What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society (1 Viewer)

Joe T

Footballguy
Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.By

Charles G. Koch

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:

Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies."

Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too.

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.
yep

 
Quite frankly, his political positions and philosophy are very close to mine. Closer than any actual politician that I know of, even Rand Paul.

 
If he really feels that way then why does he spend millions lying about and bashing Democrats? Honest question. No fishing.

 
Why do democrats spend millions to bash this guy? Is it his support of gay marriage they hate? Or his push to legalize marijuana? The fact that he wants to repeal the Patriot Act? Or that he wants to close Gitmo and cut defense spending and end wars for oil?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do democrats spend millions to bash this guy? Is it his support of gay marriage they hate? Or his push to legalize marijuana? The fact that he wants to repeal the Patriot Act? Or that he wants to close Gitmo and cut defense spending and end wars for oil?
Have the millions of dollars he's contributed to campaigns gone to candidates that agree with the positions you've identified?

 
So the government is responsible for middle class wages remaining stagnant for the past 25 years while executive compensation has skyrocketed?

America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves.

While at the same time decrying government regulation and control. So poverty and lack of opportunity is the fault of the government, yet the government should not be able to do anything to regulate the open market which produces opportunity and earning potential, and of course any lack thereof leads to poverty.

 
Why do democrats spend millions to bash this guy? Is it his support of gay marriage they hate? Or his push to legalize marijuana? The fact that he wants to repeal the Patriot Act? Or that he wants to close Gitmo and cut defense spending and end wars for oil?
Have the millions of dollars he's contributed to campaigns gone to candidates that agree with the positions you've identified?
He had contributed to defeating Obama, who was opposed to every one of those positions. So, yes.

 
Why do democrats spend millions to bash this guy? Is it his support of gay marriage they hate? Or his push to legalize marijuana? The fact that he wants to repeal the Patriot Act? Or that he wants to close Gitmo and cut defense spending and end wars for oil?
Have the millions of dollars he's contributed to campaigns gone to candidates that agree with the positions you've identified?
He had contributed to defeating Obama, who was opposed to every one of those positions. So, yes.
This did not answer the question I asked.

 
Why do democrats spend millions to bash this guy? Is it his support of gay marriage they hate? Or his push to legalize marijuana? The fact that he wants to repeal the Patriot Act? Or that he wants to close Gitmo and cut defense spending and end wars for oil?
You think they actually take the time to learn any of that? Koch is just the next rich boogeyman for the left to trot out. Never mind their own boogey men like Soros who purposely try to destabilize currencies to enrich themselves.

 
Mary Landrieu is running anti "Koch Brothers" commercials here as a substitute for policy ads. It's kind of weird but also kind of funny because it reminds me of the Will Ferrell / Zach Galifankis movie "Campaign."

These guys are as much a bogeyman for the left as George Soros is for the right.

Oooowwwoooo boogabooga scarey rich men spending money on campaigns, run for the hills!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wah wah wah! Liberals say true things about me.

Nice to see these parasites feel the need to defend themselves these days though.

 
So the government is responsible for middle class wages remaining stagnant for the past 25 years while executive compensation has skyrocketed?

America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves.

While at the same time decrying government regulation and control. So poverty and lack of opportunity is the fault of the government, yet the government should not be able to do anything to regulate the open market which produces opportunity and earning potential, and of course any lack thereof leads to poverty.
My guess is that Koch would argue that government regulations/policies have "forced" companies to off-shore much of their production and manufacturing to other countries...and that the process of having to only pay $10-$20/hour for labor instead of $40-$50/hour for labor is what has contributed to fat-enough margins for companies to reward their executive management with FAT compensation packages. And at least partially, he'd be correct.

