• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
The rules will never be equal. Equality has no place in the economy of the United States.
Click to expand...

I meant neutral - and if you're arguing that the results are "fair" because the results are what they are, then by definition you assume the rules of the game that affect the outcome don't favor one side or the other.

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

One way is how China does it - allows capital to enter the country with no limits, but requires permission to transfer it out. Limit technology transfers, who knows what limits we could decide on.

And if you support "free markets" on what principle do you allow for capital to cross borders freely, but not people, workers? As I said, I'm not a supporter of "free markets" (there is no such thing) and so rationally support capital AND labor restrictions, if we determine they're in our national interests.

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.
Click to expand...

Again, take that up with someone who supports open borders. I don't and never have. And we don't have "de factor free exchange in labor" now or ever. Finally, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II have also "rewarded" those "peasants" crossing the border. Making this partisan doesn't help your credibility. Find some numbers on the "illegal" population and growth between 2000-2008 and then since 2008 and get back to us. Or look at the numbers deported under Bush versus Obama, etc.
 
JANFU said:
And they do this due to their love for their country. Thoughts are?

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalelled effort by outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would effectively allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican parties. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.
Click to expand...

I'm expecting that the expect, and probably will get, a good return on investment.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
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.
Click to expand...

It surprises you that leftists prefer to have laws created by humans through a representational (semi-)democratic process rather than accept the moral authority of your preferred interpreters of an ancient book that has gone through numerous revisions, yet is claimed to be the word of an inconsistent, but vengeful and destructive, invisible all-powerful sky monster?
 
Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I am pointing out there is quite a bit of difference between what a state does and what the Federal Govt. does which defines states' rights. What a state does is up to the people of the state. It seems you want a federal bureaucrat to dictate what your state does or doesn't do. You have a choice of living in a particular state or moving. Hard to do when you are talking about the entire country. A one size fits all program sounds good until you look at the Federal Record and the disaster that record is. I prefer states implementing programs closer to the people, the question is why don't you?
 
ocean515 said:
LOL.

The only trap that has been sprung is the one you tripped yourself. I really don't understand the Progressives fixation with Luntz. What does this obsession prove?

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to discover why jobs are so precious today, rather than follow the rest of the lemmings and lap up the "rich are evil" memes Progressives are required to eat daily.
Click to expand...

Jobs are so precious today due to forty years of automation and outsourcing.

Do try to keep up.
 
Excon said:
:doh

And again.

If that were the case, automobiles and chimneys would have been outlawed long ago.​


Stop playing silly. No such right exists.
Click to expand...

There are legal limits on the amount of dangerous pollution that cars and factories can emit. Even home fireplaces are banned in some areas.
 
ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your argument acknowledges that there's a low percentage of inherent "leadership" roles available for society to efficiently accomplish goals. Should the majority of citizens sacrifice access to greater equality because they're team players? You're disincentivizing order and organization by supporting a system that's admittedly "winner take all."
 
Conservative said:
No, I am pointing out there is quite a bit of difference between what a state does and what the Federal Govt. does which defines states' rights. What a state does is up to the people of the state. It seems you want a federal bureaucrat to dictate what your state does or doesn't do. You have a choice of living in a particular state or moving. Hard to do when you are talking about the entire country. A one size fits all program sounds good until you look at the Federal Record and the disaster that record is. I prefer states implementing programs closer to the people, the question is why don't you?
Click to expand...

You mean, things like, oh, I dunno... maybe regulating health insurance?
 
ocean515 said:
Until very recently, union membership, or at least payment of dues, was not voluntary. It would still be that way if unions had their way. The unions in turn could spend that money in any manner they wished. And they have. Look at the spending on political campaigns by AFSCME. Or the SEIU.
Click to expand...

Workers can decertify a union if they want to. The members of those unions consented to that political spending, although most of them probably did so passively by not voting or attending meetings. Union donations to the appropriate campaigns is a good investment since many politicians would ban or defang unions if they could.
 
JRSaindo said:
It is funny how the Kochs are always mentioned when it comes to political donations, yet they aren't at the top of the list for private donors. What about all of the other major players in the political money landscape? Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg, etc....? Wasn't Soros in the spotlight recently because one or some of the groups he funds was stirring up trouble in Ferguson?

You are trying to start a "bash the Kochs" thread and it is quite dishonest. Both teams are fairly even when it comes to money they spend on campaigns, yet libs tend to want to bash the Kochs when Soros and Bloomberg are 10x more destructive and divisive.

Until we take money out of politics, you can't say squat about either team's donors. Both teams have the same rules correct? I don't see the problem? The only problem is the ill-informed and under-educated American public gets duped every election cycle by a sycophant that does the opposite of their platform that got them elected (ie: Obama).
Click to expand...

1. The point is that no one should have that much political power.

2. The Kochs stand out for their use of their excessive political power for selfish causes that create harm for the public (for example , they seek to eliminate environmental laws regulating the industries that they own that protect public health)
 
ocean515 said:
Until very recently, union membership, or at least payment of dues, was not voluntary. It would still be that way if unions had their way. The unions in turn could spend that money in any manner they wished. And they have. Look at the spending on political campaigns by AFSCME. Or the SEIU.
Click to expand...

and it's still illegal to use dues money for political purposes. Unions have to ask for voluntary donations to PACs for campaigns.

From an anti union blog:

It is true that federal law and some state laws prohibit unions from using dues dollars to make contributions to political campaigns. That's why unions have political action committees (PAC). Contributions to PACs are voluntary. You may have trouble convincing some union members just how "voluntary" they are but that's another story. For information on union PAC contributions click here.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
No, I am pointing out there is quite a bit of difference between what a state does and what the Federal Govt. does which defines states' rights. What a state does is up to the people of the state. It seems you want a federal bureaucrat to dictate what your state does or doesn't do. You have a choice of living in a particular state or moving. Hard to do when you are talking about the entire country. A one size fits all program sounds good until you look at the Federal Record and the disaster that record is. I prefer states implementing programs closer to the people, the question is why don't you?
Click to expand...

I expressed no opinion as to whether particular programs should be funded at the local, state or federal level. You don't know my position on that issue. Why are you making assumptions?
 
Dittohead not! said:
and it's still illegal to use dues money for political purposes. Unions have to ask for voluntary donations to PACs for campaigns.

From an anti union blog:
Click to expand...

We've been down this road of discussion. I've not time nor stomach to do so again. It's well known the vast majority of union workers toe the company line.
 
Hard Truth said:
There are legal limits on the amount of dangerous pollution that cars and factories can emit. Even home fireplaces are banned in some areas.
Click to expand...
Still playing silly huh? Figures.
No such right exists.​
 
Dittohead not! said:
You mean, things like, oh, I dunno... maybe regulating health insurance?
Click to expand...

Yep, isn't that what MA did? Why again do we need Obamacare? Why do we need Federal raise in the minimum wage? Can't states do both?
 
ocean515 said:
We've been down this road of discussion. I've not time nor stomach to do so again. It's well known the vast majority of union workers toe the company line.
Click to expand...

The company line?

It seems to me that it would be the non union workers who would toe the company line.

Point is, ten thousand union members kicking in a hundred bucks each is voluntary, just like one oligarch kicking in ten million. It's the same thing, and both of them expect a return on that investment (and usually get it).
 
Hard Truth said:
I expressed no opinion as to whether particular programs should be funded at the local, state or federal level. You don't know my position on that issue. Why are you making assumptions?
Click to expand...

Why? because it seemed to me that you were trying to justify Obamacare being a Federal Program and pointing to what you seemed to feel were issues showing the public supporting what you called socialized programs. You didn't seem to understand the difference between a Federal Program and state programs as well as funding. I am not against states choosing to do what MA did so tell me again why we need ACA when the states can do the same thing as MA did?
 
Conservative said:
Yep, isn't that what MA did? Why again do we need Obamacare? Why do we need Federal raise in the minimum wage? Can't states do both?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what MA did. Do we need Obamacare? No, probably not. As you said, the states can take it on. Federal minimum wage? States could take that on, too, and have. Regulation of health insurance? States already took that on, yet the Republicans seem to want the feds to take it over. To me that seems a bit inconsistent.

Or, consistent..... with doublethink that is.
 
polgara said:
The fact that Obama and Romney each spent one billion dollars on the last POTUS election astonished me, but it proves my point. The days of average citizens donating $20 to the campaign of a candidate they liked are gone. Oh, they may still do so, but why bother - it's not going to matter, and that's wrong all around. We seem to have become ancient Rome reincarnated, and the "barbarians" at the gate this time are the ME terrorists who would like to see Western countries destroyed - and Rome did fall. Will history repeat itself? I sincerely hope not!
Click to expand...

That's why none of this gets solved. One year the Democrats get a lot more money than the Republicans, and the next year the Republicans get a lot more money than the Democrats. Neither side wants to shut down business because they know it could spell a bad year for their party. Shameful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom