatives for the good of the party. Because while I guess I would consider myself a social moderate, it's really more like social "don't give a shit." Those are mostly secondary issues for me that really wouldn't make or break a particular candidate. But the more I hear the "we (the social conservative base) refuse to back X candidate because of his position on Y," the more I'm inclined to throw my vote away on a candidate with no chance of winning. Whether that's a Bloomberg type or a Libertarian, I'm not sure I care at this point.

I'm to the point where I'm getting tired of being the one who gives in to that segment of the party to benefit the whole, only to watch the party ignore or pay lip service to the other (economic/governmental) side of the core conservative beliefs, all the while the people who benefitted from my giving in have absolutely no interest in returning the favor. Of course, I may be so insignificant that they really don't care. But seeing as how the last couple of election were won on razor-thin margins, that seems quite risky.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

The article says the GOP is "casting longing glances" at Newt Gingrich. Really? Newt is like the right's version of Hillary. People would come back from the dead to vote against him.

Newt vs. Hillary would be a hilarious election. I mean, we're pretty polarized now, but I can only imagine what would happen. I know people hated Bush in '04, but that's like the mortal battle of 2 "evils." I can't really imagine many people on the fence on that one.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Granted, I am far from what one would consider a core GOP voter. But Newt is my favorite of the GOP candidates. I have several reasons, but in short, his knowledge of and respect for the history, tradition, and systems in this country will be a breath of fresh air.

Personally, I would love Newt, but he is probably one of the most demonized and misunderstood politicians of the late 20th century. Without Gingrich, Clinton doesn't have the legacy he does.

I am becoming a bigger and bigger believer that we really need to have gridlock at the top, Repub pres. with a Dem congress or vice versa. The only thing I would really get behind Washington doing is increased military spending and tax reform and cutting entitlements.

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/May16.html

There has been a lot of speculation about New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg running for President lately. Charlie Cook had a piece about it and there was an article in the L.A. Times today, among others. Bloomberg had a well-publicized meeting with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) a few days ago, which has fuled speculation about a Bloomberg/Hagel independent ticket. Bloomberg is term-limited as mayor of New York and is unlikely to challenge popular governor Eliot Spitzer in 2010 leaving the presidency as his only serious option.

Third party bids for the presidency always run into a simple problem: money. Each of the major party candidates this year will probably spend something like $200 million on the campaign. The only other billionaire ever to run for President was Ross Perot (in 1992 and 1996), but Perot was a newcomer to politics and a cheapskate. He was more interested in putting on a show than actually becoming President.

Bloomberg is different. He has an estimated wealth in excess of $5 billion and has already been elected to competitive office twice--and running for mayor of New York (a very Democratic city) as a Republican is no mean feat. Rumor has it that he wouldn't think twice about simply writing his campaign a check for $500 million. With more money than the Democrats and Republicans combined, he would instantly become a serious candidate.

But could he win? Unlikely. Remember that to win the presidency outright you have to get 270 electoral votes. This means you have to come in first in a dozen or more states. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have a fair number of hardcore partisans who will never stray, no matter what. How many various from state to state, but it is almost always at least 30% of the electorate for each party. With 60% of the vote off the table, Bloomberg would have to capture nearly all the remaining voters to actually win the state. This will be very hard to do in a dozen or more states, especially the larger states, which have more than 30% partisan Democrats.

It is conceivable, though, that a Bloomberg candidacy could pull in enough electoral votes, say 30-50, to prevent any candidate from getting the required 270. In that case, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, where every state gets one vote. Wyoming gets one vote but so does California. Thus the party controlling the most state delegations could elect its own candidate. Currently, the Democrats control 26 state delegations, the Republicans control 21 state delegations, and Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi are split evenly and presumably would not be able to agree on a candidate (see map below). It seems very unlikely that even a single state would pick Bloomberg, no matter how well he did. If the House deadlocked, say 25-25, the Vice-President, chosen by the Senate (with each senator having one vote), would become acting President until a new House was elected in 2010.

A key question is: who would Bloomberg hurt the most? I think it depends strongly on the candidates. So far, most Democrats seem happy with their choices. My guess is that with Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Richardson, most Democrats would vote for the Democrat rather than any Republican or Bloomberg, who is also a Republican (in name only). Polls have shown that six out of 10 Republicans are not happy with Giuliani, McCain, or Romney. Some of these might bolt to Bloomberg. On the other hand, if Fred Thompson gets the nomination, most Republicans would probably support him. But it is also possible that some liberal Democrats might prefer Mayor Mike, who is probably more liberal than Clinton or Obama.
The most interesting scenario would be a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg race. That would offer a wide choice. Voters could then choose between

- A pro-choice, pro-gay, liberal New York Protestant (Clinton)
- A pro-choice, pro-gay, liberal New York Catholic (Giuliani)
- A pro-choice, pro-gay, liberal New York Jew (Bloomberg)

Diversity galore! Turnout would no doubt be very high in New York, but perhaps somewhat lower in places like Alabama. If large numbers of Southern and Midwestern Republicans just stayed home, the Democrats could sweep the Senate and House races. Although the Republican get-out-the-vote operation is legendary, it could be a tough sell to convince people who abhored all three of the above to go to the polls just to vote for Congress.

[Ksyrup]

Here's something I certainly agree with Gingrich about:


Gingrich: Candidates look like 'game show contestants'

Gingrich thinks the presidential debates resemble a game show.

ATLANTA (CNN) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich still hasn't decided on a bid for the White House, but if the Georgia Republican does throw his hat in the ring, don't expect to see him on many of the televised debates.

Gingrich made it clear that he is not a fan of the recent debates, calling them "game show" like and a "pathetic dance," in remarks Thursday at a luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Gingrich said it is "fundamentally wrong" for 10 people to look like "game show contestants," each eagerly awaiting for a television celebrity to give them a chance to answer in 30 seconds a question which by definition you can't answer in 30seconds."

Gingrich then took off to sign copies of his newest book, "Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/May16.html

He's started up again?! Sweet!!!

By "he", I mean the electoral-vote.com guy, of course.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The only thing I would really get behind Washington doing is increased military spending and tax reform and cutting entitlements.

Increased military spending?

Suffice to say you and I are on opposite ends on this, my friend.

It has always been my position that an educated and enlightened society has a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate. I would rather spend money on that then on increasing record military expenditures.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by path12

Increased military spending?

Suffice to say you and I are on opposite ends on this, my friend.

It has always been my position that an educated and enlightened society has a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate. I would rather spend money on that then on increasing record military expenditures.

Sounds like a bunch of lie-beral distortians.

[path12]

Originally Posted by flounder

Sounds like a bunch of lie-beral distortians.

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction. I was merely expressing my opinion.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

It's funny, Giuliani spoke at OU a couple years ago as well. Must be some kind of box on the political checklist of potential candidates. They go to Norman and see what happens (Rudy was a hit on campus also, with many of my friends still saying they'd respect his candidacy based on the time he spent there).

Boren tends to bring in moderate politicians to come speak...probably from his connections as a moderate politician. I think that moderates tend to resonate well with college students--even on a more conservative campus like OU's. Guliani has a lot of support among College Republicans, even though he's not the most conservative of the group. We've seen people such as McCain and Lieberman come through as well over the past 5-6 years. Of course, this year George HW Bush and Al Gore came as well...so it's not all moderates.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by path12

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction. I was merely expressing my opinion.

I believe he was poking fun using one of the lines from the Shelley the Republican thread.

My personal opinion is that while society may have that "obligation", the government isn't the best tool to use.

[path12]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I believe he was poking fun using one of the lines from the Shelley the Republican thread.

My personal opinion is that while society may have that "obligation", the government isn't the best tool to use.

Ah, in that case my bad. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

I actually agree that the best "tool" might not be government, but it certainly seems to me that a profit at all costs private sector hasn't been able to provide that safety net to date, and so I'd rather see the government do it then continue to have nothing done.

I'm pretty sure that's a minority view though.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by path12

Increased military spending?

Suffice to say you and I are on opposite ends on this, my friend.

It has always been my position that an educated and enlightened society has a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate. I would rather spend money on that then on increasing record military expenditures.

And I believe that you create more jobs for the less fortunate by putting money in the private sector rather than giving them a hand out. Increased military spending is the best way to do that, in my opinion.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by path12

Increased military spending?

Suffice to say you and I are on opposite ends on this, my friend.

uhhhh...did you see his screen name? there's a reason why he didn't call himself "Peacehammer".

[path12]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And I believe that you create more jobs for the less fortunate by putting money in the private sector rather than giving them a hand out. Increased military spending is the best way to do that, in my opinion.

Creating more jobs doesn't help you if you're mentally ill. Or sick. Or raising young children without a support system or being able to afford daycare.

As far as increasing military spending as the best way to create jobs, that's probably another topic. I think I threadjacked enough as is.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And I believe that you create more jobs for the less fortunate by putting money in the private sector rather than giving them a hand out. Increased military spending is the best way to do that, in my opinion.

I don't know if I've heard this formulation before. The cost of current and past military spending (including debt service on past military spending) is about $1.2 trillion dollars. The biggest hand-out is Medicaid, which the feds pay about $150 billion for. Nothing else is really close to that size, so it's the only hand-out program to have any real effect on the budget. That means that you would have to think that the social benefits of increasing the military budget a little over 10% would be higher than the social loss of taking away the health insurance of poor children. I don't see how that works out, if you are in favor of helping out the poor.