I don't understand the Koch brothers et al

[John Smith]

These people are prepared to spend unconceivable amounts of personal money to defeat Obama. Why?

Have they been making less money under his presidency than under Bush's?

Adelson is making most of his money, as I understand it, from casinos in other countries. Why is he so intense in his desire to defeat Obama?

These people have done extremely well under all our presidents, so I can't see why they care so much.

[purri]

^ In short maximize ze profits. (DYNK capitalism has no borders OK?)

[Keith Wilson]

Same reason I give $20 to Obama now and then. They can do it on a somewhat larger scale.

In fact, the millions Mr. Adelson has spent probably affects how he lives day-to-day less than the money I've given. It's just numbers on a balance sheet.

[Boston]

I think he's got a point, whats the point ? These kinda people are greedy to the core, its a game but its a game they win not by handing out huge amounts of money. Might be just numbers but they are playing the numbers game, so again, whats the point ?

I'm baffled by peoples dislike of Obumer, as I lovingly call him, he did after all seriously disappoint Hillary ;-) , who I still think would have made a more effective president. But all in all, I think he's done OK given what he was handed to begin with.

But as to why some folks hemorrhage millions on any political figure when they are already and have for a long time been suckering the system for all its worth, I've just never understood. Hoping someone comes in and actually gives a plausible answer.

Cheers
B

[Norman Bernstein]

These people are prepared to spend unconceivable amounts of personal money to defeat Obama. Why?

Because they don't understand the difference between admirable success, and overwhelming greed. At some point along the success curve, there are some people who begin to think that they are the characters from an Ayn Rand novel, and the correlate increasing wealth and power with some sort of virtue.

[John Bell]

So when George Soros said defeating George Bush was "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death". He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush "if someone guaranteed it" it was OK because you happened to agree with him?

Perhaps both Kochs and Soros political philanthropy are based on principle, albeit from different sides of the aisle. It's proven tactic for either side to ascribe the other's principles to base motives in order to demonize them, which is what I think is the whole point of this thread. If we're ever going to solve anything, we've got to stop demonizing the the Other and start recognizing their principles are just as deeply held as yours and for for equally good reasons from depending upon one's point of view. Only then can compromise and consensus occur.

Speaking of this reminds me I want to read a book called The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Here's a review from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...pagewanted=all

(This may have already been discussed here before, sorry to bring it up again if it has...)

[Paul Pless]

Thank you John for injecting some balance and reality into this thread.

[Norman Bernstein]

So when George Soros said defeating George Bush was "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death". He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush "if someone guaranteed it" it was OK because you happened to agree with him?

Yeah, I think the difference is distinguishable. From all I've read, Soros hasn't devoted his fortune to lobbying for personal financial advantage, per se; yes, he's a hedge fund guy, but I don't see him pressing for even MORE financial advantage than he already has... whereas the Koch brothers appear to have much more at stake, in terms of personal financial advantage.

I'm NOT arguing that the Koch brothers don't have a patriotic or nationalistic view of this country.... just that their view is far more welded to their own interests, than is the case with Soros. When someone begins to believe that THEIR personal interests are congruent with the national interest, it's a totally different ball game.

[Phillip Allen]

Thank you John for injecting some balance and reality into this thread.

what Paul said...

[John Bell]

Yeah, I think the difference is distinguishable. From all I've read, Soros hasn't devoted his fortune to lobbying for personal financial advantage, per se; yes, he's a hedge fund guy, but I don't see him pressing for even MORE financial advantage than he already has... whereas the Koch brothers appear to have much more at stake, in terms of personal financial advantage.

I'm NOT arguing that the Koch brothers don't have a patriotic or nationalistic view of this country.... just that their view is far more welded to their own interests, than is the case with Soros. When someone begins to believe that THEIR personal interests are congruent with the national interest, it's a totally different ball game.

Norm, don't you see that we ALL think OUR personal interests are congruent with the national interests? That's just the way we are programmed. Soros and the Kochs have billions to promote their POV, just like Keith has $20 to promote his.

Read book review in the link I posted above, please. I'd like to hear your take on it.

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-*pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

[Tom Hunter]

Adleson is very clear that he spends his money to support politicians who support Israel. He supported Gingrich because Newt is a very outspoken supporter of Israel, now he apparently feels that Romney would be better for Israel than Obama.
The Koch brothers are more complex, they spend a lot of money supporting libertarian ideas, which is something I find admirable and they have made real contributions in that area.
They also spend hugely to support their business interests, for example fighting against Californian laws that could have a negative impact on their energy business.
I am inclined to think that their spending on the presidential race is more about supporting the business than winning the battle of ideas, but they are interested in both.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norm, don't you see that we ALL think OUR personal interests are congruent with the national interests?

Meaning no disrespect, John, I would disagree... and it is perhaps ironic that I'm currently reading E.J. Dionne's, new book, "Our Divided Political Heart", which addresses this issue.... in the early chapters, he talks extensively about the difference between left and right really being a difference between 'communitarianism' and 'individualism', arguing that this is a far better way of describing the great philosophical schism.

You might describe the objective of decreasing wealth inequity in this country as being 'congruent' with a personal interest.... but not if you're extremely wealthy to begin with. How does the 'liberalism' of a number of fabulously wealthy people who follow this path become a 'selfish' interest? I just don't see it. Warren Buffet surely can't have a personal interest in seeing his tax rate double, can he?

With regard to your C&P:

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-*pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

I'm not sure I buy that, either. I don't automatically doubt the sincerity of conservatives.... in fact, I'm SURE they are sincere. However, I'm a lot less sure that their political interests really do correspond to their moral interests. We are all vulnerable to rationalization... as Jeff Goldblum said, in 'The Big Chill', "We couldn't get through the day without at least one juicy rationalization"

[John Bell]

However, I'm a lot less sure that their political interests really do correspond to their moral interests.

See the naive realism thread I just started.

[Norman Bernstein]

See the naive realism thread I just started.

Then I guess you're agreeing with me?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

We are close to having a plutocracy. About 83% of our nations wealth is owned by the upper 20% and the lower 40% don't even own 1%. If there ever was a time for the moneyed class to get a grip on the reins of power this is it.
These folks ain't dumb. They wave the flag of unlimited personal freedom when in fact they are trying to increase theirs at everyone elses expense. Plenty of silly Americans don't know where their best interests lie.

[Paul Pless]

Plenty of silly Americans don't know where their best interests lie.

I count a bunch of blinded Obama supporters among these. . .

[G.Sherman]

I count a bunch of blinded Obama supporters among these. . .

Plenty of Americans seem to have forgotten who put this nation in the financial sh*t hole we currently live in. Kingmakers like the Koch's, Adelson, and Grover Norquist are all lucky to not find their powdered asses in prison. Hooray for deregulation and to hell with the lower and middle classes. I didn't vote for THEM to run this country. Our best interest lie in reclaiming basic common sense and instituting greater federal regulation of financial institutions, gun laws, corporate wealth and eliminating special tax benefits for the wealthy..... I personally cannot wait to hear the wailing of the rich when their home(s) are foreclosed on and their children attend community colleges. In short, *&%##@** them.

[Paul Pless]

Hooray for deregulation and to hell with the lower and middle classes. I didn't vote for THEM to run this country.

So you voted for Bill Clinton, eh?

Who happily signed banking deregulation into law???

[John Bell]

I'm not sure I buy that, either. I don't automatically doubt the sincerity of liberals.... in fact, I'm SURE they are sincere. However, I'm a lot less sure that their political interests really do correspond to their moral interests. We are all vulnerable to rationalization... as Jeff Goldblum said, in 'The Big Chill', "We couldn't get through the day without at least one juicy rationalization"

Another could write as above and be equally convinced of their position.Ee are all making moral judgements that whether or not they are justified by reason or rationalization depends on the point of view of others. If you agree with me, it's reason. If not, it's rationalization. This isn't a problem in and of itself, but when it degenerates to the point we are now where anyone who disagrees with us is not just wrong but evil, deviant, corrupt, or worse, we are less able to reconcile our differences and move forward in a productive way.

I'm accusing you of blindness Norm. But I'm just as blind as you are. If we can agree on that, then perhaps we can find constructive ways to work together on ideas that are congruent with our personal and national interests. Hyper-partisanship isn't working.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I count a bunch of blinded Obama supporters among these. . .

How many are "a bunch" and what best interest are these Obama supporters blind to?

[Norman Bernstein]

I'm accusing you of blindness Norm. But I'm just as blind as you are. If we can agree on that, then perhaps we can find constructive ways to work together on ideas that are congruent with our personal and national interests. Hyper-partisanship isn't working.

Fair point, John. This doesn't mean that I don't think I'm right but I do agree that hyperpartisanship is a very destructive characteristic for this nation.... and I will still continue to believe that the hyperpartisanship originated, and is sustained, by the right. Naive rationalization? Even if we ACKNOWLEDGE the phenomenon, it doesn't mean that we can't have convictions!