I think every business owner (myself included) has felt pressured (or at least tempted) to do the same thing. I could "net" roughly $30/hour more for our firm's work if I shipped our labor over to Russia, Argentina, or Africa. And even with only roughly 10,000 billable hours per year (small company), you're talking about the difference of $300,000 in profits! But I think such a strategy, while making me more wealthy personally, would contribute to the impoverishing of America. So about 96-97% of our billable labor hours are paid to workers in the United States (one part-time person based in Canada). And I aggressively work to grow our firm's sales in Europe, the Middle East, and SE Asia. And as a result, for every one dollar we pay to overseas suppliers, we "import" approximately $3-$4 from the EU, Middle East, and SE Asia. Our company is subsequently adding wealth to our nation, rather than eroding wealth...just so that I can afford a Bryant Boat and vacation in the Caymans whenever I darned well want to. ;)

That is the real measure of a "patriot" to me. Someone who thinks: "What's best for my country?" Rather than "what's best for me?" But pretty-much the way words like patriot, freedom, liberty, et al are used this century, it is code for "Christian Conservative." And most Christian Conservatives? Use "what's best for my country" as code for "what's best for me." Taking truth, and running it through the spin cycle, until it is twisted/distorted into supporting my own agenda and world view. Which has pushed me to the Left, politically. Because the politics of the Right seem to be much more focused on "me." While the politics of the Left, even for how misguided they can sometimes be, are focused on "we." WE as a NATION...not WE as in "my kin," or people who look/think/act like I do...as the Right tends to use it.

 
Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell.
Straw man here. He speaks of collectivists and collectivism five times. Reminds me of Obama somewhat when he paints opponents of this or that policy as trying to end all regulation and government involvement everywhere.

Aside from whether this is a correct meaning of collectivism (not sure), how many in the USA who self-identify as liberal, progressive, or even socialist (think Bernie Sanders) are for this "government control of the means of production"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you buy that crap, I have some real estate that I'd like to show you that will make you a million! Really!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koch cites the following line: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." This out-of-context quote leaves the impression that Jefferson considered the growth of government antithetical to individual liberty. Not so. It comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington on May 27, 1788. Jefferson wasn't saying that the government takes your liberty, but that liberty is lost when citizens become passive in the face of infringements on their rights.

The NSA, not the IRS, is the appropriate contemporary target for that line.

Jefferson was very clear in the Carrington letter about which type of "government" he found objectionable: hereditary rulership. In his day, hereditary rulers governed through monarchy. Today's unelected rulers, hereditary and otherwise, use their wealth to manipulate, corrupt, and control the political process.

Charles Koch may not understand Thomas Jefferson, but Thomas Jefferson would have understood Charles Koch very well. It was Jefferson, after all, who said the following:

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Can't even use a quote without lying.

 
This is the full context of that Jefferson quote:

There are two amendments only which I am anxious for. 1. A bill of rights, which it is so much the interest of all to have, that I conceive it must be yielded. The 1st amendment proposed by Massachusetts will in some degree answer this end, but not so well. It will do too much in some instances & too little in others. It will cripple the federal government in some cases where it ought to be free, and not restrain it in some others where restraint would be right. The 2d amendment which appears to me essential is the restoring the principle of necessary rotation, particularly to the Senate & Presidency: but most of all to the last. Re-eligibility makes him an officer for life, and the disastors inseparable from an elective monarchy, render it preferable, if we cannot tread back that step, that we should go forward & take refuge in an hereditary one.

Of the correction of this Article however I entertain no present hope, because I find it has scarcely excited an objection in America. And if it does not take place ere long, it assuredly never will. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, & government to gain ground. As yet our spirits are free. Our jealousy is only put to sleep by the unlimited confidence we all repose in the person to whom we all look as our president. After him inferior characters may perhaps succeed and awaken us to the danger which his merit has led us into. For the present however, the general adoption is to be prayed for ...
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/natural-progress-things-quotation

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koch cites the following line: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." This out-of-context quote leaves the impression that Jefferson considered the growth of government antithetical to individual liberty. Not so. It comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington on May 27, 1788. Jefferson wasn't saying that the government takes your liberty, but that liberty is lost when citizens become passive in the face of infringements on their rights.

The NSA, not the IRS, is the appropriate contemporary target for that line.

Jefferson was very clear in the Carrington letter about which type of "government" he found objectionable: hereditary rulership. In his day, hereditary rulers governed through monarchy. Today's unelected rulers, hereditary and otherwise, use their wealth to manipulate, corrupt, and control the political process.

Charles Koch may not understand Thomas Jefferson, but Thomas Jefferson would have understood Charles Koch very well. It was Jefferson, after all, who said the following:

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Can't even use a quote without lying.
I was just looking at that.

I wonder what the two amendments they were looking at back then were.

The 2nd Amendment seems to be about ensuring that the presidency would not become permanent but rather it would be rotated, ie term limited, which sounds a lot like the 22nd Amendment we have now limiting the president to two terms.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?

 
Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
Charles Koch would get more of what he wants if he stayed quiet and behind the scenes instead of going public. The more he says, the more people see it's at odds with what he does.

In 1999, Koch Industries was found guilty of negligence and malice after two teens in Texas died as a result of an underground pipe leaking butane, according to reports.

In January 2000, Koch Industries was forced to pay a $30 million civil penalty, "the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law" and $5 million in cleanup efforts to resolve claims of more than 300 spills from oil pipelines in six states.

"This record civil penalty sends a clear message to those who transport hazardous materials: You cannot endanger public health or the environment," said Attorney General Janet Reno. "We will not let you foul our water and spoil our land by breaking the law."

In March 2000, the Koch Petroleum Group was sentenced to pay $6 million in criminal fines and $2 million in remediation costs — the largest federal fine ever paid in Minnesota at the time — after it was found that one of their refineries polluted waterways and wetlands in Minnesota before 1997. According to a press release, "Koch admitted that it negligently discharged aviation fuel into a wetland and an adjoining waterway. Even though Koch was aware of the problem, it did not develop a comprehensive plan to recover between 200,000-600,000 gallons of released fuel until June 1997."

In September 2000, Koch Industries was indicted for environmental crimes at a refinery the company owned in Texas. They eventually paid a $25 million fine after pleading guilty to one criminal charge.

"Companies that produce dangerous pollutants simply cannot focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of a community's health," said Lois Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the environment at the Justice Department. "We will continue to find and prosecute those who would flout our environmental laws."

In February 2013, Koch Nitrogen Company paid a $380,000 fine for failing to create a risk management program for facilities producing and storing ammonia products in Iowa and Kansas.

In March 2014, Flint Hills Resources paid a $350,000 fine for leaky equipment at a Texas chemical plant that allowed hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere. Though the EPA also credited the company for implementing what it described as "innovative technologies" in the plant to capture pollutants.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/04/charles-koch/epa-koch-brothers-business-environment/

 
So the government is responsible for middle class wages remaining stagnant for the past 25 years while executive compensation has skyrocketed?

America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves.

While at the same time decrying government regulation and control. So poverty and lack of opportunity is the fault of the government, yet the government should not be able to do anything to regulate the open market which produces opportunity and earning potential, and of course any lack thereof leads to poverty.
My guess is that Koch would argue that government regulations/policies have "forced" companies to off-shore much of their production and manufacturing to other countries...and that the process of having to only pay $10-$20/hour for labor instead of $40-$50/hour for labor is what has contributed to fat-enough margins for companies to reward their executive management with FAT compensation packages. And at least partially, he'd be correct.

I think every business owner (myself included) has felt pressured (or at least tempted) to do the same thing. I could "net" roughly $30/hour more for our firm's work if I shipped our labor over to Russia, Argentina, or Africa. And even with only roughly 10,000 billable hours per year (small company), you're talking about the difference of $300,000 in profits! But I think such a strategy, while making me more wealthy personally, would contribute to the impoverishing of America. So about 96-97% of our billable labor hours are paid to workers in the United States (one part-time person based in Canada). And I aggressively work to grow our firm's sales in Europe, the Middle East, and SE Asia. And as a result, for every one dollar we pay to overseas suppliers, we "import" approximately $3-$4 from the EU, Middle East, and SE Asia. Our company is subsequently adding wealth to our nation, rather than eroding wealth...just so that I can afford a Bryant Boat and vacation in the Caymans whenever I darned well want to. ;)

That is the real measure of a "patriot" to me. Someone who thinks: "What's best for my country?" Rather than "what's best for me?" But pretty-much the way words like patriot, freedom, liberty, et al are used this century, it is code for "Christian Conservative." And most Christian Conservatives? Use "what's best for my country" as code for "what's best for me." Taking truth, and running it through the spin cycle, until it is twisted/distorted into supporting my own agenda and world view. Which has pushed me to the Left, politically. Because the politics of the Right seem to be much more focused on "me." While the politics of the Left, even for how misguided they can sometimes be, are focused on "we." WE as a NATION...not WE as in "my kin," or people who look/think/act like I do...as the Right tends to use it.
I don't think you would see near the profit you are thinking you would. I work for a company (granted much bigger) that employees tons of folks in India. I'm almost positive the amount of collateral damage caused by relying so heavily on foreign labor would come close to balancing out the savings with extra cost caused by the offshoring.

Offshoring is not necessarily the panacea some think it is, but it depends on whether quality of work matters. I can't imagine many scenarios where it wouldn't.

 
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?

 
Jefferson's full letter to Logan:

I received your favor of Oct. 16, at this place, where I pass much of my time, very distant from Monticello. I am quite astonished at the idea which seems to have got abroad; that I propose publishing something on the subject of religion, and this is said to have arisen from a letter of mine to my friend Charles Thompson, in which certainly Edition: current; Page: [43] there is no trace of such an idea. When we see religion split into so many thousand of sects, and I may say Christianity itself divided into it’s thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing and where the laws permit burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a [torn] man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all religion as expressed by it’s best preacher, “fear god and love thy neighbor” contains no mystery, needs no explanation. But this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes; priests could not live by it. Your idea of the moral obligations of governments are perfectly correct. The man who is dishonest as a statesman would be a dishonest man in any station. It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately. It is a great consolation to me that our government, as it cherishes most it’s duties to its own citizens, so is it the most exact in it’s moral conduct towards other nations. I do not believe that in the four administrations which have taken place, there has been a single instance of departure from good faith towards other nations. We may sometimes have mistaken our rights, or made an erroneous estimate of the actions of others, but no voluntary wrong can be imputed to us. In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue [and] interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Present me respectfully to Mrs. Logan and accept yourself my friendly and respectful salutations.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jefferson-the-works-vol-12-correspondence-and-papers-1816-1826

I think what's interesting here is that TJ seems to be talking about the corporations of England and their effect on domestic ("profligacy") and foreign policy, and to me since around 1945 the USA has really taken the place of England in the world order. But then it is rather difficult to imagine a USA having a presence in the world that it does without the mercantile power of its corporations, we could not have one without the other, like England back in the day.

What I also find interesting is that he says morality (virtue) in government and national interest are one in the same.

As to Koch - and the Soroses and Tony Rezcos of the world and those like them - well obviously they are giving that money to buy influence, which is the opposite of virtue, and rather is corruption, and it affects both parties.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?
Then change the system, if you can. But don't blame Koch or Soros or anyone else for making the best use of the system in place.

Besides, the system has always been in place, and always will be. Rich people have lots of influence. That doesn't mean they can control things. Pluralism plays just as big a role.

 
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?
Then change the system, if you can. But don't blame Koch or Soros or anyone else for making the best use of the system in place.

Besides, the system has always been in place, and always will be. Rich people have lots of influence. That doesn't mean they can control things. Pluralism plays just as big a role.
Don't blame the people enforcing and expanding the system for using it? What a stupid remark.

 
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?
Then change the system, if you can. But don't blame Koch or Soros or anyone else for making the best use of the system in place.

Besides, the system has always been in place, and always will be. Rich people have lots of influence. That doesn't mean they can control things. Pluralism plays just as big a role.
Somehow you pack more blatant falsehoods than words into this post.

 
timschochet said:
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?
Then change the system, if you can. But don't blame Koch or Soros or anyone else for making the best use of the system in place.

Besides, the system has always been in place, and always will be. Rich people have lots of influence. That doesn't mean they can control things. Pluralism plays just as big a role.
What a nonsensical position. Rich guys have influence. Rich guys use that influence to game the process to ensure that rich guys influence remains and grows. Repeat.

But we shouldn't complain about that? I don't give a flying fig about how much money the guy has, but thanks for implying that jealousy is the driver of people's issue with this. The maneuvering of guys like this drown out the voice of the everyman.

Do you just pick a position out of a hat and then defend it vigorously? Because you are all over the freakin map.

 
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?
Then change the system, if you can. But don't blame Koch or Soros or anyone else for making the best use of the system in place.

Besides, the system has always been in place, and always will be. Rich people have lots of influence. That doesn't mean they can control things. Pluralism plays just as big a role.
Don't blame the people enforcing and expanding the system for using it? What a stupid remark.
:goodposting:

 
Charles Koch giving $43,000 to a politician makes him evil, but Obama setting up his campaign website to accept unlimited illegal foreign donations never even makes the news. Love it.

 
timschochet said:
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?
Then change the system, if you can. But don't blame Koch or Soros or anyone else for making the best use of the system in place.

Besides, the system has always been in place, and always will be. Rich people have lots of influence. That doesn't mean they can control things. Pluralism plays just as big a role.
It's always been true to an extent but the Roberts court's decision on Citizens United vs. FEC opened the floodgates wide. Democracy is worse off because of it.

 
Maybe if it the government didn't take it upon itself to redistribute trillions of dollars and pick industrial winners and losers, we wouldn't have to worry about people buying influence.

It sounds like people want a powerful central government that has the ability to make certain folks extremely rich, and then they get all surprised when they observe rent-seeking. This is roughly equivalent to leaving a bunch of meat laying around in your backyard and then wondering where all these flies came from.

 
timschochet said:
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Essentially all Koch is doing is contributing money to politicians who represent his POV. Because he has a whole lot of money, people resent this. If Koch was a middle class guy and only had a little cash to donate, nobody would care. You might disagree with his opinions, but you wouldn't resent his contributions. He is resented because he has tons of money to spend on this, and most of us don't.

What does that say about us?
That we don't believe the rich should get to purchase the political process?
Then change the system, if you can. But don't blame Koch or Soros or anyone else for making the best use of the system in place.Besides, the system has always been in place, and always will be. Rich people have lots of influence. That doesn't mean they can control things. Pluralism plays just as big a role.
It's always been true to an extent but the Roberts court's decision on Citizens United vs. FEC opened the floodgates wide. Democracy is worse off because of it.
Yeah I didn't like that decision much.
 
Maybe if it the government didn't take it upon itself to redistribute trillions of dollars and pick industrial winners and losers, we wouldn't have to worry about people buying influence.

It sounds like people want a powerful central government that has the ability to make certain folks extremely rich, and then they get all surprised when they observe rent-seeking. This is roughly equivalent to leaving a bunch of meat laying around in your backyard and then wondering where all these flies came from.
Having the government not redistribute money would be even worse.

 
Maybe if it the government didn't take it upon itself to redistribute trillions of dollars and pick industrial winners and losers, we wouldn't have to worry about people buying influence.

It sounds like people want a powerful central government that has the ability to make certain folks extremely rich, and then they get all surprised when they observe rent-seeking. This is roughly equivalent to leaving a bunch of meat laying around in your backyard and then wondering where all these flies came from.
Is that really what you got out of this thread?

 
I'm not trying to be contradictory here. Like most of you, i think there's a lot to critique about our current system. I didn't like Citizens United. But I'm not sure that any of the proposed solutions would make things better. And while I disagree with Koch a lot, I don't resent him. (And BTW, resentment is not jealousy.)

 
Maybe if it the government didn't take it upon itself to redistribute trillions of dollars and pick industrial winners and losers, we wouldn't have to worry about people buying influence.

It sounds like people want a powerful central government that has the ability to make certain folks extremely rich, and then they get all surprised when they observe rent-seeking. This is roughly equivalent to leaving a bunch of meat laying around in your backyard and then wondering where all these flies came from.
Is that really what you got out of this thread?
Pretty much, yeah. As soon as people start complaining about rich people and/or corporations "purchas[ing] the political process," this is exactly where my mind wanders off to.

 
Maybe if it the government didn't take it upon itself to redistribute trillions of dollars and pick industrial winners and losers, we wouldn't have to worry about people buying influence.

It sounds like people want a powerful central government that has the ability to make certain folks extremely rich, and then they get all surprised when they observe rent-seeking. This is roughly equivalent to leaving a bunch of meat laying around in your backyard and then wondering where all these flies came from.
Is that really what you got out of this thread?
Pretty much, yeah. As soon as people start complaining about rich people and/or corporations "purchas[ing] the political process," this is exactly where my mind wanders off to.
So you don't believe that the money this system is awash in leads to a corrupting influence? You believe everyone just rode out to the desert to kiss Adelson's ### for funsies?

 
Maybe if it the government didn't take it upon itself to redistribute trillions of dollars and pick industrial winners and losers, we wouldn't have to worry about people buying influence.
I'm sorry but what history books are you reading? Has there ever been any time in history where rich people weren't buying influence?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top