Customize

charles koch speaks out.

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Mar 1, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

  2. xenubarb Member

    FUUUUUUUU-
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anonymous Member

    It would be great if we could take the money out of elections but public financing has been repeatedly blocked, which has cost the country billions in terms of special tax breaks and other legislative considerations. Here's another fact you may want to consider: 85% of the lobbyists in the country lobby for corporations. Only 15% lobby for unions and non-profits. Plus, there's a wide open revolving door between the legislative & administrative branches and the lobbying firms. Who loses? The average taxpayer; the bottom 80%. Certainly not the plutocrats who dominate the system.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  5. So, he wants us to follow Canada's example? Koch is a socialist! I knew it!
  6. LocalSP Member

    Three words:

    LYING LIAR LYING!
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Don't get me wrong, I am immensely suspicious of authority in all its forms, but whether it's BS or not I think he believes what he is saying.

    If you discount that those you oppose may actually be doing what they are doing because they really DO believe it's the right thing and will benefit everyone, you lose site of a section of the bigger picture. That kind of thing is why U.S. intel continues to be so far behind on predicting changes in much of the world: lack of objective examination.

    There are no Disney villains.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Rockyj Member

  9. DeathHamster Member

    Did he just say that he's against crony capitalism?
  10. Rockyj Member

  11. LocalSP Member

    Koch is only trying to increase his personal wealth by breaking the back of the common working man. He may believe he is right but what is the actuality? Koch is trying to make his company more profitable by getting tax cuts. This is a false profit because the increase in profit is not backed by more sales. It is an increase in profit by becoming the average tax payers burden. No new jobs are created because sales are not up, production isn't increased, hence, false profit. The only reason to do this is to show more profit thus enticing new investors to invest without having to increase sales or to expand the company.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. /sigh

    It's covered in the thread, lurk moar.

    And you still don't need to spam every thread with the link.

    Edit: I had this sneaking suspicion that was you with the anonymous astroturf comment. I'm guessing I was advising people against that practice before you knew what it was... assuming you actually know what it really means, and your use doesn't lead me to have great faith you do.
  13. adhocrat Member

    Dang, folks, what that article said is simply the basic truth. We can't run deficit spending forever, Sooner or later the bills comes due and the cupboard will be bare. You won't like things at all when the dollar collapses and the economy falls into the sewer.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. LocalSP Member

    True Adhoc. if only wealthy corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. I'm not saying he's right, just that discounting his sincerity interferes with an objective approach to dealing with him. Us/them paradigms of evil demons gnoshing on the the bones of the working-classes children and the emotional reactions such invokes make life simpler and less scary to some because it offers absolutes. Kind of like religion or a cult.

    He might simply be an old guy without full perspective of the real world and only academic papers on which to model his concept of a better economy. If he comes across as a nice but misdirected old guy to the public and his opponents attack him as the antichrist, he'll come out looking better in the court of public opinion.

    There are more moderates than extremes, and what he is saying will appeal to them more than the spiteful assaults on his character so many around here have been passing for discourse lately.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Rockyj Member

    http://current.com/news/93036122_charles-koch-issues-his-instructions-to-the-peasants.htm
  17. Anonymous Member

    His companies sound like some kind of strap-on.
  18. Wow, it's like Rush Limbaugh, but liberal.
  19. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  20. LocalSP Member

    It used to be that Corporations and businesses paid most of the taxes in their community. This paid for schools, roads, sanitation,ect. This took the tax burden off of the people who lived in these communities so they were able to live a little better. And purchase the products that were produced in their communities.

    Politician says " You know, things are going pretty good and if we bring in a little more business into our community it will be better." So he comes up with a plan. "We will give tax breaks to any new business that will move into our community." Well now, the existing businesses there said, "Hey we want those tax breaks too." So the politician says "Okay you get them too."

    Tax base erodes. More taxes put upon the workers in the community because somebody has to pay for the schools, roads ect.

    Workers now need more money to live as comfortably as they did before and ask for raises. Company refuses, workers join unions, union forces company to raise workers pay and now benefits. Company wants more tax breaks workers pay more taxes......

    A bit simplistic but I think you can see where this going.
    • Like Like x 4
  21. LocalSP Member

    • Like Like x 1
  22. LocalSP Member

    True, but is there anything I said in my post that isn't true?
  23. Actually, no, I should have added that. What you had posted, and posted after, is what there needs to be more of.
  24. adhocrat Member

    taxes on corporations are paid by the consumers, not the corporations. The tax is passed through as part of the cost. So wherever the tax originates, it is always paid by the consumer. Always.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. LocalSP Member

    So? The corporations were able to to operate at a profit when paying those taxes but at a lower profit margin. For a company to stay viable it doesn't have to make huge profits. People used to invest in public utilities, not because the were great earners but because they were a safe and stable investment. Every year there was steady growth, no huge profits but a better return on average than just leaving your money in a bank.