[Gerarddm]

The premise of the OP brings to mind the scene from Godfather II where Lansky gloats about buying a friendly government just 90 miles from American shores.

The Kochs et al via Romney are trying to buy a friendly gov't within​ American shores.

[Canoeyawl]

Adelson is in the middle of a federal investigation for federal criminal activity related to his casino in Maccao.

If he can elect Romney the chances of the "new" justice department that comes with an administration change will likely "forget" about this detail.

What is the point of being a billionaire if you are in prison? So, if you spend a few hundred million to prompt a change in administration it is money well spent, and you are left with 8 or 900 million...

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/...aundering.html

[wardd]

they got their's and they want more

[wardd]

I think he's got a point, whats the point ? These kinda people are greedy to the core, its a game but its a game they win not by handing out huge amounts of money. Might be just numbers but they are playing the numbers game, so again, whats the point ?

I'm baffled by peoples dislike of Obumer, as I lovingly call him, he did after all seriously disappoint Hillary ;-) , who I still think would have made a more effective president. But all in all, I think he's done OK given what he was handed to begin with.

But as to why some folks hemorrhage millions on any political figure when they are already and have for a long time been suckering the system for all its worth, I've just never understood. Hoping someone comes in and actually gives a plausible answer.

Cheers
B

dollars is just a way of keeping score

[John Bell]

Naive rationalization? Even if we ACKNOWLEDGE the phenomenon, it doesn't mean that we can't have convictions!

That's true, but acknowledging that it exists in our own belief system forces us to to THINK, and maybe even try to apply some reason while also discouraging us from automatically assuming our political opponent's motives are only guided by base desires and corruption.

Much of what I read here and elsewhere in the current political enviromment seems to assume our ideological opponents are somehow full of nothing but evil and duplicity. It's simply not true, although I'm sure someone will add another post to this thread stating the exact opposite. To them I'll say "Ok, you got me. I really AM evil."

[Norman Bernstein]

That's true, but acknowledging that it exists in our own belief system forces us to to THINK, and maybe even try to apply some reason while also discouraging us from automatically assuming our political opponent's motives are only corrupt.

I make a good effort to NOT make such automatic assumptions.. and every now and then, I'll meet a conservative with whom I can have a good, reasoned discussion, come away disagreeing, but retaining my respect for them.

I don't see all that many, of that type, in the bilge.

[wardd]

So when George Soros said defeating George Bush was "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death". He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush "if someone guaranteed it" it was OK because you happened to agree with him?

Perhaps both Kochs and Soros political philanthropy are based on principle, albeit from different sides of the aisle. It's proven tactic for either side to ascribe the other's principles to base motives in order to demonize them, which is what I think is the whole point of this thread. If we're ever going to solve anything, we've got to stop demonizing the the Other and start recognizing their principles are just as deeply held as yours and for for equally good reasons from depending upon one's point of view. Only then can compromise and consensus occur.

Speaking of this reminds me I want to read a book called The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Here's a review from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...pagewanted=all

(This may have already been discussed here before, sorry to bring it up again if it has...)

soros seems to have said he would sacrifice his fortune

the other side is in it to enhance theirs and when the wealthy put into office those they want it doesn't bode well for the rest of us

[Paul Pless]

If he can elect Romney the chances of the "new" justice department that comes with an administration change will likely "forget" about this detail.

What is the point of being a billionaire if you are in prison? So, if you spend a few hundred million to prompt a change in administration it is money well spent, and you are left with 8 or 900 million...

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to move to the South of France?

[beernd]

plenty of americans seem to have forgotten who put this nation in the financial sh*t hole we currently live in. Kingmakers like the koch's, adelson, and grover norquist are all lucky to not find their powdered asses in prison. Hooray for deregulation and to hell with the lower and middle classes. I didn't vote for them to run this country. Our best interest lie in reclaiming basic common sense and instituting greater federal regulation of financial institutions, gun laws, corporate wealth and eliminating special tax benefits for the wealthy..... I personally cannot wait to hear the wailing of the rich when their home(s) are foreclosed on and their children attend community colleges. In short, *&%##@** them.

+ 10000000 y>

[Canoeyawl]

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to move to the South of France?

Don't they have the guillotine there?

[leikec]

I count a bunch of blinded Obama supporters among these. . .

Jill Stein has my vote if she can bring trolleys back to our cities...but we'll have to import one of Mussolini's descendents to get them to run on time....

Jeff c

[wardd]

So you voted for Bill Clinton, eh?

Who happily signed banking deregulation into law???

and his republican opponent wouldn't have just as happily signed it?

[Kaa]

I personally cannot wait to hear the wailing of the rich when their home(s) are foreclosed on and their children attend community colleges. In short, *&%##@** them.

As far as expressions of hate go, this is pretty pathetic.

Oh, no! Not the community college! OH THE HORROR!!!

:-D

Kaa

[G.Sherman]

You beat me to it.

Got it, Clinton bad!!!! He did leave with a surplus of cash for the nation.
What is either Bush do? Blow it, that's what. And dole it out to their friends......

[ccmanuals]

You beat me to it.

I forget, who drafted the law and got it through two houses of congress to the Presidents desk?

Plenty of blame to go around on this and tagging clinton with it is about as diengenous as you can get.

[Paul Pless]

Plenty of blame to go around on this and tagging clinton with it is about as diengenous as you can get.

I agree, but presidents have legacies. And according to many like Mr. Sherman, Clinton left a surplus and a booming economy. In reality he also promoted unsustainability and set the stage for the collapse just a few years after he left office. . .

[G.Sherman]

As far as expressions of hate go, this is pretty pathetic.

Oh, no! Not the community college! OH THE HORROR!!!

:-D
Kaa

Please! If the tables were turned and the top 1% saw their life savings and homes taken from them, they just, JUST might get what it's like to be on the bottom and struggling to reach the middle. No hate involved, just a recognition that the wealthy are so insulated and well off they are above the day to day experience of doing with less and less. The younger generation of Koch's, Romney's and Adelson's regularly attend top 10 schools as legacy's. Thus, cementing their places in the 1% by going on to work (?) for mom or pop. When was the last time you received any benefits from guy's like these? Why so defensive. From the paperwork I've seen, it's better to be Mitt Romney's horse that to be lower or middle class.

[Norman Bernstein]

I agree, but presidents have legacies. And according to many like Mr. Sherman, Clinton left a surplus and a booming economy. In reality he also promoted unsustainability and set the stage for the collapse just a few years after he left office. . .

He did both, Paul.....

Yes, he presided over a booming economy without running up the debt.

Yes, he did little or nothing to prevent unsustainability via relaxing necessary regulation.

If this was so obvious, then why did George Bush double down on the usual Republican economics: spending out of proportion to revenues? If Clinton opened the door, why did Bush walk through it?

[G.Sherman]

He did both, Paul.....

Yes, he presided over a booming economy without running up the debt.

If this was so obvious, then why did George Bush double down on the usual Republican economics: spending out of proportion to revenues? If Clinton opened the door, why did Bush walk through it?

My next point, exactly. Why?

[skipper68]

John, after all these years, your heart is too pure to understand PURE EVIL. <3

[Rum_Pirate]

Plenty of Americans seem to have forgotten who put this nation in the financial sh*t hole we currently live in.

Who ran up the trillions in National debt in the last couple years?

. . . Kingmakers like the Koch's, Adelson, and Grover Norquist are all lucky to not find their powdered asses in prison. Hooray for deregulation and to hell with the lower and middle classes. I didn't vote for THEM to run this country.

Here was I under the false impression that the POTUS ran the country. Oops. Thanks for the correction.

I personally cannot wait to hear the wailing of the rich when their home(s) are foreclosed on and their children attend community colleges.

I suspect you may have a long wait.

. . . the rich . . . In short, *&%##@** them.

Is that envy/jealousy/your view that all 'wealth' should be shared equally (communism - which doesn't work) ?

[John Smith]

Same reason I give $20 to Obama now and then. They can do it on a somewhat larger scale.

In fact, the millions Mr. Adelson has spent probably affects how he lives day-to-day less than the money I've given. It's just numbers on a balance sheet.

I beg to differ. They don't care if there's no Social Security or Medicare, and they've certainly not been ill affected by the policies of any adminsitration. Howard Hughes used to donate large amount to both candidates so no matter who won the election they owed him.

I can see how you and I would prefer Obama, but I can't see what the Koch brothers et al really give a damn.

[John Smith]

what Paul said...

You can throw in the names of billionaires who contribute to either party, and I have the same question. They've all done well under all administrations.

Trump claims to be worth billions, although some contest that. If we take him at his word, under which administrations has he not done well?

Even during the Wall Street meltdown where the people lost everything, the people who caused the people to lose everything got their huge bonuses. Didn't matter whether Bush or Obama or Clinton or Reagan was in the White House.

I care because I want my grandchildren to have good opportunities as they grow up. Whatever grandkids these super wealthy guys have, they won't need the help mine will need.

[John Smith]

Norm, don't you see that we ALL think OUR personal interests are congruent with the national interests? That's just the way we are programmed. Soros and the Kochs have billions to promote their POV, just like Keith has $20 to promote his.

Read book review in the link I posted above, please. I'd like to hear your take on it.

I beg to differ. Getting laws past that allow for drilling for oil, coal, or natural gas sans any clean air regulations is absolutely against the national interest. These people have been accumulating vast fortunes under the rules of the EPA and such.

In the end, there grandchildren have to live on this planet and breath the air that these people wish to be allowed to pollute.

I find this as difficult to reconcile as the ultrasound laws that put the government squarely between the doctor and the patient and are being passed by the Party that preaches keeping the government out of that place. Or hating single moms and welfare to help raise single parent children, but passing laws that will create more single moms.

I can understand some super rich guy promoting some cause, but I don't understand why they really give a damn who wins the presidential election. A lot of people will be negatively impacted, as I've said, if Medicare disappears. These people won't be among them, but why do they not want people to have health insurance?

[John Smith]

I count a bunch of blinded Obama supporters among these. . .

Who here is a blinded Obama supporter?

[John Smith]

So you voted for Bill Clinton, eh?

Who happily signed banking deregulation into law???

That is true. Just as Bush's tax cuts grew, and are continuing to grow, our deficit. Both are true.

In the context of this thread, the super wealthy seem not to have been harmed by the Wall Street collapse: I've not seen their homes get foreclosed.

[John Smith]

Another could write as above and be equally convinced of their position.Ee are all making moral judgements that whether or not they are justified by reason or rationalization depends on the point of view of others. If you agree with me, it's reason. If not, it's rationalization. This isn't a problem in and of itself, but when it degenerates to the point we are now where anyone who disagrees with us is not just wrong but evil, deviant, corrupt, or worse, we are less able to reconcile our differences and move forward in a productive way.

I'm accusing you of blindness Norm. But I'm just as blind as you are. If we can agree on that, then perhaps we can find constructive ways to work together on ideas that are congruent with our personal and national interests. Hyper-partisanship isn't working.

Actually, I don't think it is simply a point of view to say Romney has approved ads that are blantant lies. I don't think it's just a point of view that the Republicans are the ones passing anti-abortion/contraception laws rather than working on jobs, or that they have stated their number one priority is to deny Obama a second term, or that they've used a record number of filisbusters in that effort.

[G.Sherman]

Who ran up the trillions in National debt in the last couple years?



Here was I under the false impression that the POTUS ran the country. Oops. Thanks for the correction.

I suspect you may have a long wait.

Is that envy/jealousy/your view that all 'wealth' should be shared equally (communism - which doesn't work) ?

• The wealthy should have no exemption from paying their fair share of taxes, without off-shore accounts, the Swiss banking system, or any other of the perks they have bribed our Congress into creating for them. My view is simple: pay 28% like I do, based on your WEALTH as cited in Forbes magazine.

I agree it will be a long wait- the wealthy have had it pretty good since the inception of this country, and have pretty much had their way. Also, the nation has to be funded regardless of how the last assh*ole to hold the office spent money (2 unfunded wars, 1 based on total fabrication and the other a "fools errand"). Bush ran the country with the backing of his millionaire friends and to their benefit not ours. Is there anyone who actually thinks that a man who could not string together a coherent sentence was actually in charge? If so, and all these achievements were GWB's, please let's examine the education system and find out just how this moron could have gone to Yale and Harvard with the IQ of an armadillo.

[John Smith]

That's true, but acknowledging that it exists in our own belief system forces us to to THINK, and maybe even try to apply some reason while also discouraging us from automatically assuming our political opponent's motives are only guided by base desires and corruption.

Much of what I read here and elsewhere in the current political enviromment seems to assume our ideological opponents are somehow full of nothing but evil and duplicity. It's simply not true, although I'm sure someone will add another post to this thread stating the exact opposite. To them I'll say "Ok, you got me. I really AM evil."

I just don't think it's as evenly distributed as you would have us think. It is Republcans who hate single moms and welfare, but pass laws further restricting abortion and contraception, which will lead to more of both. It is Republicans who don't want the government between the doctor and the patient, but pass laws putting the government there.