Koch Brothers

[SadisticMonkey]

Stupid liberals love bringing up the Koch brothers as an example of how evil republicans use their enormous wealth to help republicans win elections and make them even richer. Other stupid liberals believe this bullshit narrative and spread it themselves.

However, like most liberal narratives, it is total horseshit.

Turns out, Koch Industries is not the top political donor of recent times. They're not in the top ten. Not even top 50.

Nope, they come in all the way down at numer 77!

Turns out, big political donors overwhelmingly donate to Deomcrats rather than republicans.

So stop this bullshit. You want money out of politics? Then look at the damn democrats.

[Camarohusky]

I think you need to study the numbers just a wee bit more there...

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 6/12/12 11:34 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Stupid liberals love bringing up the Koch brothers as an example of how evil republicans use their enormous wealth to help republicans win elections and make them even richer. Other stupid liberals believe this bullshit narrative and spread it themselves.

However, like most liberal narratives, it is total horseshit.
So stop this bullshit. You want money out of politics? Then look at the damn democrats.

Democrats cause many problems. It does just annoying that Republicans get blamed for everything.

[Memorize]

At 6/12/12 11:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I think you need to study the numbers just a wee bit more there...

I haven't seen so much denial since Walker won the recall.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/13/12 05:30 AM, GoodFish wrote: Most of those corporations donating to the Dems are publicly traded, meaning they represent a board of shareholders and large part of the population who has a little wealth working together to donate to the party which represents a majority will.

Oh dear.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/13/12 04:52 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/12/12 11:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I think you need to study the numbers just a wee bit more there...

I haven't seen so much denial since Walker won the recall.

Thanks for not even trying, Memorize. I wouldn't expect any better of you.

But seriously, look at all of the numbers and you'll see that the chart is decieving at best.

[SmilezRoyale]

Democrats have very strong financial support from public sector unions, but you'll have situations where the percentage of the union dues going to the Democratic party are significantly higher than the actual proportion of those members that are part of the union. This is likely a result of a combination of both ignorance on the part of the union members as to where those dues are going, and also the fact that in some states union membership is compulsory.

I recall that my mother worked as one of those 'security guards' for a middle school I went to, despite not actually being an educator NEA dues were taken from her salary. You can have the case of the Koch industries where a small handful of individuals support Libertarian-Republican candidates, or you can have the case of a Union where the portion of a large pool of workers paying dues lean solidly democratic and so their organization effectively operates for the sake of the democratic party.

If and before anyone hoots and hollers about how I'm demonizing teachers and other Unions, let me point out that there is nothing uniquely evil about a group of people acting in their own self interest. Everybody does it to some extent and I suspect that most people will exploit those whom they have no emotional connection with [i.e. strangers]. I don't hate Unions, I hate the people who sacrilized education, the automotive industry, and so forth. To make an institution sacrosanct is to promote corruption.

15 Million dollars sounds like a lot, but It does pale in Comparision to the money spend by the Rockefeller, ford, and Soros foundations, and the majority of people who might be classified as "The super rich" [People with net worth in excess of 10 million dollars] Tend to support the democrats. Whereas the plain old "rich" tend to support republicans. One half of me is tempted to say that neurology plays a role, i.e. the sorts of people who can amass those fortunes are likely similar in emotional and ideological dispositions. The other side of me says that it's mostly an issue of Tax policy. The democrats posture themselves as wanting to raise income taxes on "the rich", the problem here is that the genuinely wealthiest individuals do not make most of their money from what is classified as "Income",

One *could* say that by supporting higher taxes, those members of the super rich appear both noble and self sacrificial in the eyes of the public whilst simultaneously promoting the erecting of a barrier between them and those who earn in excess of six figures a year and have high savings rates. [The sorts of people that do not occupy the top .1% but do occupy the top 2-1%, i.e. have a few million dollars in net worth]

It is interesting though to see the relative disparity in funding between democrats and republicans, and frankly it's amazing that the republicans are able to win any elections at all.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/13/12 04:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Thanks for not even trying, Memorize. I wouldn't expect any better of you.

Don't give the troll what he wants...not that this thread is much better then the levels of trolling but still....

Honestly this is one of those political arguments I personally hate...it just boils down to "hey, my team is full of assholes that screw with the political process sure...but YOUR team is full of BIGGER assholes who mess with the political process MORE!"

Hey, how's about we just admit both sides suck, hold their feet to the fire on this kind of shit...and stop picking fucking nits already? Oh right...that'd be productive, can't have that.

[bismuthfeldspar]

a billion or so over 23 years isn't much

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/14/12 03:54 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Honestly this is one of those political arguments I personally hate...it just boils down to "hey, my team is full of assholes that screw with the political process sure...but YOUR team is full of BIGGER assholes who mess with the political process MORE!"

Hey, how's about we just admit both sides suck, hold their feet to the fire on this kind of shit...and stop picking fucking nits already? Oh right...that'd be productive, can't have that.

Cool beans and all, but you would never bring this up until a conservative mentioned something

seriously, where are you when people are having a shit over how evil the koch brothers are? That's right, you say nothing, or perhaps even agree.

[SadisticMonkey]

Seriosuly, why has nobody adressed this?

If it was Bush you would all be fucking outraged.

[Feoric]

At 6/23/12 10:01 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Seriosuly, why has nobody adressed this?

If it was Bush you would all be fucking outraged.

all i'm getting from this article is that a very wealthy family who has ties to/donated a lot of money to the obama campaign made a deal with the fdic in exchange for paying 316 million dollars upfront. what is so outrageous about this?

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 7/17/12 01:42 AM, Feoric wrote: all i'm getting from this article is that a very wealthy family who has ties to/donated a lot of money to the obama campaign made a deal with the fdic in exchange for paying 316 million dollars upfront. what is so outrageous about this?

Obama didn't earn that donation money, someone gave it to him!

[Camarohusky]

At 7/17/12 01:25 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Obama didn't earn that donation money, someone gave it to him!

At least he didn't make it by laying off workers and diverting profits from corporations in dire need of capital...

[Warforger]

You guys do realize this is rather pointless at this point because of Super PAC's right? By now the budgets of the Republican party towers over the Democratic party.

[Elfer]

I had an interview with a Koch subsidiary a while back. It was weird to do my research, then seem unprepared for the "What do you know about our company" question because I was tip-toeing around the whole "evil" thing.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 7/17/12 01:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/17/12 01:25 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Obama didn't earn that donation money, someone gave it to him!

At least he didn't make it by laying off workers and diverting profits from corporations in dire need of capital...

You mean companies that, after given a second chance, still couldn't bring the ship around?

[Camarohusky]

At 7/18/12 05:12 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At least he didn't make it by laying off workers and diverting profits from corporations in dire need of capital...

You mean companies that, after given a second chance, still couldn't bring the ship around?

No. Just companies that were making a urnaround just to find a huge chunk of their income was going to Bain instead of to growth. Nothing here specific to Bain. This is common to the entire intrusion of 'capital' groups into corporate business.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 7/18/12 06:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/18/12 05:12 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At least he didn't make it by laying off workers and diverting profits from corporations in dire need of capital...

You mean companies that, after given a second chance, still couldn't bring the ship around?

No. Just companies that were making a urnaround just to find a huge chunk of their income was going to Bain instead of to growth. Nothing here specific to Bain. This is common to the entire intrusion of 'capital' groups into corporate business.

And that's the story the Obama regime is selling to the American people. What's worse is that it's actually working. Cant be surprised given how financially illiterate we all are, thanks be to public education pandering to unions instead of educating children on our tax dollars.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/18/12 06:38 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: And that's the story the Obama regime is selling to the American people. What's worse is that it's actually working. Cant be surprised given how financially illiterate we all are, thanks be to public education pandering to unions instead of educating children on our tax dollars.

If you're so smart, refute it.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/18/12 06:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/18/12 06:38 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: And that's the story the Obama regime is selling to the American people. What's worse is that it's actually working. Cant be surprised given how financially illiterate we all are, thanks be to public education pandering to unions instead of educating children on our tax dollars.

If you're so smart, refute it.

Well? Ho are you going to justify how millions of dollars going to a company of 143 people is better for the economy than those same millions staying in a corporation of 10,000 people?

Are you also going to try and convince us that LBOs and greenmail are both good for the economy as well?

[Korriken]

At 7/18/12 06:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/18/12 06:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Well? Ho are you going to justify how millions of dollars going to a company of 143 people is better for the economy than those same millions staying in a corporation of 10,000 people?

What did they do with said money? the answer would kill the debate.

[Korriken]

At 7/18/12 07:03 PM, Korriken wrote:

What did they do with said money? the answer would kill the debate.

Now, thinking on that, it's not so simple to say, "They invested money, then sucked the life out of the company" Venture capital companies are not in the business of keeping employees, in fact, no company is. The purpose of a company is to make money for its investors. following this logic Bain Capital was and is a smashing success. Now, You can point and yell "Oh my god, you just don't get it, at least FIVE companies went out of business during Romney's time!"

so?

Tell me, how many business acquisitions succeeded rather than failed? if 5 failed, how many succeeded?

[Feoric]

At 7/18/12 07:15 PM, Korriken wrote: The purpose of a company is to make money for its investors.

not every company is publicly traded

[Camarohusky]

At 7/18/12 07:15 PM, Korriken wrote: Now, thinking on that, it's not so simple to say, "They invested money, then sucked the life out of the company" Venture capital companies are not in the business of keeping employees, in fact, no company is.

First off, not much of Bain capital is venture capital. I am all for venture capital. What I don' like is where outside firms involve themselves in large estalblished companies. Involvement in new companies (start ups) is quite different from involvement in large already established companies.

The purpose of a company is to make money for its investors. following this logic Bain Capital was and is a smashing success.

Tht is true, but such investment encourages companies to focus on short term dividends over long term growth. Short term dividends are nothing but an economic disease. The race for short term returns is almost always at the expense of long term gains and stability.

Now, You can point and yell "Oh my god, you just don't get it, at least FIVE companies went out of business during Romney's time!"

That means what? Nothing. You can still turn a company around while havin a net negative effect on the economy as whole. Outsourcing and laytoffs can turn a company around while creating a net negative for the economy as a whole.

Also, don't be fooled by the term "success". It's extremely subjective. A company that is turned around, but grows at 1/3 of its potential because its profits are being heavily siphoned is still considered a "success" even though it has a massive leech hanging off of it.

On a somewhat related note, how many companies were liquidated during Romney's time? Also, by Romney's time I mean until 2003.

[Feoric]

At 7/18/12 07:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/18/12 07:15 PM, Korriken wrote: The purpose of a company is to make money for its investors. following this logic Bain Capital was and is a smashing success.

Tht is true,

the former or the latter? the purpose of a company isnt to make money for its investors, it's to provide a good or service and make as much of a profit as ethically possible. of course you want to keep your investors happy and run your company well enough so more investor money pours in, what's good for an investor isn't always good for the company. a glaringly obvious example of this is bain.

[Elfer]

At 7/18/12 11:03 AM, GoodFish wrote: Ha ha ahahaha

Which company?

Regardless of my personal feelings about the group as a whole, it's not exactly professional to name names here. It was a manufacturing operation, and I'd heard mostly bad things about the working environment, particularly under Koch ownership. However, a friend of mine had helped me get the interview, and I didn't want to make him look like a wang by dropping out.

Also, with regard to the topic at hand, I don't think it's simply the quantity of money the Koch brothers spend on lobbying that bothers people, it's also the things that they're lobbying for.

[Korriken]

At 7/18/12 07:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

First off, not much of Bain capital is venture capital. I am all for venture capital. What I don' like is where outside firms involve themselves in large estalblished companies. Involvement in new companies (start ups) is quite different from involvement in large already established companies.

I'm debating with a 100.3 degree fever, cut me a little slack :P

I get the idea though.

Tht is true, but such investment encourages companies to focus on short term dividends over long term growth. Short term dividends are nothing but an economic disease. The race for short term returns is almost always at the expense of long term gains and stability.

That means what? Nothing. You can still turn a company around while havin a net negative effect on the economy as whole. Outsourcing and laytoffs can turn a company around while creating a net negative for the economy as a whole.

Also, don't be fooled by the term "success". It's extremely subjective. A company that is turned around, but grows at 1/3 of its potential because its profits are being heavily siphoned is still considered a "success" even though it has a massive leech hanging off of it.

On a somewhat related note, how many companies were liquidated during Romney's time? Also, by Romney's time I mean until 2003.

No. If Romney left Bain in 1999 then going until 2003 is dishonest. Even the Washington Post(reluctantly) agrees that Romney left Bain before 2003.

Damned fine try though. next time don't be so overt about it.

so it began in 1984 and he retired in Feb 11, 1999. a period of about 13-14ish years.

That's where we are.

now we gotta figure out which companies they acquired, which ones succeeded, which ones went bankrupt, which where outsourced, and why.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/18/12 08:48 PM, Korriken wrote: No. If Romney left Bain in 1999 then going until 2003 is dishonest. Even the Washington Post(reluctantly) agrees that Romney left Bain before 2003.

You're admitting that Romney committed securiies fraud?

[Feoric]

At 7/18/12 08:48 PM, Korriken wrote: now we gotta figure out which companies they acquired, which ones succeeded, which ones went bankrupt, which where outsourced, and why.

Well, there's this for starters.