Georgia Senate Spending Expected to Hit $500 Million

[OneTermBiden]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/perdue-georgia-runoff-california-ossoff

....Georgia Senate spending expected to hit $500M

What are your thoughts on the costs of winning an election?

Worth it?

Not worth?

Should that money be spent elsewhere?

Is it nobodies business but the spenders?

Share.

 

[YDB95]

If we don't like the amount of money being spent, two words for you: Citizens United.

 

[LupusDei]

Since all that spending ends up in the service industry one way or another, it should in theory stimulate the local economy, shouldn't it?

 

[YDB95]

Since all that spending ends up in the service industry one way or another, it should in theory stimulate the local economy, shouldn't it?

In theory yes. In reality, the service industry employees make the same salary no matter how brisk or slow sales are. The only way they benefit is a slightly lesser chance of being laid off.

 

[Champakian]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/perdue-georgia-runoff-california-ossoff

....Georgia Senate spending expected to hit $500M

What are your thoughts on the costs of winning an election?

Worth it?

Not worth?

Should that money be spent elsewhere?

Is it nobodies business but the spenders?

Share.

Ask JEB! or Hillary.

 

[Champakian]

If we don't like the amount of money being spent, two words for you: Citizens United.

Citizens allowed Hollywood to roll into Georgia?
Maybe that's not a valid answer.

 

[Champakian]

Since all that spending ends up in the service industry one way or another, it should in theory stimulate the local economy, shouldn't it?

But at what cost?
It's like when they build a millionaire's playground (stadiums and arenas).
Yes there is temporary benefit.
But, where would the money have gone without the election?
Investment?

 

[Champakian]

Are they essential services?
Like the Hollywood production crew operating right next to a restaurant?
The one not allowed to open anymore?

 

[YDB95]

But, where would the money have gone without the election?
Investment?

Probably not. The record shows economic policies that lead to the rich getting richer mostly result in them simply keeping most of the money.

 

[Tim2run]

They keep it in a mattress? In a vault like Scrooge McDuck? Of course they invest it.
Business is fueled by investment and jobs are fueled by business.
That's just basic economics.

 

[YDB95]

That's just basic economics.

Every time I see someone on this board say that, I just know they themselves know nothing about economics.

I mean, what you describe is indeed "basic economics," but it also assumes the people with the money always make the most rational decisions. They don't. It's popular on the right to tell people if we cut taxes on the rich, they'll invest that money and create jobs for everyone. But for the better part of 40 years we've been giving tax breaks to the rich, and the investment simply hasn't happened. What HAS happened is that the rich have gotten a lot richer relative to anyone else - to a level we haven't seen since the Gilded Age.

That's just basic history, Tim2run.

 

[WillJ8787]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/perdue-georgia-runoff-california-ossoff

....Georgia Senate spending expected to hit $500M

What are your thoughts on the costs of winning an election?

Worth it?

Not worth?

Should that money be spent elsewhere?

Is it nobodies business but the spenders?

Share.

Along with term limits and shortened election seasons I'm 100% in favor of spending caps.

It creates an equal playing field and a whole lot of poor, hungry people could be feed with this kind of money. Public Education, healthcare care...such a sad waste!