Let's talk about the ideology of Charles Koch and its repercussions

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's talk about the ideology of Charles Koch and its repercussions

«‹›11 »

Dystram: May 30, 2013; by Ralp

ToxicSlurpee posted:

They have to pay for pensions. That's it, really. They're giving somebody money and not getting more money back.

And they don't understand how the economy works and that someone who gets a pension spends that money?

# ? Apr 26, 2014 16:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 15:32

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Dystram posted:

And they don't understand how the economy works and that someone who gets a pension spends that money?

They should have to earn that money if they want to spend it. You aren't a billionaire, what do you know about how money works?

# ? Apr 26, 2014 16:44

Dystram: May 30, 2013; by Ralp

ToxicSlurpee posted:

They should have to earn that money if they want to spend it. You aren't a billionaire, what do you know about how money works?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qQSll7InQ

Dystram fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Apr 26, 2014

# ? Apr 26, 2014 16:54

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

ToxicSlurpee posted:

They have to pay for pensions. That's it, really. They're giving somebody money and not getting more money back.

Actually I think a much more honest way to look at it is that they can free up pension funds to be "invested" in "competitive" financial products, which they own and are taking a cut from. And if the market fucks up (as it inevitably, in the grand analysis, will), well, they got their fees, I guess you should've invested more wisely, heh.

Similarly, moving social security to private account? Even if they're set to a tiny fraction, that's 310 million new accounts, each of them with attached fees. And of course, now they can upsell you, too.

There's a similar element in charter schools, it turns a thing that's just sitting there in the public sector into a revenue source/opportunity for patronage.

# ? Apr 26, 2014 18:14

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Nessus posted:

Actually I think a much more honest way to look at it is that they can free up pension funds to be "invested" in "competitive" financial products, which they own and are taking a cut from. And if the market fucks up (as it inevitably, in the grand analysis, will), well, they got their fees, I guess you should've invested more wisely, heh.

To be honest I think they'd much rather prefer to just not pay them in the first place but look what happens when you destroy pensions en masse. More likely they're trying to pirate them while making them look bad because "well you know it isn't OUR fault* the economy tanked and your retirement funds disappeared." They'd be fine with using pensions, retirement funds, and social security as just another blood funnel but let's be honest, it'd be much simpler if they could just enslave everybody and quit paying them outright. I'm surprised nobody has tried to bring back company scrip recently, all told.

_{* yes actually it totally was}

# ? Apr 26, 2014 18:18

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

I'm surprised nobody has tried to bring back company scrip recently, all told.

Well, there's this.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/09/mexico-supreme-court-orders-wal-mart-to.php

# ? Apr 27, 2014 01:10

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Dystram posted:

So, is there some reason these assholes want to assault pensions? I mean, I know they're idiot villains but is there any logic here that I can grasp? Is it all just non-euclidean geometry and lovecraftian horror?

I think Nessus is right. They want them to moved to 401K type stuff that they can take a cut out of it, or worse they want it moved into hedge fund type stuff. This was in the news within the last year. State/local governments trying to switch from defined benefit plans to managed defined contribution plans. Now that's not necessarily terrible if it's done right. What was ridiculous was that the states with republican legislatures were also outsourcing management to hedge fund types who were taking a huge rear end load out of the returns. An example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsiedle/2013/10/18/rhode-island-public-pension-reform-wall-streets-license-to-steal/4/

Nessus posted:

There's a similar element in charter schools, it turns a thing that's just sitting there in the public sector into a revenue source/opportunity for patronage.

It's far worse than that unfortunately. I learned something I didn't know this weekend. I was listening to Walter Edgars Journal (A southern issues public radio show), specifically this : http://www.scetv.org/index.php/walter_edgars_journal/show/brown_v._board_of_education_-_landmark_court_ruling_to_end_public_scho/

School privatization was a direct reaction to Brown vs Board to prevent integration. I post a bit earlier how the schools in the area I live in were defacto segregated because of the private schools downtown. Apparently that was the point. That's why all those private schools are downtown, it's why they were started. Now there isn't a direct link to the charter school movement. But I can't help but see that push in light of that history. That podcast is worth listening to for another reason, to examine the tactics of the racists opposing integration (they are using some of those things now). Also most of the things I haven't seen a direct link between initially I've found a link between later.

Dystram posted:

I just spent about an hour after a poker game trying to explain to a guy from the boomer gen why a flat tax makes no sense and why progressive taxation is fair and what the gently caress proportions are and why social security is not, in fact, insolvent. Oh god why do I open my loving mouth... there is nothing to say that will reach these people...

When I started posting on SA, I was much further right than I am now. I think I even posted a Friedman "Free to Choose" video as response to something at one point. I openly thought Chicago school was the way to go with economics and was skeptical of Keynesianism. Conversation can change people. But it doesn't change all people. And it might change people who are only listening. Most people haven't examined the foundations of their beliefs. Some won't ever. But some will. When it happened to me, well the phrase I used was "I feel like I'm hurtling leftward". Now, that said I'm still very much in the center. The point is, it can happen but it might not happen in front of you or during the conversation, it might even take years. It has to grow.

There is a often used metaphor to describe this. I like Pete Seeger's version of that metaphor.

Inch by inch, row by row,
Gonna make this garden grow.
Gonna mulch it deep and low,
Gonna make it fertile ground.
Inch by inch, row by row,
Please bless these seeds I sow.
Please keep them safe below
'Til the rain comes tumbling down.

Pullin' weeds and pickin' stones,
We are made of dreams and bones
Need spot to call my own
Cause the time is close at hand.
Grain for grain, sun and rain
I'll find my way in nature's chain
Tune my body and my brain
To the music of the land.

The problem is, this process of sowing of seeds, this is also part of how I think they are spreading Libertarianism, they understand it too.

# ? Apr 28, 2014 15:04

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

On the privatization of schools being a thing ALEC is pushing.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/29/koch-brothers-effort-privatize-schools-dealt-blow-record-graduation-rate.html

I think I could dig into this more and find the direct link to racism I was looking for. But I'm already satisfied enough with what I am reading about the ALEC "Education Task Force".

ALEC is pushing taxes on renewables at the state level:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0

Harry Reid is pushing back pretty hard on the Kochs on the senate floor

http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2014-28-04-9456#.U1_JlrQVeQI

Harry Reid posted:

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Republican Party has a newly-adopted campaign strategy to defeat Senate Democrats: they will attack me. This is because their attacks falsehoods regarding the Affordable Care Act have born little fruit. In Senate races across the country, Republicans will avoid the issues that matter most to Americans, trying instead to focus attention on a Senator who is not up for re-election � me. And what are those issues that Republicans so desperately want to avoid? How about immigration? It has been over a year since the introduction of the Senate�s comprehensive immigration bill, and we are fast-approaching the anniversary of that legislation�s passage. Yet, instead of explaining to the American people why this bipartisan bill sits idly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, they want to change the subject. And while struggling American families plead to Congress for help in getting work, or being paid fair, livable wages, House Republicans prefer to talk about anything but what is relevant. Why? Because their billionaire sugar-daddies aren�t interested in helping middle American families get a fair shot.

Charles and David Koch aren�t concerned with long-term unemployed families, and so the Republicans they sponsor in the House of Representatives are content to do nothing. These billionaire oil barons don�t care that working women are being deprived of fair wages equal to those of their male counterparts who do the exact same work. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans took their marching orders and refused to even debate equal pay legislation. And now, as the Senate turns its attention to an increase of the federal minimum wage, is there any question as to whether the Republicans will once again do the Koch brothers� bidding and not give millions of American a fair shot at livable wages? $80 billion is not enough for two brothers, but evidently the Kochs feel that $10.10 per hour is too much for a hard-working American with a family to feed. So the Republicans in Congress yawn at the idea of giving the American middle class a fair shot at financial stability, instead choosing to distract the American people by attacking me. And like all great illusions, they are using misdirection to call the American people�s attention away from what�s really happening � 2 billionaires trying to purchase America. The Koch brothers and their accomplices continue to dump millions upon millions of dollars into attacking anyone and anything that stands in their way. But Senate Democrats have refused to stand idly by as a few mega-rich individuals attempt to create an American oligarchy. We have spoken. Here on the Senate floor, I have spoken against the Koch brother�s attempts to rig the system in their favor because it comes at the expense of families in Nevada and across America. In response, one of the Kochs� puppet organizations announced its plans to run ads against me in my home state of Nevada. As I have said before, being the target of the Koch brothers is nothing new to me, and I�m not intimidated. But shockingly, the leadership of the Republican party has decided to follow suit with this new strategy. Maybe it�s because their previous strategy � attacking Obamacare � proved to be a miserable failure.

Over 8 million Americans have signed up for coverage through the Affordable Care Act, including 413,000 people who reside in the home state of the Republican Leader � Kentucky. So with one failed strategy behind them, Republicans and their 2 billionaire benefactors are trying something new � but it�s still the same smoke-and-mirrors routine. To those Republicans who would rather bash me than speak about what matters most to their constituents, I say: fire away. To Charles and David Koch and their radical henchmen, feel free to attack me as much as you want. I can take it. But don�t expect the American people to be fooled by this newest slight-of-hand trick. Ultimately, voters will see this new tactic for what it is: a distraction that is keeping American families from getting a fair shot at financial stability. In the meantime, Senate Democrats will continue to speak up against the shadowy influence of 2 power-drunk billionaires and their devoted followers on Capitol Hill. But most importantly, Senate Democrats will continue working on meaningful legislation that will get our nation�s middle class back on track.

edit: Didn't think this warranted a new post. From the Cliven Bundy stuff

Liberty Freedom for God
We Stand.

They are saying it rather explicitly there. Do they know they're saying it?

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:23 on May 1, 2014

# ? Apr 29, 2014 16:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 15:32

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Some peak level irony. Apparently Harry Reid is a Neo-McCarthyist for criticizing the Kochs. Ralph Benko, (the author of this) has articles up at the Mises institute on fiat money and the gold standard,. He's either an idiot (very possible) or he's saying this while being aware of the links between McCarthy JBS and the Kochs. I don't know which of those is more dangerous.

So it's as clear as it can be, assuming he's not stupid and is aware of the connection within his own ideology, Mr. Benko is suggesting that the thinking about, talking about, criticizing of, the actions of the Kochs is McCarthyism, while probably knowing about the direct line from the Kochs to JBS (via Fred) to McCarthy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/05/05/harry-reids-neo-mccarthyist-vilification-of-the-koch-brothers-begs-for-censure/

Ralph Benko posted:

Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) trafficked in the culture of allegations of the �un-American.� He was censured by the United Senate and died disgraced.

Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is engaging in misconduct comparably shameful: �redbaiting� those with red state values. He deserves censure for such misconduct. If the Democrats will not provide it, if the Republicans regain the majority in the U.S. Senate the censuring of Harry Reid deserves to be the first order of business next year.

Leader Reid has cast himself as the point man in a campaign by the left to vilify Charles and David Koch. As recently inventoried by The Washington Free Beacon, and as noted by The Washington Post, Reid has vilified the Koch name, at last count, 134 times.

This is not a random act by Reid.

Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Espa�ol: Este persona... Joseph Raymond McCarthy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This vilification appears orchestrated with a campaign of calumny against the Kochs now being prosecuted across the left. It is being pushed by such sinister figures as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, by the increasingly petty and reactionary MoveOn.org, in The Nation, The Progressive, Nation of Change, and by other self-styled progressives, some of whom are showing themselves not averse to dabbling in totalitarian measures.

This campaign very much appears to be the left�s appropriating the 13th (and possibly most famous) Rule of Saul Alinsky (himself a noble foe both of injustice and totalitarianism). Alinsky:

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. (Rules for Radicals, p. 130)

�

[I]t must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community�s segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.

John L. Lewis, the leader of the radical C.I.O. labor organization in the 1930s, was fully aware of this, and as a consequence the C.I.O. never attacked General Motors, they always attacked its president, Alfred �Icewater-In-His-Veins� Sloan; they never attacked the Republic Steel Corporation but always its president, �Bloodied Hands� Tom Girdler, and so with us when we attacked the then-superintendent of the Chicago public school system, Benjamin Willis. Let nothing get you off your target. (Rules for Radicals, p. 133)

The chosen personification of free enterprise happens to be two wealthy industrialists deeply engaged in political and policy advocacy. The Kochs� general views on economics happens to accord, in great measure, with those of this columnist. But this column does not engage in special pleading for allies. This columnist, for example, publicly expressed admiration of George Soros notwithstanding profound differences. Justice simply must be served.

There is nothing wrong with spirited, even heated, public debate. That is quintessentially American. There is something very wrong with bullying.

Reid�s hypocrisy is exquisite. Reid is extremely cozy with left wing billionaires engaging in politics, as smartly observed by, among others, US News & World Report columnist Peter Roff and, in Politico, National Review�s editor Rich Lowry.

Yet political hypocrisy is at worst a venial sin. Reid is committing a mortal political sin. In slandering two private citizens as �about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine� � on top of a campaign of relentless vilification � Reid clearly has crossed a line. The Senate�s dignity demands that Reid be held to account. Nothing less than censure will do.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that �Congress shall make no law � abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press�.� Giving speeches from the United States Senate does not rise to making law. And yet, using the Senate to slander citizens with accusations of �un-American� is a clear abuse of the Constitutional provision that �for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [our legislators] shall not be questioned in any other Place.�

�Un-American?� Harry Reid thereby has earned censure. Joe McCarthy hired the staff director of the House Un-American Activities Committee as the research director of his own Permanent Subcommittee on Internal Investigations. �[T]he American public grew increasingly wary of the �redbaiting� techniques employed by HUAC and others,� observes one scholar. The House Un-American Activities Committee committee eventually was renamed and then abolished as unseemly, even shameful. Rightly so.

Reid is engaging in a new form of �redbaiting.� This time, �red� alludes to the conservatism of the so-called �red� states rather than communism. �Redbaiting� was shameful then. It, in this new sense, is even more shameful now. Reid�s �reds� reflect the sentiments of a dominant plurality of the American people.

