Page 68 of 100 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 999

Thread: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

  1. #671
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    Do you think campaign contributions or other political spending should be subject to a yea/nea vote by the shareholders?
    I believe the company operates based upon shareholder votes and support

  2. #672
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,855

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryOfromCA View Post
    Ironic. . . . the same leftist extremists who reject any sort of rules or morality from a church or the Bible, are happy to have rules or morality imposed by an all-powerful government created by humans. Such is the hypocrisy, and stupidity, of Liberalism.
    That's ridiculous. You're complaining that people who reject theocracy embrace the government established by our founders. There is no hypocrisy in that position.

  3. #673
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    I guess it depends on what comprises membership to either. Labor has no nails to drive without leadership. In fact, labor doesn't care what kind of nails to drive, it just does what it is told to do. Of course, this argument between the importance of one over the other started when the first person agreed to work for another for some form of payment.
    The point I'm belaboring (ho ho) is that ultimately it's a societal product. It's not just the guy with the dream, it's not just the guy with the hammer, it's not just the official who ensures it's going to make code, it's not just the financial backer, it's not just the supportive spouses, it's not just the police who prevent mischief, etc. etc. etc.

    America seems to have a pathology for putting a single face on success rather than acknowledging that our success is not in spite of each other, but because of each other. Once we can get past that myopia, we can more fairly distribute.

  4. #674
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    The point I'm belaboring (ho ho) is that ultimately it's a societal product. It's not just the guy with the dream, it's not just the guy with the hammer, it's not just the official who ensures it's going to make code, it's not just the financial backer, it's not just the supportive spouses, it's not just the police who prevent mischief, etc. etc. etc.

    America seems to have a pathology for putting a single face on success rather than acknowledging that our success is not in spite of each other, but because of each other. Once we can get past that myopia, we can more fairly distribute.
    Well, I think you need to look a little further, and a little deeper. One major missing ingredient is the return on investment derived from a mindset that involves responsibility. When someone makes a decision to be, what in effect is, a follower, it is unreasonable to demand they receive the benefits of being a leader.

    Let me see if I can explain my rational for believing this.

    Remove all commercial economic "rewards" from any endeavor. For it to be successful, there can't be 20 chefs, and no servers. Someone has to step up and help direct the effort. That person most likely is not going to be down in the mud with the others. Is it fair for the others to demand similar treatment? If the leader is particularly skilled at directing the others, should they not receive some extra benefit? Wouldn't other groups want to have that person provide the same skills to their endeavors, and be willing to offer even greater benefits for agreeing to do so? Should the people down in the mud demand even louder that they receive equal treatment?

    Distribution is fair today, because it is what it is. Do I think top CEO's need to be paid on average $10 million per year? I leave that to board of directors, and the compensation committee. Ultimately it comes down to the stakeholders. Do I think the workers "out in the trenches" should begrudge the CEO? Well, I'm sure they'd like to get 1/10th of the CEO's pay. The question becomes, what's stopping them from trying, and if they don't try, why are they complaining?

  5. #675
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I didn't claim that.

    I didn't claim you did, but you started to reply to the argument I was having with another poster, a poster whose posts imply that.

    Next time, pick your whiteknighting more carefully?

  6. #676
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,855

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Well, I think you need to look a little further, and a little deeper. One major missing ingredient is the return on investment derived from a mindset that involves responsibility. When someone makes a decision to be, what in effect is, a follower, it is unreasonable to demand they receive the benefits of being a leader.

    Let me see if I can explain my rational for believing this.

    Remove all commercial economic "rewards" from any endeavor. For it to be successful, there can't be 20 chefs, and no servers. Someone has to step up and help direct the effort. That person most likely is not going to be down in the mud with the others. Is it fair for the others to demand similar treatment? If the leader is particularly skilled at directing the others, should they not receive some extra benefit? Wouldn't other groups want to have that person provide the same skills to their endeavors, and be willing to offer even greater benefits for agreeing to do so? Should the people down in the mud demand even louder that they receive equal treatment?
    Of course - no one argues that a busboy should make the same as a restaurant owner or general manager.

    Distribution is fair today, because it is what it is. Do I think top CEO's need to be paid on average $10 million per year? I leave that to board of directors, and the compensation committee. Ultimately it comes down to the stakeholders. Do I think the workers "out in the trenches" should begrudge the CEO? Well, I'm sure they'd like to get 1/10th of the CEO's pay. The question becomes, what's stopping them from trying, and if they don't try, why are they complaining?
    That assumes that there is some neutral set of rules of the game out there that allow for some kind of equitable outcome. Think of it like sports. Is it "fair" for a high school with a 12,000 student enrollment to compete in football against a nearby school with an enrollment of 500? Of course not, and every state has competitive divisions to account for that.

    And in the economy there are a thousand ways we set the rules of the game, and the results are only as "fair" as the rules. We allow for free movement of capital, but not people. Would it be "fair" if we allowed in anyone to work that could afford plane or boat fare or walk across the borders? It would drive down wages even further and lots of workers displaced wouldn't think it fair that we ignored national borders. Is it fair that manufacturers in China can dump their waste untreated into the nearest river, but ours have to clean up that waste? Is if fair that China rigs its currency, imposes capital controls, and we do nothing? Etc.

  7. #677
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Of course - no one argues that a busboy should make the same as a restaurant owner or general manager.



    That assumes that there is some neutral set of rules of the game out there that allow for some kind of equitable outcome. Think of it like sports. Is it "fair" for a high school with a 12,000 student enrollment to compete in football against a nearby school with an enrollment of 500? Of course not, and every state has competitive divisions to account for that.

    And in the economy there are a thousand ways we set the rules of the game, and the results are only as "fair" as the rules. We allow for free movement of capital, but not people. Would it be "fair" if we allowed in anyone to work that could afford plane or boat fare or walk across the borders? It would drive down wages even further and lots of workers displaced wouldn't think it fair that we ignored national borders. Is it fair that manufacturers in China can dump their waste untreated into the nearest river, but ours have to clean up that waste? Is if fair that China rigs its currency, imposes capital controls, and we do nothing? Etc.
    There are neutral rules of the game. Just because people want to imagine there aren't doesn't mean it's true. The business world isn't some high school football game. We don't demand runners in Cross Country events slow down because they are beating the competition by too much.

    There are thousands of ways the business world operates. Some are more fair than others. What you describe and advocate for is person who chose to move next to an airport and is now complaining about the noise.

    I'm a bit taken by the comment about free movement of labor and it's inclusion of the "walk across borders" comment. The people who complain the loudest about wages and equality are for the most part aligned with the forces who are encouraging people to walk across the border to steal jobs and lower wages.

    I'm all for much harsher, or call it, equal, trade agreements. It's beyond me that we allow rather unrestricted importation, while tolerating massive tariffs on goods exported to other countries. It's also beyond me that on the point of environmental issues, China and India are allowed to escape some of the more punitive proposals, while "The West" is expected to take immediate steps at great expense.

  8. #678
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,855

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    There are neutral rules of the game. Just because people want to imagine there aren't doesn't mean it's true. The business world isn't some high school football game. We don't demand runners in Cross Country events slow down because they are beating the competition by too much.
    But directly below this you point out how the rules are not in fact equal.

    There are thousands of ways the business world operates. Some are more fair than others. What you describe and advocate for is person who chose to move next to an airport and is now complaining about the noise.
    More to the point would be a landowner with a farm out in the country complaining of the noise of the airport built long after he moved out to the country. That farmer had no input on whether the airport was built on his property line.

    I'm a bit taken by the comment about free movement of labor and it's inclusion of the "walk across borders" comment. The people who complain the loudest about wages and equality are for the most part aligned with the forces who are encouraging people to walk across the border to steal jobs and lower wages.
    Well, take that up with them, I suppose. That's not my position - never has been.

    But it's also a bit stunning that conservatives preaching "free markets" cheer free movement of capital but not labor. The principled free market advocates recognize that if capital is free to cross borders without restrictions, humans, labor should obviously have the same rights. I'm frankly fine with restrictions on both labor and capital. "Free markets" are a myth, and the unequal treatment of capital and labor is just one glaring example of why.

    I'm all for much harsher, or call it, equal, trade agreements. It's beyond me that we allow rather unrestricted importation, while tolerating massive tariffs on goods exported to other countries. It's also beyond me that on the point of environmental issues, China and India are allowed to escape some of the more punitive proposals, while "The West" is expected to take immediate steps at great expense.
    I agree, and accepting those rules of the game obviously affect the outcome - our plants moved, we lost millions of jobs. We (as a country) made a deliberate choice to lose those plants and move those jobs overseas. It's perfectly legitimate to object to that planned outcome as "unfair" to U.S. workers.

  9. #679
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    But directly below this you point out how the rules are not in fact equal.



    More to the point would be a landowner with a farm out in the country complaining of the noise of the airport built long after he moved out to the country. That farmer had no input on whether the airport was built on his property line.



    Well, take that up with them, I suppose. That's not my position - never has been.

    But it's also a bit stunning that conservatives preaching "free markets" cheer free movement of capital but not labor. The principled free market advocates recognize that if capital is free to cross borders without restrictions, humans, labor should obviously have the same rights. I'm frankly fine with restrictions on both labor and capital. "Free markets" are a myth, and the unequal treatment of capital and labor is just one glaring example of why.



    I agree, and accepting those rules of the game obviously affect the outcome - our plants moved, we lost millions of jobs. We (as a country) made a deliberate choice to lose those plants and move those jobs overseas. It's perfectly legitimate to object to that planned outcome as "unfair" to U.S. workers.

    The rules will never be equal. Equality has no place in the economy of the United States. You're picking nits in a thread post. Don't try to read too hard between the lines. I don't have time for exacting nuance.

    I didn't write about someone where an airport got built, I wrote about someone who moved near one. A big difference that you can't change.

    How would you restrict the free exchange of capital? Why should labor be free to be exchanged?

    The fact is, you've got de facto free exchange in labor now. Peasants from other countries are being rewarded by the current administration and people of similar ideological beliefs. At the same time people are calling for economic equality despite their support for this damaging influx of labor. Such realities make the "equality" call rather weak.

  10. #680
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What bothers me is that you don't seem to understand states' rights as well as responsibilities and how the govt. closer to the people is what our Founders created. Whether or not it is socialized is up to the people of the state and if you don't like state operations it is easy to move. Why you put so much faith in a federal bureaucrat vs someone local is beyond comprehension and seems to me nothing more than basically shirking your responsibility as a citizen of the state. It is easier to change policies in the state than the Federal govt. but far too many don't seem to like that reality. What is it about Federal programs and control that excites you?
    I expressed no opinion as to whether particular programs should be funded at the local, state or federal level so you are attacking a straw man.

Page 68 of 100 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •