It's totally obscene, isn't it? And downplaying that amount of money seems to make it even worse.
The difference is that the general population uses things like dry cleaning, bicycles, movies, etc and only the politicians trying to get elected used that $3.7 billion used for the election. It did the rest of us no good whatsoever and neither will the politicians who got elected, most likely. You're right, it might have helped create some jobs.
I agree with both of you. To compare the election costs what the population spends is ludicrous. They are comparing apples and oranges.
Is this supposed to make people feel any better about the high costs?
I am with you OH, saddened and disgusted
The next election-cycle will bring our disgust level to an new high, me thinks.
Seems that each election, more and more $$$ is spent.
B.O. spent $1 Billion on his presidential run, in 2012.
I'd be willing to bet that Hillary beats that figure, by a factor of 2.
Any takers?
Color me DISGUSTED as well, OH. It's a travesty.
For what it is worth,
"BATON ROUGE, La., Nov. 6 (UPI) -- The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is pulling funding from Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, as she prepares to face challenger Billy Cassidy in a December runoff.
All planned television and radio broadcasts in Louisiana's top five media markets have been canceled leading up to the runoff, totaling $1.6 million in pulled in advertising."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/06/DSCC-pulls-funding-from-Mary-Landrieus-runoff-campaign/8511415308897/?r=6141400162829
I think them downplaying the amount is an attempt to make us believe this is all tolerable and therefore we are to expect it. $3.7 is a lot of cabbage, but it is a mere drop in the bucket when it comes to addressing our woes.
I agree but it is still despicable.