    With corporations now, it is profit, profit and more profit and they want that profit to be huge to entice more investors to invest their money. All this without making more sales or expansion. If Corporations would forget about making huge profits and be happy with a smaller profit margin things might get better. Right now they are just shuffling money around.
    • Like Like x 3
  26. I did agree with one thing Koch-sucker said: let ethanol compete on its own merits. As a "green" technology, I could not possibly hate it any more than I hate petroleum-based products, at least in its current form. It has roughly 61% of the energy density of regular unleaded gasoline, a much lower vapor pressure than gasoline (meaning more goes up into the atmosphere instead of the engine), and it's hygroscopic, meaning water will slowly end up in any engines that use it and eventually cause damage, helping to force older cars off the road sooner and negatively impacting the poor. As a bonus, the corn feedstock used in the U.S. causes the price of staple foods to go up both directly and indirectly through increased fuel and transportation costs, which hurts the poor and contributes to famine worldwide.

    The biofuel I would choose to invest government research dollars into, if it were me, would be biodiesel. Its energy density is comparable to diesel and gasoline, and if able to be done from algal or other non-food microbial sources, would be an excellent alternative. As a practical matter, though, I'd probably have to go with biobutanol, since it could be used in internal combustion engines without modification.
    • Like Like x 5
  27. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4
  28. anonsoldier Member

    Man, if only I could remember what was happening in 2003 that might cause spending levels to SKYROCKET for almost a decade. I swear, I thought that something happened which sucked billions and billions of dollars out of our economy and deposited it into the hands of corrupt corporate executives and other unsavory and untrustworthy folks. Oh yeah, we went to war. Man, if only we hadn't done that and had waited maybe another 8 years so that Iraq could have succumbed to the Facebook revolution. SOOOOO much money saved, so many lives kept, so much debt prevented...

    Also, all the stuff that's been said about greedy executives. What's the ratio in pay now, between a regular employee and an executive? Something like 1:350? For every dollar you make, they make $350? I remember a movie that had figures and stuff on it in the credits and for the life of me can't remember what it was. Recent flick, too. HELP MY MEMORY, HIVEMIND!

    EDIT: "The Other Guys". THAT was the film. Says a lot about the movie I remembered the credits, not the film...
    • Like Like x 3
  29. LocalSP Member

    I could not agree more with you on this. Not only is ethanol a bad fuel but it also takes away from our food source. Land that was once used for growing food will be used to grow fuel.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. anonsoldier Member

    Personally, and I'm sure every environmental person will hate me for saying it....but I think the future is hydrogen.

    How, you ask, do we get the energy? Solar, wind, nuclear. Yes. NUCLEAR. I LIKE NUCLEAR ENERGY. What about the waste you say? We tell the American government to stop being pussies and to process the waste into new fuel, like the French do. Why don't we do it now? Because that waste and the fuel it would be processed into is so thoroughly enriched that it can be used as fissionable material for a nuke. The uranium used in power plants requires further enrichment to be weaponized, and the govt doesn't want weapons grade material in any of its plants. Well, I say create a bunch of jobs guarding and securing that shit and pay them with the money you make from all the hydrogen you can now produce.

    Rough concept, I know, but that's where I stand.
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Consensus Member

    Guys, he's engaging us. He's not writing about how Anonymous must be destroyed, he's not calling for police intervention or anything stupid like that.

    He's presenting ideas.

    Treat his op ed as if it were the OP of a thread; and respond to his ideas the way you would to the ideas of any other Anon. This is a war of ideas, and the end-goal is to get people to ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION of how best to move the nation forward.

    Obviously, many of you disagree with the direction he's pushing for. Make your case. Anything less would be fascism on *our* part.

    (still, if he pulls shenanigans, fight faggotry with faggotry)
    • Like Like x 3
  32. adhocrat Member

    After reading this all I can say is take a few economic classes. Profits means more work for everyone and a rising standard of living Those profits are not hoarded like Duck McScrooge, they are invested in the economy, creating jobs. Profits, in a just society, would be decided by the consumers. Which is to say consumers ultimately have the power in a free market, where actual choices are available. Every time government lmits those available choices, it makes our lives that much harder.
  33. I liked the ending. That was cute.

    I'm deeply curious about the $107 trillion thing though. Has to be something with how they approached the numbers or a huge misplacement of a decimal point. That's just too big a difference and too blatant for a group whose bank account rises and falls with their credibility to do on purpose.
  34. LocalSP Member

    Show me the jobs!
    • Like Like x 1
  35. And the world is facing an impending food shortage. There's something downright like a parable about the richest country in the world burning corn as fuel while people starve.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. adhocrat Member

    The reason we don't have more jobs is because the government is sucking the available capital up and redirecting it to their friends. Any bail out is a travesty and a crime against the consumers. But our government keeps doing it. They then micromanage everyone into a paralysis where no one can make a move without some bureaucrat second guessing them.

    Jobs are a function of a stable business climate. Until the government stops trying to manage risk and let people fail, we will have this jobless recovery crap.

    As I've been saying, all the things I hear people on this board complaining about are fall out from stupid government policies. Most of us would agree that our foreign policy is a disaster. Is it any wonder our domestic policies are too?
  37. LocalSP Member

    Oh great that's all we need, idiot drivers driving around in mini Hindenburgs .

    Being factitious here.
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Rockyj Member

    Okay....So OP/Mr. Koch..er...sir, so how's that trinkle down effect working for you because it sure isn't working for me? (& most of America).
  39. Anonymous Member

    It's not possible that we went to war back in 2003. After all, it only appeared in the budget a year or two ago.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins