Who made the election of President Obama possible?

After witnessing President Obama serve over half his presidency with a passion for reducing carbon emissions in the United States and abroad I have been dumbfounded as to why he refuses to promote natural gas as a fuel for transportation and electricity generation for our nation.
http://www.drillingahead.com/profiles/blogs/how-president-obama-sold-out

Goldman Sachs seems to be a main big buddy of Obama , Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head , Goldman Sachs kept White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on a $3,000 monthly retainer. I now hear that Goldman Sachs
are financing Romney so does this dictate the outcome , time will tell.

Arnie Swaz, Swarrze, yeah well you know who! Has been running California State limos and his own vehicles, including his Hummer on LPG for quite some time! (Natural gas works in the LPG vehicle, no one in this part of England sells it, but if I go south, I can fill up quite happily with Natural Gas. It is not being promoted in this country as well as it might - seems to me that the leaders are quite content to keep the cheaper prices to themselves, while the rest of their countries pay the higher fuel costs so as to rake in the luvverly revenue.

This isn't really a reflection of Obama's presidency but rather a reflection of the flaws in our electoral process. Money - especially Big Money like Goldman Sachs - has far too much influence on who is elected and what the president does once in office. Unlike right-wingers who see the government as the Big Evil, I see the government as a patsy, pawn, scapegoat, and cat's paw for corporate interests. It's been that way for quite awhile, and look where it's gotten us: 50% of Americans in poverty or earning a low wage, a permanent underclass, stagnant wages, and an oblivious electorate who continues feeding Big Money even more wealth at their own expense.

Romney has stated that he expects to spend $10million on getting the Republican nomination.

Every American is entitled to stand for President, but the person who gets elected will have done so with the aid of some VERY RICH PEOPLE.

RockOnBrother wrote:
If I have money and I pay for something that works, I want it to work like I want it to work or I want my money back.

If common people want big money out of politics, common people must do what’s necessary to remove the incentive. If big money contributors find that what they’re paying for is not working like they want it to work, they’ll want their money back.

Power to the People.

ROCK
I can go with that mate...

Would fixed maximum spending-allowances for candidates, met from PUBLIC FUNDS, make for more honest electioneering?

oftenwrong wrote:Would fixed maximum spending-allowances for candidates, met from PUBLIC FUNDS, make for more honest electioneering?

And I thought only Christians believed in miracles.

There is a scale of expenses. So much per constituency and so many pence per constituent? Whether they are allowed to go over that at their own expence I'm not sure?

Would fixed maximum spending-allowances for candidates, met from PUBLIC FUNDS, make for more honest electioneering?

I've made that suggestion myself. Each candidate is given a certain amount of money to campaign with, and every candidate receives an equal amount of money. They would also receive a fixed amount of air time, also paid for with public funds - or the bloody networks can donate air time if they believed in helping the democratic process (which they don't, really, it's all about profiteering).

The only problem with this idea is the number of candidates - would the Green Party candidate or the Communist Party candidate receive the same funding even though there is no chance they would win? Ostensibly, yes, but in the early days of an election, there are a lot of candidates, most of them you've never heard of - like Buddy Roehmer, I think his name was. And would automatic funding lure even more candidates to the election, making it even more expensive for the taxpayers? Hmmm....

Then the alternative is to keep electing the RICH MAN's preference.

Then the alternative is to keep electing the RICH MAN's preference.

Oh don't get me wrong. I still think our plan is better than the existing one. I'm just pointing out that our plan would have some wrinkles to iron out.

Then give out the funds on the first day of each month

Figure out how much it will cost (or you are willing to fork out) for the run to president, over 12 months.

At the First of each month, give each remaining candidate one twelfth of that purse. Those who stay in the race are payed for the month, those who fall out have been paid for their fun!