5 Times Democrats Used Shady Donation Money For 2016 Presidential Campaigns 

democratic party

The presidential election is less than a year away, and in that short time it is estimated that that close to $10 billion dollars will have been raised. The staggering part about that number is that that total will equal more donations than the last three presidential elections combined. The majority of this money is not being raised by campaigns, but by super PACs. These organizations are usually independent and unregulated, allowing for an unlimited amount of contributions to fill the pool from extremely wealthy donors. That amount of money can make it challenging to not only monitor where the money comes from, but also to track how it is spent. Here is a list of the five times Democrats used shady donation money for their 2016 presidential campaigns.

1. Anything to Win the Race

It appears by the money trail that Hillary Clinton will do just about anything to guarantee her spot in the White House. Hillary Clinton is no stranger to controversy and accusations of dark funding in her campaign, regardless of the consequences. Journalist James O’Keefe reported earlier in 2015 that Clinton staffers were caught on tape instructing volunteers how to properly skirt the law by refusing to register any voter that wasn’t supporting Hillary Clinton. The same reporter went on to say that by posing as an undercover journalist, they were able to witness Clinton campaign volunteers soliciting donations from foreign donors, even though this is not permitted during a presidential campaign. The trouble for Hillary does not stop here. Although larger donations are accepted only through a super PAC, the candidate can attend events as long as they are not directly asking those in attendance for donations. The Clintons have a history of being able to walk the fine line of the law, and by being surrounded by contributors at these large events but not saying the words donation directly, she can pile up the money used for running her political machine.

4 Unrealistic Promises From Democrats To American People During 2016 Presidential Campaigns

democrats (1)

The 2016 Presidential election will be a very interesting time in American politics. Going back to 2008, the Democratic Party has basically been in the driver’s seat. The country was so eager to get Republican George Bush out of office that they flipped the then GOP dominance by voting in a Democratic President based more on anti-Republican fervor than on the platform he was running on. His hope and change platform was of little consequence to voters – they simply wanted to distance themselves from the mess the Republican party left. Fast forward to 2016, and the dominance that the Democratic party has enjoyed for eight years seems to be waning.

President Obama has disappointed many, even on his own side, due in part to failed green policy efforts and frustrations over improvements to the economy. With elections nearing, these four unrealistic promises from Democrats to American people during 2016 Presidential campaigns are sure to make the road to the White House more challenging.

1. Pushing Single-Payer Healthcare

The Democratic party has their hands full this election, due in part to the Affordable Care Act implemented by President Obama. Never before has such a topic been able to pull apart two parties in this manner, and while 16 million people who were without health insurance last year now enjoy coverage, the Democratic party is looking to make even more changes that could be unrealistic. Bernie Sanders wants to establish a single-payer healthcare system, simply because he believes the American people should not be paying as much as they currently are for coverage. He compares the current healthcare premiums to those in other countries, stating thatAmericans pay three times as much for health insurance as people in the United Kingdom and twice as much more than those in France. In order to enjoy better heath coverage, all residents must be guaranteed healthcare, but that could be too big a promise for the American people to believe. It has been eight years since this push began, and although 16 million new policy holders are enjoying benefits, many questions still remain, and policy holders are often confused and disappointed in the lengthy and complicated sign-up process. Bernie Sanders wants to go further than the current Affordable Care Act, but the details of such a plan are fuzzy at best.

5 Horrible Economic Mistakes Democrats Made Over the Years

democratic party

Looking at the way government has managed the United States economy since the Great Depression, it is clear that many Democrats have dropped the ball in this particular area. Although long-term consequences are much more challenging to track than short-term, many times the underlying issue can be linked to a specific decision. These issues involved decision making from those in positions of power, and would ultimately lead to some of the darkest times in the history of this country. One of the advantages here is the ability to now look back and identify the signals early enough so that disaster can be averted in the future. Here are some of the most horrible economic mistakes Democrats made over the last century.

1.LBJ Refusing to Raise Taxes for Funding Vietnam War

When Lyndon B. Johnson opted for butter and guns rather than risking Congressional retrenchment, he set a course in motion that would affect the country for years to come. Johnson had the opportunity to include a tax increase in the Fiscal 1966 budget to cover the growing costs of the Vietnam War. He chose to buy more weapons. The consequence of this decision was overstimulating the full-employment economy, causing consumer price inflation to triple from 2% to 6% in only four years. The Great Inflation left behind by Lyndon Johnson should rank near the top of the list when it comes to the most horrible economic mistakes Democrats made over the last century.

2.The Stop-and-Go Policies of the Seventies

When stagflation took hold in the seventies, the Carter administration had a very difficult time in breaking the vicious cycle. His economic policy at the time oscillated between stimulating the employment rate and anti-inflation restraint. The end result was a disastrously ineffective economic austerity program, part of the reason that Jimmy Carter only enjoyed one term in office. This one-term president had a misery index of nearly 20 as Election Day approached. When voters across the country eventually took to the polls, the Carter administration was responsible for a 7% unemployment rate and inflation ballooning to 13%. The policy makers at that time simply underestimated the significance of inflation as a result of productivity decline. His fiscal disciplinary actions were no match for the exploding rate of inflation.