General discussion

The Koch Brothers and other billionaires

Just curious, does anyone here really believe these people have raised around $400 million for the Romney campaign because they really want to make sure that they are going to get a president who will finally let them create some jobs?

Anyone who replied, "Why yes, of course," wanna buy a bridge, cheap?

Discussion is locked
Reply to: The Koch Brothers and other billionaires
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: The Koch Brothers and other billionaires
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Josh, what's that got to do with it?

Would you agree that Nazis quit being Nazis after they disbanded? If so, maybe former weathermen shouldn't be considered still for their former crimes against humanity.

- Collapse -
I cannot believe you are seriously

saying that the 'favors' repaid crap didn't escalate to a higher new level with BO, and you're worried that they are going to 'surge if Romney wins'. They couldn't possibly surge much higher than the level BO took it to. You're talking about ONE set of brothers (Koch) looking for a 'surge' in favors versus HUNDREDS of BO bundlers who have ALREADY cashed in/out on BO's favor repaying, including the Unions.

- Collapse -
(NT) They don't. They only increase the companies share value.
- Collapse -
After buying that line ...

the only question is how large a bridge you are interested in for yourself.

They HAVE been creating jobs and spending money on payrolls for people in already existing jobs.

You really do think that the homeless bum on the street is creating jobs because Obama added bureaucrats to his administration to "do something about" homeless bums. (Helpful Hint for you - the MONEY to pay the workers had to come from somewhere and it wasn't from a non taxpaying homeless bum)

I take back the first statement because there is one more - do you want a side of water or sand with the bridge?

- Collapse -
(NT) One rich guy to another
- Collapse -
Partly for the fun of doing it. The same reason Bill Gates

and Steve Jobs and all those computer guys did it. To see if they could do it. You think the Aviation Industry and Airlines were founded by little grey men counting pennies and planning mergers? They were founded by Eddie Rickenbacker, ex racing driver, and people like them, and Howard Hughes in his saner early days with TWA (Transcontinental and Western Airlines). Or for national defense reasons: "Pan American Airways, Incorporated (PAA) was founded as a shell company[nb 1] on March 14, 1927 by Air Corps Majors Henry H. "Hap" Arnold,Carl A. Spaatz, and John H. Jouett as a counterbalance to the German-owned Colombian carrier SCADTA,[3] operating in Colombia since 1920."

"On June 2, 1927 Juan Trippe formed the Aviation Corporation of the Americas (ACA) with the backing of powerful and politically connected financiers who included Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney and W. Averell Harriman, and raised $250,000 in startup capital from the sale of stock." Trippe was one of the biggest cleverest chicane artists of the 20th Century, but he developed Pan Am into the World's Premier airline, not for political swing but for raw self-aggrandizement. Pan Am flourished during the "heavy taxation" Roosevelt Truman and Eisenhower Administrations. It died in the litigious 80's as a result of 2 large accidents neither of them Pan Am's fault, the Tenerife disaster in 1977 (the fault of a KLM pilot) and 1988's Pan Am 103 Lockerbie disaster, a terrorist bombing by the Libyans.

It's the money managers and the paperclip counters that come in afterwards who screw it up. They're the greedy SOB's who want as much as possible all for themselves. And the casino players on Wall Street looking for their next big windfall.

The Kochs and the Coors and all the rest do it for the political influence they can exert and the amount of tax they can avoid so they can stuff their pockets.


- Collapse -
And do you really go into a store to buy something

just to keep the people there employed? I'd guess, on both counts, the answer is "no". Folks who have money to invest expect it to earn more. In the process of investing, the creation or saving of jobs is a consequence of their behavior. The faster they turn money around, the sooner jobs are saved or new ones created.

- Collapse -
RE: The faster they turn money around,

The faster they turn money around, the sooner jobs are saved or new ones created.

and if/when they sit on (don't turn money around) the money, are they their own worse enemy?

No one buying , no one selling, everyone loses?

I can/have provided links showing corporations sitting on billions.

If the person WITH the money doesn't put it out(hire) does the person WITHOUT the money buy?...Go in debt?...I think some have learned from experience how that works out.

- Collapse -
Sitting on money indicates a lack of trust in something

What that might be is regularly discussed by the political pundits. Choose the one you like best and adopt his/her view. No need to think about it on your own.

- Collapse -
True enough, and often happens in election years


Even after the election, there will be uncertainty but CEO's and director boards will think they have a better handle on what is going to happen for a few years.

Still, there is more and more inclination to hold on to money, to invest in either technology or wall street paper rather than more employees. Robotics are preferred over people, less uncertainty.

- Collapse -
It's not happening in the stock market

check the volume levels on Dow Jones stocks, or NYSE trading volume. They are currently the lowest levels in the past 4 years. The stock market right now is standing on a very low volume of trading, which makes it a great risk for investment right now. I personally think most of the volume, even as light as it is, is just large players sliding shares back and forth to inflate some stock prices and give the appearance of trading as normal. "you slide me a million shares across today at a percent of increase, then I'll slide them back to you tomorrow, the stock price will increase and we both will even our books between us later for any minor differences". Even CNBC stock pumpers aka commentators are now calling it the "most hated rally" ever seen. It seems you CAN'T fool all the people all the time.

- Collapse -
(NT) and we need more deregulation to make such easier?
- Collapse -
Worse than that

It's all the enablement by the Federal Reserve's easy money policy that is driving this current false rally. I say "false" not because a higher priced stock market doesn't exist right now but because it's driven not by investors, but by easy federal money pouring into the stock market. Don't believe it? Just watch the stock market next time when Bernanke announces QE3 to be initiated.

Of course events in Europe could derail the markets before QE3 happens.

- Collapse -
(NT) Where do you read that idiocy, James? It's ridiculous. R
- Collapse -
When did the government invest in the stock market?

On the other hand, banks do and the lower the interest rate, the more money they can borrow and loan out at higher interest rates.


- Collapse -
poor Diana

not directly. Read it again.,

- Collapse -
(NT) easy federal money pouring into the stock market.
- Collapse -
I pour water into the sink

It goes through the pipe and ends up in the septic, then through the drain field and into the ground. Same thing if I just took it outside and poured it onto the ground. The Federal Reserve has turned on the money spigots and even though it has to pass through a pipeline first, it gets to where it's intended, to prop up the stock market.

- Collapse -
Typically, JD you start from a false premise (that the big

Publicly Traded corporations make jobs) and pile other false premises (that the wealthy create jobs just by breathing and holding on to their money) and the poor are poor because they did something wrong (they did, they were born into the wrong families) and deserve it (wrong) and are always with us anyway (also wrong). Typically the loudest biggest players in the GOP inherited their money and are concerned only with preserving their position by leveraging the Elected Government through their use of money to support candidates dedicated to preserving privilege and wealth in the same hands.

The greatest job creations in the last 50 year have come out of the spin-offs of the Space Program, and a bunch of guys working out of garages (i.e the whole Computer industry as we now know it). It isn't the Koch Brothers pushing for mine safety or cleaner air both of which would create jobs.

This whole Republican led economy since Reagan shows that Liberals have not been sufficiently aggressive in the pursuit of the fairness in taxation agenda, that the Obama Administration didn't learn enough from the Roosevelt Administration's implementation of Securities Regulations and its handling of money lent to Enterprise (i.e. it gets spent on survival and a return to prosperity, not on dividends, bonuses and parties) and that voters continue to buy a pig in a poke from Republican sellers. In my estimation, the voters and both parties have been wrong since about 1968 when Nixon eked out his win by promising an end to the War in Vietnam (speaking of Pigs and Pokes). The end of the war was presided over by Gerald Ford, the non-elected Vice President (he wasn't on the Ticket in 1972 he was appointed after Spiro Agnew was forced to resign). Of course Nixon rode the hobby-horse of Ending the War through a second election. No wonder voters are suspicious of promises, but regrettably they seem to punish Democrats for Republicans' deceptions, and to buy a smiling face, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama who either won't or can't deliver Good Government.

Incidentally, in the US we pursue "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (and what were Madison and Jefferson smoking that night). In Canada we pursue "Peace, Order and Good Government". Guess which one of those slogans was written by a British bureaucrat? That dichotomy sounds like it came right out of a George Carlin routine. As I tell other Americans when they come to Canada, "Canada is a very conservative country." Americans don't believe it, but it's because the US has moved so far Right that Canada looks now looks progressive by comparison. Hell, the Nixon Administration looks progressive by comparison. The double use of "we" above is because I've still lived longer in the US than in Canada, and I am a citizen in both countries whether you like it or not. The US Government and the State Department allow it, and so does the Canadian Government and the Department of External Affairs, so get over it. (This aggressive statement because I fought a major battle at SE on this very issue of citizenship at the time of the '04 Election with all the Right Wingnuts saying "No, you're not!" like kids in the playground.)

Now if we could displace the coming election backwards in time, and present both candidates as historical figures, Obama has so much more gravitas, more heft, more substance than Mitt "Toothy Smile Hair Gel" Romney, that people would go, "What were Republicans thinking?" But in the current smoke and moil of the battlefield, nobody sees that, they only see FoxNudes (trust me, it's coming) purveying the World According to Gorp (grand old republican party) or Roger Ailes' Non-Democratic America or whatever you want to call it.


- Collapse -
a lot of crap there.

People are poor because they are lacking in goods, property, money or all three. People have a right to leave such to their children, whether they are poor, middle class, or rich. The children of the rich have done nothing to give you or anyone else a right to steal what their parents have laid up for them instead. To think otherwise is both arrogant and founded on envy. As observed much wealth is generational, yet you seem to think when wealth has been maintained by several generations, that's somehow wrong, whereas a single generation who chooses to not take necessary steps to begin building a generational wealth program for himself and his descendants somehow has a claim against the wealth of those whose parents, grandparents and maybe even further back have done so.

Rich and poor both have children. They both have a right to their parents and what their parents can provide for them. The rich have no right to steal from the poor, but the poor have no right either to steal from the rich. It matters not if one is born to wealth, or managed to create wealth on their own.

The rich are under no obligation to hire you, or me, or anyone else if they choose not to. The poor are under no obligation to work for the rich if they prefer not to.

Some poor are that way due to lack of education, disability, laziness, maybe even theft by others including other poor. Many are poor due to foolish choices in life, which they should not blame others for, such as having children without benefit of marriage. Certainly one can't blame the rich for illegitimate birth rates among the poor. Many poor overcome their circumstances of birth due to taking advantage of education or training leading to jobs, investing the proceeds of such, and eventually delivering themselves to a higher standard of living, leaving the ranks of those considered poor. Unfortunately many choose not to do so.

- Collapse -
Interesting statement here

>>>>>The double use of "we" above is because I've still lived longer in the US than in Canada, and I am a citizen in both countries whether you like it or not. The US Government and the State Department allow it, and so does the Canadian Government and the Department of External Affairs, so get over it.>>>>>>>

You feel 'entitled' to have dual citizenship because both the USA and Canada 'allows it' by law, and yet you chide wealthy individuals for parking their wealth in overseas accounts, even though they pay the taxes that are owed on them, under the same types of laws that allow it and they've done nothing illegal. I will never understand the double standard that liberals enjoy for themselves, especially when nothing is said about the overseas accounts that many people in the BO administration currently have, such as Wasserman, Pelosi, Carney, Rangle, etc.

- Collapse -
I suspect

his "butt is parked" in Canada because there's some legal reason he can't return to the US.

CNET Forums