The United States Senate, under Republican leadership, censured Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Senate.gov, referencing Anne M. Butler and Wendy Wolff. United States Senate Election, Expulsion, and Censure Cases, 1793-1990. S. Doc. 103-33. Washington, GPO, 1995, states:

On November 8, 1954, as the Senate convened in a rare post-election (�lame duck�) session to deal with the McCarthy case, a lengthy and tangled debate developed. � To keep the discussion as bipartisan as possible, Minority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat-TX) urged Democratic liberals to remain quiet and allow moderate and conservative Republicans to carry the fight against McCarthy.

Those who defended Joseph McCarthy and sought to defeat the recommendation argued that censure would impose an unwise code of conduct for the future�that McCarthy should not be censured for his behavior in a previous Congress, and that a censure vote would interfere with the guarantees of free speech. As he warmed to the fight, McCarthy labeled the select committee the �unwitting handmaiden of the Communist Party,� attacked Arthur Watkins as �cowardly,� and referred to the entire proceeding as a �lynch party.� Chairman Watkins responded with an emotional speech about the dignity of the Senate that brought cheers from the galleries.

Senate.gov also records the incandescent moment of McCarthy being called out by Joseph Welch:

The army hired Boston lawyer Joseph Welch to make its case. At a session on June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch�s attorneys had ties to a Communist organization. As an amazed television audience looked on, Welch responded with the immortal lines that ultimately ended McCarthy�s career:

�Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.� When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, �Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?

Overnight, McCarthy�s immense national popularity evaporated. Censured by his Senate colleagues, ostracized by his party, and ignored by the press, McCarthy died three years later, 48 years old and a broken man.

Senator Reid? Until the moment you called un-American two innocent citizens exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights America never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Let us not assassinate the Kochs further, Senator. Have you no sense of decency?

Reid�s conduct is an abuse of the Senate. It also is an abuse of Saul Alinsky.

No less than the young Hillary Rodham, who, then as now, played hardball, not dirtball, in her 1969 honor�s thesis, THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT� An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, unequivocally, and with decency, indicted comparable abuses of Alinsky�s Rules occurring in her day. Hillary Rodham:

[S]ome New Left strategists �, although, disenchanted with Alinsky-like faith in individuals, apply many of his tactics in confrontation politics.

The problems inherent in such an approach, including elitist arrogance and repressive intolerance, have become evident during recent university crises.

Contrary to Alinsky�s ethos, Reid demonstrates elitist arrogance and repressive intolerance. His conduct is �contrary to senatorial traditions� � for which McCarthy specifically was censured.

In conducting a campaign of vilification and of leveling an accusation of �un-American� Harry Reid is disgracing the United States Senate in ways comparable to the misconduct of Joe McCarthy. Only by censuring Harry Reid can the United States Senate regain dignity. Harry Reid deserves censure for Neo-McCarthyism.

On the other hand there's definitely a good chance this guy's a moron:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/04/08/if-rand-paul-does-not-run-for-president-draft-london-mayor-boris-johnson/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/04/01/should-puerto-rico-consider-joining-the-russian-republic/

I think he's trying to do Modest Proposal style satire there, but he doesn't pull it off. On the other hand, when I look at the way he goes after Krugman, what he does it to project the methodology of his own arguments onto Krugman. It's the same type of projection he does in the Reid article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/07/22/if-paul-krugman-didnt-exist-republicans-would-have-to-invent-him/

Hmmm, I don't like the conclusion that pushes me too.

Edit: New book on the Kochs, Good MotherJones article on it, deal with the relationships between brothers and the father

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/koch-brothers-family-history-sons-of-wichita
Edit X 2: From the article "Everything goes back to their childhood," one relative reflected. "Everything goes back to the love they didn't get." Wow.

Edit 3: "Bill had also grown troubled by the increasing amounts of company money Charles diverted to his "libertarian revolution causes"�causes Bill considered loony. "No shareholders had any influence over how the company was being run, and large contributions and corporate assets were being used to further the political philosophy of one man,"

Edit 4: Well gently caress, Charles is literally a Bircher. No need to pussy foot around and link him to it via the father.

"Fred was among the John Birch Society's national leaders; Charles joined in due time Birchers who grew enamored with a colorful anti-government guru named Robert LeFevre, creator of a libertarian mecca called the Freedom School in Colorado's Rampart mountain range. From here, Charles fell in with the fledgling libertarian movement, a volatile stew of anarchists, devotees of the "Austrian school" of economics, and other radical thinkers who could agree on little besides an abiding disdain for government."

Might have to buy "Sons of Wichita"

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 20, 2014

# ? May 7, 2014 16:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's talk about the ideology of Charles Koch and its repercussions

«‹›11 »