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

[Clifford]

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.

I imagine Tim sitting in front of a mirror and arguing with himself, and frequently winning (and losing) arguments.

 

[tommyGunZ]

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.

I think the surprise is that lots of folks aren't interested in investing in a mechanism to keep the flies out.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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?

I think "corrupting influences" are a natural, unavoidable part of government. When the government is small and weak, you don't see a whole lot of this because what's the point? If the government doesn't have the ability to give me what I want, why should I bother trying to influence the system? On the other hand, when the government decides who gets bailed out at taxpayer expense or decides to raise the minimum wage for my company and my company only, it's hard to get all surprised when people take a more active role in the political process.

 

[Joe Summer]

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.

Fundraising Scandal Rocks Obama Campaign

 

[igbomb]

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.

People, rich, poor or otherwise, try to turn their wealth and influence into even more wealth and influence. I don't mean that in a critical way, it's simply human nature.

So rich people will absolutely use their wealth to generate even more influence and wealth.

But it's absolutely a government's responsibility to limit that ability to the extent that is best for the nation. And this is where the U.S. fails miserably. Every time we see a new corruption index, the U.S. is much lower than the efficiency and transparency of our economy says we should ever expect to be. And time and again it's because of the amount of money we let flow into our political process.

I disagree that the structure of our government vs. some other theoretical structure has any real impact on the extent of the issue. There is no imaginable reduction in our government's scope that would ever discourage people from playing the money game. The real flaw is that our government has decided to do nothing to address it.

 

[Eephus]

This shouldn't be a left vs right or red vs blue thing. Both sides have deep pockets to reach into. But if money=speech, then big money=yelling, and I don't think yelling is conducive to the political process.

Besides, campaign commercials suck.

 

[dparker713]

I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged and this thread reminds me so much of that book.

What, are you in high school or something?

 

[worrierking]

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?

I think "corrupting influences" are a natural, unavoidable part of government. When the government is small and weak, you don't see a whole lot of this because what's the point? If the government doesn't have the ability to give me what I want, why should I bother trying to influence the system? On the other hand, when the government decides who gets bailed out at taxpayer expense or decides to raise the minimum wage for my company and my company only, it's hard to get all surprised when people take a more active role in the political process.

This is so demonstrably true that it is inarguable in my mind. Smaller government is the very best solution to the issue of corruption. The problem is not funding campaigns, that's only a small part of corruption. The problem is that government officials have far too much power to create policies which favor one individual or group over another. If we took away that power or elected people who chose not to use that power, the amount of money flowing would be irrelevant.

 

[jonessed]

Politicians use the money to buy votes. If people weren't so ignorant and actually paid attention the money wouldn't mean so much.

There are downsides to populism. A lot of stupid people can do a lot of damage.

 

[Slapdash]

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?

You see this same claim in every thread on this subject. The idea that those with money worry about buying influence because the government is large is very silly. It completely reverses the causality and ignores the history of governance.

 

[igbomb]

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?

I think "corrupting influences" are a natural, unavoidable part of government. When the government is small and weak, you don't see a whole lot of this because what's the point? If the government doesn't have the ability to give me what I want, why should I bother trying to influence the system? On the other hand, when the government decides who gets bailed out at taxpayer expense or decides to raise the minimum wage for my company and my company only, it's hard to get all surprised when people take a more active role in the political process.

This is so demonstrably true that it is inarguable in my mind. Smaller government is the very best solution to the issue of corruption. The problem is not funding campaigns, that's only a small part of corruption. The problem is that government officials have far too much power to create policies which favor one individual or group over another. If we took away that power or elected people who chose not to use that power, the amount of money flowing would be irrelevant.

You openly state that you've made up your mind, but the funny thing is that the research is far from clear on the impact of government size on corruption. I just did a little google wandering on the topic and you can find peer-reviewed research papers that find a correlation, find no correlation, or even find a negative correlation (bigger government means less corruption). Personally, I think the real answer is that government size has at most a moderate effect on corruption. Even at a county level in some backwater part of any state, with little government and little money at stake, you can find some corrupt bastards running roughshod over the people they purportedly serve.

Another step any one of us could take is to simply take a look around at other first-world countries. Pick your corruption index (maybe this one) and you will see that the U.S. is not at the top, in many cases nowhere near it. And you'll also quickly notice that most of those countries above us have much bigger, more centralized governments than we do. So it's pretty clearly not the size of the government that dings us.

 

[Dr Oadi]

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?

I think "corrupting influences" are a natural, unavoidable part of government. When the government is small and weak, you don't see a whole lot of this because what's the point? If the government doesn't have the ability to give me what I want, why should I bother trying to influence the system? On the other hand, when the government decides who gets bailed out at taxpayer expense or decides to raise the minimum wage for my company and my company only, it's hard to get all surprised when people take a more active role in the political process.

This is so demonstrably true that it is inarguable in my mind. Smaller government is the very best solution to the issue of corruption. The problem is not funding campaigns, that's only a small part of corruption. The problem is that government officials have far too much power to create policies which favor one individual or group over another. If we took away that power or elected people who chose not to use that power, the amount of money flowing would be irrelevant.

If we took away the power of the government to protect the children who will protect the children? Cold blooed selfish right wing hate mongers.

 

[timschochet]

There are downsides to populism. A lot of stupid people can do a lot of damage.

I can't see too many upsides, frankly.

 

[Eephus]

There are downsides to populism. A lot of stupid people can do a lot of damage.

I can't see too many upsides, frankly.

Elitist

 

[timschochet]

There are downsides to populism. A lot of stupid people can do a lot of damage.

I can't see too many upsides, frankly.

Elitist

I would be, except that if I was, I'd exclude me.

 

[Johnnymac]

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.

Link?

 

[Eephus]

There are downsides to populism. A lot of stupid people can do a lot of damage.

I can't see too many upsides, frankly.

Elitist

I would be, except that if I was, I'd exclude me.

Fair point. I think populism gets automatically associated with demagoguery but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

Link?

I see what you did there.

 

[lakerstan]

"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."

But if you are black, a woman or a gay person, the Republicans are more than happy to dictate your freedoms to vote, have an abortion or get married.

 

[Todd Andrews]

One of the stupidest op/eds ever.

 

[dparker713]

There are downsides to populism. A lot of stupid people can do a lot of damage.

I can't see too many upsides, frankly.

Elitist

I would be, except that if I was, I'd exclude me.

Atleast that's something we can agree on.

Although in all honesty if we eliminate all stupid people I'd just rely on my own opinion

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"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."

But if you are black, a woman or a gay person, the Republicans are more than happy to dictate your freedoms to vote, have an abortion or get married.

There's a really good thread here about 'big government'/small government and how both sides constantly flip back and forth based on the situation at the moment.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=703910&hl=small

 

[bagger]

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.

i agree. I don't like the government redistributing wealth to defense contractors either.

 

[urbanhack]

It's official.

bagger >>> Joe T

 

[cstu]

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.

IK, I really expected better from you. If you don't think it's a total corruption of the democratic process that those with money have unlimited influence over politicians then I don't know what to say.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

IK, I really expected better from you. If you don't think it's a total corruption of the democratic process that those with money have unlimited influence over politicians then I don't know what to say.

Does this include unions too? or just business owners and/or rich people?

 

[cstu]

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!

These guys all have way too much influence.

 

[Dr Oadi]

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!

These guys all have way too much influence.

Politicians have way to much power to try to influence.

 

[cstu]

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?

I don't resent anyone wealthy for buying a yacht, a 30,000 square foot house, or whatever material goods they choose to spend money on.

I do resent them for using their money to decide elections.