The highest 24-hour fundraising total, surpassing Trump’s post-conviction and (likely, given that they refuse to disclose it) post-assassination totals.

888,000 small donors, 500,000 of whom were first-time donors for this campaign cycle.

That’s the engagement and energy we should have been having this whole time. That’s the kind of engagement and energy that landslides Trump.

  • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Guys, don’t give money to political candidates. Every cycle we read about federal legislators loaning their campaigns money at 20% interest (which is legal) and pocketing your hard-earned cash.

    Instead, put it in your investments: stocks, bonds, ETF’s, whatever.

    No matter who we elect they’ll fight to keep your investments sound, so at least you get some representation.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      No matter who you elect, they’ll fight to rob blind 30-40% of those who didn’t vote for them… so better try not to be in that demographic first, invest second.

      • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        True.

        One of the first things Biden did was try to change bank regulations so they could target gig workers for taxation more easily.

        These people do not care about you. They do care about the stock market though.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Taxation is one of the most baffling things about the US: between federal, state, and local taxes, Americans get around a 35% tax pressure, which is comparable to some of the “Communist” countries in Europe with a public health system… except the US doesn’t have even that. Beats me on what do they spend those taxes; it sure is not to reduce the 135% GDP government debt.

          Stock market cap is 185% GDP in the US, so at least that part makes sense.

          • Onihikage@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Beats me on what do they spend those taxes

            It’s spent on what is by far the most powerful, expensive, and expansive military in the world, with funding about equivalent to the next ten militaries combined. All of Europe barely has any military spending by comparison; NATO is almost entirely propped up by the US military industrial complex. If US foreign policy wasn’t so doggedly imperialist, we might have room for some healthcare.

            That’s not even getting into how medical corporations in the US are more or less financially unrestrained and allowed to make as much money as they want, paired with an insurance industry with the same conditions, and both industries becoming more and more consolidated, with all the big players participating in the stock market. The result is a race to the top in which everything is made far more expensive than it needs to be in order to please shareholders. In this environment, spending government money on US healthcare is substantially less efficient than the same spending would be in a European country.

            Correction of these markets, as with housing, is likely to be financially devastating to the economic elite, but also critical to the prosperity of real people in this country.

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              US military spending is lower than Poland’s… and yet Poland does have a universal healthcare system. Both countries are spending less than 4% GDP on their militaries.

              If US foreign policy wasn’t so doggedly imperialist

              medical corporations in the US

              a race to the top in which everything is made far more expensive than it needs to be in order to please shareholders

              I wonder if the same applies to US military corporations.

              So, less bang for the buck in all cases… except for “the shareholders”, after discounting all the C-level salaries and benefits, the creative bookkeeping, and non-dividend reserves… meaning only for the “big” shareholders, not the average Joes.

              Sounds like death by a thousand cuts million leeches.