I'm getting tired of exploitive left-wing fund raisers

[BlueStreak]

In the past 3 days, I bet I have received 20 emails from different organizations, all wanting me to send them money because Obama is planning to include chained CPU in his budget.

If I didn't know better, I might suspect that these are just a bunch of Beltway leeches feathering their own nests while exploiting the fears and angers of their, how shall we say, target market.

Where are these people when it comes to actually helping with the problem? Where are the people pushing better solutions to Social Security, such as:

- increase in the income cap; or
- A modest increase in the contribution rate

Either of those changes could make the current Social Security system solvent basically indefinitely.

But they aren't interested in advancing solutions. They seem to be interested in raising money for their own salaries.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

1. There's way too many political organizations.

And few of them actually have any differences...

Remaining too small and too divided to make a difference...

Always there to hold out the collection plate...

But never producing any real results.

[SharonAnn]

11. They're finally copying the rightwing's money machine. Drum up outrage, form a group to fight it,

solicit money, spend it on (paying yourself).

Seriously, that's what a lot of the right-wing junk mail groups have been doing for decades. Richard Viguerie is a master at this. How to get rich, quick!

[frazzled]

2. It's why I don't sign Internet petitions anymore

I know it's just a pitch for money that will pop up the minute I sign.

I call my congressperson and senators directly when I want to register my opinion on something. But I too am getting really fed up with all these emails, and I often delete them without reading. It's also depressing that when you DO give something (and I gave way more than I could afford over the last few years), the number of emails only increases.

These political groups have become an entire cottage industry. Pick and choose those you will support wisely, based on actual things they accomplish. But don't get your heartstring pulled by every single advocacy group or politician who writes you. Why do Jeff Merkley and Patrick Leahy write me every day with some petition or other? I don't live anywhere near them, and I'm not particularly interested in donating to their campaign coffers at this moment, nice as they are.

[BlueStreak]

16. I'm with you on that. It feels like the petitions are just a scam to get your email

What I want to know is what has happened to the Democratic Party. Does it really even exist anymore? Or is it just a brand name used when filing slates?

[MindPilot]

3. You won the election; why do you still need money?

Everything I receive from any elected official includes a plea for cash. We can save the environment and put everyone back to work if you just send us some more money. They are no different than televangelists selling empty promises.

[frazzled]

25. I was actually part of a focus group on this some years back

A Democratic polling firm wrote to ask if I would participate in a roundtable focus group via conference telephone call, and I agreed. I can't remember how many people there were on the line, but I think it was somewhere between 12 and 20. It turned out to be for the DCCC, and it was to get opinions from this group (all previous donors, if I recall correctly) on what types of appeals would get people to donate early (as opposed to just in the months before an election cycle).

They'd sent us materials, and we had to give our opinions on various "pitch" lines, as to how effective they'd be. There were a variety, but quite a few were of the "George W. Bush is going to eat your babies!" and "Republicans are at it again!" ilk. These were very popular among the respondents. When it came my turn to talk, I said I wasn't very fond of these kinds of sensational appeals, and that I would be most receptive to is an appeal that told me exactly how much they needed and what they needed it FOR--field office staff, supplies, hiring pollsters (heh), whatever. There was dead silence on the line from both the participants and the pollsters. Then a terse "next." It went over like a lead balloon, and I could tell we'd be getting more of these firecracker appeals. I guess they work, but not on me anymore.

I gave generously to the DSCC, DCCC, OFA, and a number of individual races in 2012, as well as to a few organizations such as Southern Poverty Law Center (they're not sensational, and they provide solid materials in their emails and written appeals; I'm more or less a regular donor). I get dozens more from every Progressive group, Gay Rights groups, gun-control groups, and veterans groups. I am frankly not giving to anybody right now. And the more exclamation points there are, the less inclined I am to do so.

I'm focusing on more specific things. Just today we were invited to a "friendraiser" for an arts/community project that is very local, aimed in a particular troubled neighborhood in my city. I was impressed with the ideas and the people involved, and I wrote out a very decent check (by my standards). At least I can see what's happening with it and be involved locally. I'll give again to the general political organizations in 2014.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

4. Especially at month's end - EVERY freaking month and esp every quarter

I get BOMBARDED with emails wanting money so they can meet their goal by this or that deadline.

During the election, I sent to OFA, DSCC and DCCC and directly to some Dem campaigns via ActBlue. Since, I sent a few bucks to DCCC. These orgs I know, so feel fairly OK about sending a few bucks. The rest -- well...not so much and like you, I'm SICK of being bombarded with pleas for money constantly.

[nashville_brook]

5. can you provide a list of the "exploitive left-wing fundraisers" so we can avoid them?

or, is it just all left-wing groups doing fundraising asks?

[BlueStreak]

17. That's the issue, I think.

I have deleted most f the emails.

But just this morning, I have MoveOn, Credo Mobile, and DFA.

None of them say anything that they will actually do to change anything. They are just asking for money.

It is like the preacher who screamed you are damned to hell -- oh look at the clock, it is time for the offering.

[Union Scribe]

34. I don't believe you.

The email I got from moveon had Reich's petition in it. It didn't mention money. And what were the other 17 emails you mentioned? You named three.

[BlueStreak]

37. I'll post them when they arrive

I delete a handful every morning. I didn't have any this morning, but I guess that just means the leeches took Sunday off.

[thecrow]

29. I have designated all such emails as spam

and they automatically delete.
I find it personally offensive when you go to the White House site and they immediately ask you for money.
What does Obama need money for now? I got one the other day that asked for $56! So I put that one in the spam folder too.

During campaign season I will donate to the candidates or cause du jour.
Miraculously, I now only get about 5 emails a day that are actually meaningful to me, unlike the 300/day that are pure spam. If I want to read my spam, then I still can, before I delete it.

I sign petitions with a gmail account that I never go to.
I hate it that it's like this, but technology can still work for us and I like that.

P.S. What I REALLY hated during the campaign was that Obama was holding raffle-type contests... "If you send whatever you can today, you will be entered into a contest to ______fill in the blank___ with the President!" That really cheapened the campaign as far as I was concerned.

[truebluegreen]

6. On the whole I agree except...

"a modest increase in the contribution rate." Are you suggesting they raise the percetage contribution across the board?

'Cause if you are, forget it. It is too high already. The last effing Grand Bargain doubled the rate, supposedly to cover the expenses of the Boomer Generation, making that generation (mine) the first to pay for, not only the then-retirees, but also for themselves. That's why we have the "trust fund" Wall Street is trying to raid and the government wishes they could disallow.

Speaking as a self-employed, small business owner, who struggled with several start-ups, I can tell you that the 15% hit (employer and employee share) is a tough one. Raising it would make it even worse. If we are going to rejuvenate our economy, we need more small businesses, not fewer.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. The solution to the SS rate being too high is to spread the SS tax to cover capital gains,

particularly the capital gains of the rich and super-rich.

Roughly speaking, before Reagan took office, the self-employment tax (i.e., SS tax paid by the self-employed) paid by a self-employed person with net earnings of $50,000 was about $270. Then the cap was raised and the SS rate was raised. When he left office, it was about $5,000.

[truebluegreen]

21. I agree with that.

All income, salaries, fees, capital gains, whatever, should be taxed at the same rate, and subject to SS withholdings. Capital should not be superior to labor. And if we did that, the percentage could be much lower.

[BlueStreak]

18. I'm not saying that is the solution I would favor. My complaint is that the Beltway ...

is talking about the subject:

a) as if Social Security is able to topple over. it isn't; and

b) there is only one possible way to save it -- benefit cuts.

There are many ways to improve the long-term solvency of Social Security and we should be talking about those. One possibility is an increase in the contribution rate. Another possibility is broadening the base of income that contributes to the fund (higher caps and passive income subject to the contribution)/

Nobody is talking about that. They are just drumming up outrage in order to raise money that will mostly go to their own salaries.

[truebluegreen]

22. I hear you, and I agree.

A broader base is the best way to go, and no one is talking about it. It's all we-can-afford-this-so-we-have-to-cut. 'Murica's can't-do attitude--what happened to us? (rhetorical question...we started down the road of voodoo economics and haven't changed course yet).

[hfojvt]

28. actually the last grand bargain - under Reagan

only increased the rate from 5.4 to 6.2 and for medicare from 1.3 to 1.45. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

Except for the self-employed,. Those job-creating entrepreneurs got whacked with a tax increase from 9.35% to 15.3%.

The CAP for fica taxes has been steadily increasing since 1950, before which it was steady at $3,000 after which it went up by steps (meaning it would jump up and then be at the new level for a few years, before jumping up again) until 1972 when it started to steadily increase. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/content/pdf/ssrate_historical.pdf

and the cap has seemingly gone up much faster than inflation. The cap of 1973 of $10,800 is only $56,472 in today's money. The cap of $35,700 in 1983 is $83,216 in today's money. And $60,600 of 1994 is only 94,934 in today's money. Finally the cap of 2007 of $97,500 is only $109,173 in today's money.

Today, the cap is $113,700

But I believe the catfood commission said it covers a smaller percentage of all wages than it did in the past.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Well, at least they're opposing the Chaind CPI, unlike the DNC and the White House.

[hfojvt]

30. no, they are only against chained CPUs

Central Processing Units of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!!!

[the_chinuk]

9. If these pressure groups really wanted me to contribute …

… they'd stop playing about at raising money so much and figure out some way to productively improve the economy so I'd have the income to donate to them.

This is apparently asking too much.

[caseymoz]

10. Why don't they propose those?

Because it would never get passed. Those have probably been proposed in the last few years, and the probably died.

You fundamentally misunderstand what's being fought over, here. Conservatives have never liked Social Security, not from the very beginning.

Besides that one fact, Social Security is not in trouble. There's nothing to save there. The insolvency is a hoax. The danger of our debt is also a hoax. Social Security has almost no effect on the deficit. The only effect it has is in interest repaid to the Social Security Trust Fund from the treasury, and that has to be paid regardless of the level of benefits paid.

Here's what the fight is really over: Repubs won't approve raising taxes. President Obama is trying to offer them something in exchange for doing it. Hence, Chained-CPI.

Offering to raise the cap or the contribution rate are not going to accomplish anything. Solvency isn't the problem, Conservatives don't want to make it solvent. They want it dead. If they get it dead they want it wounded.

As for all the organizations, just do what I do: I don't send them money because I'm on Social Security Disability and I don't have any.

[BlueStreak]

19. If Obama isn't willing to put those things on the table as part of the solution, then he

should sit down and shut up.

[caseymoz]

23. Then he should just sit down and shut up.

Constitutionally it's clear that the budget is strictly for the House to decide. Therefore, he's in a negotiation he has no right to be in, with no say over the votes of Democrats in the House who have to agree with it, making an offer he has no right to make and which has nothing to do with deficit reduction.

So, you're absolutely right. He should just sit down and shut up. Now that I've listed those points, I wonder wonder what the hell he's really doing? The whole negotiation seems to be a sham.

[BlueStreak]

24. +1,000,000

I'll offer a little bit of defense for Obama here. The Constitution does not call for a "Presidential budget". The House does that. But there are laws in force that do call for the Administrative Branch's budget requests. So he is obliged to submit something.
Considering that he House is going to go off and do whatever they want without regard to the POTUS request. I see no excuse for / political advantage in unilaterally offering a benefits cut to these important programs. This is in the category of "negotiating with himself".

He doesn't seem to be doing anything to put us on track to regain the House in 2014. It is unlikely he will be able to name SCOTUS justices for any of the evil f, so frankly we are best off if he just sat down and shut up for the next 3 years, maintaining status quo until 2016.

[on point]

12. I no longer give to any org, only to individuals, like Warren that are reliable and proven...

and BTW, Hilliary is not and never will be on that list.

Her votes in the senate has disqualified her for life in my book.

[Cleita]

14. Same here. eom

[BlueStreak]

20. Agreed. I have been giving to Al Fanken. We used to have a Party for that

I can't figure out all the needs nationwide. How am I to know that Al Franken needs the money more than some congressman in a district in Georgia that we might be able to flip? That's what the Party is supposed to do. As far as I can tell, we don't even have a Party anymore.

The only non-candidate organization I have send money to recently is Howard Dean's group because they are the only ones talking about real steps to win back the House.

[boomerbust]

13. Nancy Pelosi

Is one of em. She wants me to send her money after saying chained CPI is not a cut to SS benefits. FUCK NANCY PELOSI>

[CountAllVotes]

26. yeah to hell w/her

Damn shill she has become or already was.

Never another nickel. Never!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. Only 20?

[Warpy]

27. Exactly, appeals to guilt or fear don't work on me, either.

Tell me what your organization is actually out there doing and you might pry a few bucks out of my bank account. Show me starving children and tell me I could give up the daily Starbuck's coffee I don't drink in the first place is not going to work. Nor is telling me civilization as we know it is on the brink going to work because I think our present one could stand to be there, honestly.

[Mnemosyne]

31. Unsubscribe, unsubscribe, unsubscribe. Repeat as needed. nt

[BlueStreak]

32. Yes, that's part of the solution, but not the real answer.

I want to know:

1) Is there really even a Democratic Party anymore is is everybody off doing their own thing now?

2) Which of these independent groups are likely to deliver results and which are just beltway assholes trying to get our money?

In other words, I need to know WHICH ones to unsubscribe from.

[Skittles]

33. at this point I would say fuck them all

[Mnemosyne]

35. You have a point and I have no idea anymore how to tell who is actually on our side. nt

[BlueStreak]

36. Let me ask the question a different way

I think most people agree that sending money straight to candidates is a good thing, but that assumes we have a time to do a lot of research, and even so, it potentially creates a real imbalance. For example Alan Grayson probably doesn't need a lot of help with the district he has now, but there may be 20 candidates out there in purple Congressional districts that have a puncher's chance if they can get enough money. So I don't think that is the best answer.

Are there any organizations out there that are really making a difference? Or are all of them mainly just funding a nice lifestyle for people who do little more than fear monger with email lists?

Why would I want to send money to Obama's OFA outfit to do issue advocacy when Obama has been so treasonous on so many issues? Answer: I wouldn't and nobody else should either.

The only non-candidate organization that has any appeal for me is Democracy for America. They are trying to do real things, and Howard Dean has a proven track record of winning at the grass roots level. SO I'm going to send my money that direction. Are there any other organizations anybody thinks are worthy of a good look?

http://www.newswire.net/newsroom/pr/72125-howard-dean-2013-virginia-house-race.html