Despite big donations from Hollywood, Obama campaign in the red by $12 million.

...

"Competing fiercely to keep the presidency, Obama reported more than $46 million in June and total spending of $58 million. The Democratic Party reported $37.5 million in the bank.

Romney, during the same period, reported receipts of $33 million and spending of $27.5 million for June. The challenger’s cash on hand was almost a mirror image of Obama’s and the DNC’s, as Romney reported $22.5 million in the bank and the Republican National Committee said it had $89.4 million."


-$12 million -vs- +$5.5 million. You figure it out......

Its not a surprise his campaign is in the red, hes terrible with money. That said every single thing theyve put out should be pulled for anything the bill isnt paid for. You shouldnt be allowed to try and buy the presidency with money you dont have.

And if it ends up in the red at the end he should be personally responsible for every single penny

Not to spoil a good joke, but:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57477256-503544/despite-being-outspent-romney-and-his-allies-raised-more-in-june/

"The Obama campaign had $97.5 million on hand as of June 30, even after spending nearly $57.7 million in June, heavily spending on TV advertising. The Romney campaign spent only $27.4 million and had $22.5 million banked as of the end of June. Keep in mind, Mr. Obama didn't have to spend money defeating opponents during a primary as Romney did, spending heavily through mid-April to secure his party's nomination."

---

He's not in the red. Neither campaign will have to worry about that I think.

He has been running the country with money we dont have so why not his campaign.

not a surprise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not a surprise his campaign is in the red, hes
> terrible with money. That said every single thing
> theyve put out should be pulled for anything the
> bill isnt paid for. You shouldnt be allowed to
> try and buy the presidency with money you dont
> have.
>


Poster number 1: You should cite your source(s). As long as it's not that Redneck wetdream, "World Net Daily", I might even take a look.

Poster number 2: So, you are okay with buying the presidency with money one does have. Either your writing is substandard or you favor corruption in politics. Given what are obviously your political proclivities, I'm inclined to think both are true.

> And if it ends up in the red at the end he should
> be personally responsible for every single penny

This is priceless. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, chuckleheads aren't allowed much input into such things.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to spoil a good joke, but:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57477256-50
> 3544/despite-being-outspent-romney-and-his-allies-
> raised-more-in-june/
>
> "The Obama campaign had $97.5 million on hand as
> of June 30, even after spending nearly $57.7
> million in June, heavily spending on TV
> advertising. The Romney campaign spent only $27.4
> million and had $22.5 million banked as of the end
> of June. Keep in mind, Mr. Obama didn't have to
> spend money defeating opponents during a primary
> as Romney did, spending heavily through mid-April
> to secure his party's nomination."
>
> ---
>
> He's not in the red. Neither campaign will have to
> worry about that I think.


Point is he's spending more than he's bringing in. i.e., His burn rate > donation rate. Sound familiar? ;)

Both have plenty of cash on hand at the moment but that may catch up with Obama down the road (on a relative basis).

So you're saying that if he has almost $150 million in the bank and he spends $58 million he's $12 million in the red?

There are enough things to make fun of Obama about, right up to his Dumbo ears... But you don't have to make shit up.

typical b o Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He has been running the country with money we dont
> have so why not his campaign.

And that would either A) make his the first presidency ever to do so, or B) make his the first presidency in which you objected to deficient spending, a skill mastered by Reagan and honed to perfection by Bush 1 and Bush 2.

This is too easy, so you must not be a troll. Yikes, you actually believe this nonsense!

Nova_Native Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> typical b o Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He has been running the country with money we
> dont
> > have so why not his campaign.
>
> And that would either A) make his the first
> presidency ever to do so, or B) make his the first
> presidency in which you objected to deficient
> spending, a skill mastered by Reagan and honed to
> perfection by Bush 1 and Bush 2.
>
> This is too easy, so you must not be a troll.
> Yikes, you actually believe this nonsense!

sorry the truth hurts. Because ten guys before you spent money we didnt have doesnt excuse him from doing the same stupid thing. In fact its worse since Obama should have learned from their mistakes.

Congress spends the money. That's how our system works.

The point of this thread was that Obama's campaign is $12 million in the red, which is not true at all. Both campaigns are rolling in dough, which is why I had to look up WTF the OP was talking about.

It would be funny if somehow Obama had already spent his campaign into the red already -- considering he just started spending money for the most part. Most of the Republican primary candidates did spend themselves into debt, which is actually quite typical of political campaigns.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you're saying that if he has almost $150
> million in the bank and he spends $58 million he's
> $12 million in the red?
>
> There are enough things to make fun of Obama
> about, right up to his Dumbo ears... But you don't
> have to make shit up.


Do you know what burn rate means?

He has $97.5 million as of 6/30. If he spends $58 million/month and brings in only $46 million/month, he'd be running at a net deficit of -$12 million/month.

WTF are you talking about "burn rate"? He has $150 million and he hadn't spent much at all of it before June. There are 4 months left before the election.

I understand what burn rate is, but more importantly I understand what "in the red" means. If you have $90 million in the bank, you're not in the red.

If you don't already, you should work in government accounting. lol

For the month, spending versus receipts, knucklehead.

And if you're really going to be so anal as to dissect this, it's not a question of simply lasting until November, it's a matter of relative amounts available to spend as needs increase significantly from here as they typically do.

The title of this thread is "Obama even spends his campaign into debt". He has $98 million in the bank as of June 30.

There are 4 months left until November 6.

He is not "in debt", he is not "in the red". He has more money in his bank (significantly) than Romney at this point.

He needs to spend all his money by the end of the campaign.

Neither candidate is hurting for money or for donors who are willing to spend more.

Admit it. Stupid joke. You're not working about spending vs. receipts when you have a shitload of cash lying around.

You're trying too hard guy. lol

If anything, Romney is living on a knife's edge by comparison:

"The Romney campaign spent only $27.4 million and had $22.5 million banked as of the end of June."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57477256-503544/despite-being-outspent-romney-and-his-allies-raised-more-in-june/

^ See post above.

Even by your logic, spending vs. receipts. At this rate he would still have money left over by November by "going in the red" by $12 million/month.

When you have a war chest of campaign money saved up, you spend it. Having one dollar left over by election day is a dollar wasted of your donors' money.

Nova_Native Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Poster number 2: So, you are okay with buying the
> presidency with money one does have. Either your
> writing is substandard or you favor corruption in
> politics. Given what are obviously your political
> proclivities, I'm inclined to think both are true.


By definition political ads are trying to buy something. Id rather someone try and out spend their opponent then have all the dead voters keep voting for them.

If you have the money spend it, if you dont you shouldnt be allowed to run a single political thing on loans

Either your logic is substandard or you favor obama winning by any means necessary. Giver what are obviously youre political proclivities, Im inclined to think that youre just an idiot using big words like proclivities to try and sound smart

It spent more in June than it took in. They also had huge cash reserves prior to June. The OP is the one that doesn't know shit about budgets. Probably pays the minimum on his credit card each month, but thinks he's good with money.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Where did Barry get all that money. I would think illegals and welfare cases dont have that kind of bucks to give to him. Certainly it couldnt be from those evil corporations he hates so much. Maybe he pawned him Nobel Peace Prize. I am sure Chumlee or Rick would give him plenty for it, maybe not the old man.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/

He has a big lead on Romney only because direct campaign contributions are capped. Including the PACs would affect the comparison.