Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9369 Followers
Mich De L'Orme
5519 Followers
Mich De L'Orme
5519 Followers
P.F. Kozak
491 Followers
redcolumbineAug 23, 2010
Will... not... make... tasteless... hentai... joke...
clvngodessAug 23, 2010
Dude, he said "Koch".... heh heh heh heh
eshinnAug 23, 2010
http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/
nyxerebosAug 23, 2010
Will... not... make... tasteless... emetophilia... joke...
/In anglo-african slang kotch/cotch means 'vomit'
treehugger87Aug 23, 2010
So they're both billionaires? I guess paying a few "Patriots" to game Digg and a few other popular Internet sites that discuss politics wouldn't be too big a hit then? I wonder if I became a good enough Digg Patriot if I couldn't get a few bucks out of it, too?
clvngodessAug 23, 2010
Ah yes, the oldest profession and these two are pimpin' large....
mgraves81Aug 23, 2010
Well Treehugger why be a DP when we all know that Soros is paying all the Liberals on here!
Everyone that opposes Obama must be getting paid to do so...oh noez! Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mgraves81Aug 23, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704288204575362763101099660.html
To Protest Hiring of Nonunion Help, Union Hires Nonunion Pickets
Jobless Recruits Get Minimum Wage 'To March Around and Sound Off'
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Instant-Bury for posting WSJ
doug209Aug 23, 2010
What do you think the Pentagon's doing?
They don't call it an infowar for nothing.
mcgyverAug 23, 2010
You commie-libs have George Soros, and we have the Koch brothers. Fair is fair.
mistermysterAug 23, 2010
When you always look at the world in black and white, of course it seems fair.
delphium226Aug 23, 2010
I f**king wish someone was paying me to insult you wingnuts :)
Nope I do it for the sheer pleasure.
davidtromAug 23, 2010
Soros does not promote ideas that directly benefits its bottom line at the expense of the middle class.
Koch agenda: abolish regulation, eliminate taxes, undo the New Deal, abolish minimum wage, and so far, will benefit his corporations holding on the energy and chemical business directly and immediately.
That is the big difference
richmomzAug 23, 2010
Don't hold your breath Tree - If that's true then these guys owe me a *lot* of back pay! :p
basalcellbosskAug 23, 2010
thanks for admitting you are engaged in gaming the system.
richmomzAug 23, 2010
I'm just amused that certain parties think that people need to be paid to support a particular point of view, because they "couldn't possibly volunteer their spare time to further such a cause!" LOL
peppermintpigAug 23, 2010
innernet srs bsnss
superkendallAug 23, 2010
You mean like how you and others are paid by leftist organizations?
It could just as easily be true.
dexx4dAug 23, 2010
"..this is not about Conservatives vs Liberals vs Libertarians but rather how two [of] the wealthiest men in America are abusing their monetary power to further advance themselves."
-digital0verdose, further down the page.
emmeronAug 23, 2010
Using doesn't mean abusing, because if it does...
they are no more guilty than every single elected official.
metalmessiahAug 23, 2010
A c**ktapus? lolQ
pyro979Aug 23, 2010
It's the male version of the octopussy. I though everyone knew that.
jeffbwAug 23, 2010
Actually, unlike the former mayor, they pronounce it "coke". So that kind of messes up the funny.
clone206Aug 24, 2010
Although a "coke-tapus" sounds amazing
manovaAug 23, 2010
How is this different than someone like George Soros? Both sides have mega rich that are willing to pay to push what they believe.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Exactly. Looks like these guys also do a great deal of philanthropic work.
dexx4dAug 23, 2010
Actually, if you read the article, some of their philanthropic work (such as the Smithsonian donation) supports their goals.
mnocketAug 23, 2010
It's exactly the same. If you feel a need to condemn these guys you must also condemn guys like Soros.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
+2 / -5
Lulz. Looks like you're doing something right.
basalcellbosskAug 23, 2010
You don't seem to understand, this makes clear *your* hypocrisy. You decry Soros but cheer these guys. You're already trying to justify their actions. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mnocketAug 23, 2010
@BasalCell
You're kidding, right? Where did I "decry" Soros? Nowhere. I simply said that you needed to treat these guys and Soros the same. How on earth is this hypocrisy? How blinded by ideology does one have to be to see a call to treat both sides the same as hypocrisy? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
A) Soros is a libral
B) This is Digg
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
No no no. George Soros is someone who thought W's policies were reckless and bad for the USA. He stuck his neck (and his wallet) out when it was very hard to counter the white house just after 9/11. He has balls.
These Koch guys use their money to push their politics directly to enrich themselves. Case in point, they fund climate change denial "think tanks" to push disinformation while their companies continue to pollute. They have a lot to lose with carbon legislation so they use their money to shield themselves. Real stand up guys. /s
poprocksandsodaAug 23, 2010
Ahhhhhh, so basically George Soros is an idealist. Love this site. I could try a million years to find someone like you in the real world and never come close because most people I know have a brain.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
You sir offer nothing except sarcasm. Prove your point or stfu.
curunirAug 23, 2010
George Soros -> Brazillian oil companies -> Obama administration invests in Brazillian oil companies & bans drilling in the US gulf
Profit!!
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
oh bulls**t. soros funded a "hate bush" website to make money.
he invested a billion dollars in "green energy" which is why he is pushing so badly for it, he wants a return on his money:
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2009/10/george_soros_to_1.html
Soros, for instance, has invested in clean coal technology, including Portsmouth (NH)-based Powerspan Corp that specializes in carbon capture technology.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
artworkz918Aug 23, 2010
smoked, yours was the post full of sarcasm if you actually believe the drivel coming from your brain
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
Curunir and datruef: you connect dots that aren't even on the same page. Bush didn't run against Obama you geniuses. Beyond general politics, there is no direct connection between Soros' money and Obama's politics.
On the other hand, there is direct connection between the Koch brothers money and putting money back into their pockets.
curunirAug 23, 2010
"there is no direct connection between Soros' money and Obama's politics."
Can I have some pot?
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
You're not really saying anything. Prove your point, otherwise you might as well be smoking pot.
akutacoAug 23, 2010
@ Datruef
You decry him for because he wants a return on his investment in green energy, but lets compare the two claims.
The Koch brothers are trying to pretend global warming is fake so they can get away with making billions of dollars while polluting and destroying the world.
Soros is begging "Green Energy" because he's put a lot of money into it, inadvertently making the world vaguely less gross and polluted.
They're both selfish dicks, but if I have to choose between a selfish dick who's still managing to do some good and a selfish dick who's destroying everything I hold dear, which one do you think I'm gonna pick?
curunirAug 23, 2010
If you really believe and trust Soros, you must be on something much stronger than pot.
Soros is *WAY* more ambitious than the Koch brothers. He's funding the implementation of Agenda 21, (using scare tactics like global warming and "biodiversity" scams), planning for a complete global takeover for his prodigy.
"The challenge ahead is to manage a peaceful decline of the west while rescuing as many of the west’s liberal political and economic values as possible…We need new global governance which can both manage the ascent of China, India, Russia, Brazil as well as the relative decline of the United States and Europe. Europe and the US must concentrate on shaping this new global governance and enshrine its progressive values within it, while they still have some power to do so."
His plan for you is you will either be a serf or dead.
http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/07/09/george-soros-new-plan-globalism-and-crony-capitalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpZZGTGVePE
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/1/George-Soros-the-Puppet-Master-641811.html
http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/01/27/awaiting-the-soros-obama-sotus-the-state-of-the-re-making-america-revolution/
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
I looked at your post, and even the videos. You are a fool.
Your first link and quote is so convoluted that your point fizzles. Assuming the links accuracy (which is probably suspect but ignored for the sake of argument). Soros never made that comment you quoted, INET never sanctioned it. It was made by a member of INET at a completely different time and place. Even if it were completely baseless, which it's not, Soros never said it. Only in "idiot court" would this be considered evidence.
Bill O - ok, so he talks about how Soros funds Media Matters. I'll take him at his word. Media Matters was FOUNDED by a former GOP staffer who was sickened by their tactics. Media Matters often has anti-conservative information using NOTHING OTHER THAN CONSERVATIVES THEMSELVES TALKING ON TV/RADIO AS PROOF. A real "conspiracy" theory there huh?
The break.com video actually has your hero call Soros "the devil". That's when I stopped watching.
Breitbart is a known video-doctorer so anything that guy promotes is pure lies and propaganda. Get a better source.
It's sad where you get your information, no wonder why you're so messed up.
curunirAug 23, 2010
Just dismiss everything as ad hominem, that seems to be your only response.
Well, "The New Yorker" is an elitist rag, so I guess that dismisses everything they had to say, too.
Try doing a little research of your own:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=soros+global+government+imf+agenda+21
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
I looked at everything you posted, but it just doesn't pass the BS detector. I gave O'Reily the benefit of the doubt because he's the most sane of the faces you posted. He just doesn't like Media Matters. So the eff what?
You really need to find better sources of information. Fact check what you read a little bit more.
You have no idea how open minded I am. I am engaging with you aren't I? Your evidence is just weak.
dexx4dAug 23, 2010
Thanks for this thread.
curunir, it's good to see those links coming out in support of your position. More would be appreciated.
smokedgouda, it's nice to see the refutation. Also, smoked gouda cheese is tasty.
To weigh in: I think the ascension of the East (2 billion with China and India alone) and the decline of the West is happening anyway. Of the two sides, I'll support the one that doesn't fight against letting my children and grandchildren breathe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brainfrogAug 23, 2010
@curunir
> "Just dismiss everything as ad hominem, that seems to be your only response."
1) Your links contain no _evidence_.
2) It isn't ad hominem to say that Breitbart is an shameless liar. He is. It therefore isn't unreasonable to dismiss anything he says or does as dishonest from the outset.
> "Well, "The New Yorker" is an elitist rag, so I guess that dismisses everything they had to say, too."
No. It is the paper of record. It is not a propaganda machine... unlike every news channel you choose to consume.
> "Instead of dismissing everything that doesn't come from the MSM (who have their own agenda), and doesn't fit your worldview, try being a little open minded and doing a little research of your own:"
That's the problem with believing things without supporting evidence: being a fascist ball-sack becomes a logical proposition, not a lifestyle choice.
curunirAug 23, 2010
@dexx:
I'll be in opposition to you. Instead of believing the fear mongering "our children will be unable to breath" BS, I prefer to support the side that doesn't want my children and grandchildren living as serfs under a new tyrannical feudalism.
@brainfrog:
Look up "ad hominem". I'll turn it around on you and ask for 1 SINGLE FACT that backs up your assertion that Breitbart "is a shameless liar".
There is plenty of evidence there, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Look at the IMF's OWN documents that describe their plan for global currency. Look at Agenda 21's plans and the NGO's that Soros is funding. ICLEI has contracts in almost 300 cities in the US.
"Well all those people are lying" is just a way to refuse to see what's going on around you. You're so buried in your own ideology that you are willing to trust these self-serving wealthy elites to look after your interests for you, while they are taking away your ability to determine your own destiny.
Do you even understand fascism? You seem to like to throw it around. It's a collusion between big government and corporations. What do you think the "public-private partnerships" that the Agenda 21 plans are promoting so much? It's fascism!
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
Curunir, now I understand why it took you a few posts to provide anything more than an insult.
You are bats**t crazy.
brainfrogAug 23, 2010
@curunir
> "Look up "ad hominem"."
No. I know what it means. You, self-evidently do not. Breitbart has no credibility because he has _twice_ been caught out editing video to make bogus claims and pretending that his doctored footage is "evidence" of corruption and racism (Acorn / Sherrod). To say that his commentary is simply the opinion of a proven, serial liar, is valid criticism.
Why don't you look 'evidence' up yourself?
> "Look at the IMF's OWN documents that describe their plan for global currency"
I would but there appears to be a gigantic tinfoil headpiece of some kind interfering with my connection. Can you point me to a link on the IMF's own site / Wikileaks / anything that isn't a lunatic blog that turned up in a 5 second Google search where this sinister plan is documented?
> "You're so buried in your own ideology that you are willing to trust these self-serving wealthy elites to look after your interests for you, while they are taking away your ability to determine your own destiny."
[crackle... bzzt...] damn... the tinfoil really is... [bzzt]... causing some major interference! Fear not though... I'll lose no time in investigating your claim.
> "What do you think the "public-private partnerships" that the Agenda 21 plans are promoting so much? It's fascism!"
Oh dear. I was told by Fox that it was Communism. So confused... :(
curunirAug 23, 2010
@brainfrog: So, you are pointing to accusations with no evidence. The Sherrod video was provided to him as-is - he didn't edit it. And while there's some implications of editing in the Acorn video, there is no evidence of "doctoring", and FAR from "lying". That information is out there if you will look somewhere other than Soros' MediaMatters as a source.
It looks like the IMF pulled their document, but Rawstory has a link to the cache: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0805/imf-documents-illustrate-plan-turn-drawing-rights-global-currency/
@brainfrog & @smokedgouda:
Yea, it's all crazy conspiracy theory - it's just crackpot nonsense. Keep dismissing it.
"Don't worry, they're just being relocated. What, you really think our leaders are exterminating all those Jews? That's CRACKPOT!"
Like I said - stay asleep ... nothing to see here ... Just trust us... it's all going to be okay. Don't worry about the bleating ahead of you...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brainfrogAug 23, 2010
@curunir
"The Sherrod video was provided to him as-is - he didn't edit it."
So he unquestioningly published such excerpts required to make her look like a racist? You should school him on the dangers of such an approach!
> "while there's some implications of editing in the Acorn video, there is no evidence of "doctoring", and FAR from "lying"."
Interesting take. Here's what the California Attorney General's office stated on the matter in April this year:
"The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O'Keefe and Giles"
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf
I dunno, but that kind of surgery - intended to create a false impression - sounds like doctoring to me!
Sorry: I don't get my information from MediaMatters, and if I did I'd require provision of a credible source. Try it: it's fun!
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
Frog, Breitbart only showing Sherrod's "bad", "race related" portions of her speech was basically lying, deception, dishonesty, whatever other words there are for BS. Her speech was about the complete opposite of racism, so he showed people what they wanted to see and got a good person fired for it.
The ACORN videos were on the same level. Look up and see what happened to Carlos Vera, fired for the heavily edited video of him. He called the police right after O'Keefe left his office to report possible human trafficking suggested by the right-wing filmmaker.
Breitbart edits videos (lies) to get people fired and organizations tarnished. But, oh, he's a hero to you.
curunirAug 24, 2010
I wasn't defending Breitbart (he's just part of the controlled opposition), I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. "Editing" is NOT THE SAME as "doctoring" - they are different levels of deception, "editing" being the one that MediaMatters uses extensively. But, for the sake of completeness, there is plenty of "lying" to go around:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199317.php
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
akutacoAug 24, 2010
Excuse me curunir, but I believe but I believe what you're doing now has been referred to by many a digger as "moving the goalpost".
"He doctors his s**t!"
"Nuh Uh!"
::provides evidence::
"Well s**t, editing isn't the same as doctoring!"
Except in cases where it is, which means both of the cases mentioned in these conversations.
Ruh-tard.
richmomzAug 23, 2010
Don't know why you're being buried. These guys are small-time compared to Soros.
treehugger87Aug 23, 2010
It's different because nobody has ever heard of the Koch brothers. Why don't these guys take a risk and publicly admonish Obama's policies rather than working in the dark and distributing propaganda?
ripple01Aug 23, 2010
Because they are a couple of Kochsuckers.
artworkz918Aug 23, 2010
distributing truth is now known as propaganda? good to know
akutacoAug 23, 2010
If you can't connect your name to it because it will hurt your image, it's propaganda. People who are telling the truth generally aren't afraid to say they're telling the truth.
dexx4dAug 23, 2010
@artworkz918: so formaldehyde doesn't cause cancer, despite "several major scientific studies", including one by the National Cancer Institute?
Because that's the kind of stuff these guys are fighting against.
emmeronAug 23, 2010
I guess it's because it's politically popular to say "have your cake and eat it too," and "big brother will be there for you."
No one likes a Cassandra. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ikorkyiAug 23, 2010
FTA:
"quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes."
keyword: quietly
jeffbwAug 23, 2010
It's certainly different in that they're not being honest about it. The Kochs give billions to fund anti-warming propaganda that's utter bulls**t but still clogs up the media and causes idiots to become doubters. As with Heritage and other billionaire projects, it's a matter of how much s**t your money can throw out there to decieve the public. And of course, it's been working like a charm. The problem is, the world they're destroying is the one the rest of us are going to have to live in.
davidtromAug 23, 2010
As I wrote before:
Soros does not promote ideas that directly benefits its bottom line at the expense of the middle class.
Koch agenda: abolish regulation, eliminate taxes, undo the New Deal, abolish minimum wage, and so far, will benefit his corporations holding on the energy and chemical business directly and immediately.
That is the big difference
clone206Aug 24, 2010
That was addressed in the article:
"Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that 'none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.'"
cranelakeAug 23, 2010
What a nasty bunch of Kochs...
torrangeAug 23, 2010
spending money to influence public opinion - who would have thought?
clone206Aug 24, 2010
Yeah, I wonder what the discussion in the Think Tank was like when they came up with that statement. How long do you think the laughter went on when it was first proposed.
"The idiots will actually believe it too!"
king0007Aug 23, 2010
Good.....I support these people!
O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake
A gain
41 million on food stamps.....stimulus 100% FAIL.....real unemployment around 20%........Out of Iraq...Never.....Equities markets propped up.....
Buried or Obama excuses in 3....2....1..... (The truth hurts...doesn't it) Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yangj08Aug 23, 2010
Buried for incoherence.
dustin00Aug 23, 2010
All the economists say Obama should have spent more to help the economy recover.
What ideas did McCain have??? Oh yeah! Deregulate more so the banks could demand more bail out money!
Yeah, the truth really hurts.
mcquittyAug 23, 2010
No all economists. Not even close.
curunirAug 23, 2010
You mean all the Keynesian economists. You know, the ones that support the thoroughly discredited theories of John Maynard Keynes...
rthakidnAug 23, 2010
All economist, really?
mcquittyAug 23, 2010
Keynes also promoted the government running surpluses. But I don't see anyone in the President's cabinet advocating that.
dustin00Aug 23, 2010
@rthakidn
I'd argue the points between plans, but the best we've had out of the republicans was document with ZERO numbers.
The right has no plan because their plans have destroyed the middle class and bankrupted the nation. Their work completed, they now have no ideas left.
delphium226Aug 23, 2010
Lol @ the wingnuts and their little wordplay devices.
digital0verdoseAug 23, 2010
You are not interested in the truth. Had you actually read the article, you would see why this is not about Conservatives vs Liberals vs Libertarians but rather how two if the wealthiest men in America are abusing their monetary power to further advance themselves.
You would also have learned how they are using people who are concerned about the state of America.
You aren't being Dugg down for being a conservative, you are being Dugg down because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about pertaining this article.
Even the wittiest of remarks is a completely failure when it is obvious that the person making the remark is not actually responding to the posted article, but rather posting about their political affiliation because they think that is what the article is about.
You just made yourself look like a complete fool and you should be happy you are being Dugg down so that fewer people have a chance to see how much of an idiot you have made yourself look.
dbixlerAug 23, 2010
Buried for being a dumb ass. I'd take the time to come up with some snappy wordplay on King0007, but it's not even worth the time it even took me to type this. Go back to watching Faux news and stop breathing so there's more air left for the smarter people.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
your excuse first :P
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
the good old kochs, sons of an oil millionaire, prep school educated defenders of self-made men everywhere!
digg2point0Aug 23, 2010
REAL Amurikins.
drekorAug 23, 2010
I don't have a problem with libertarians in general, but a few of the self-proclaimed ones really piss me off.
dustin00Aug 23, 2010
This is how we return to the Gilded Age.
So quickly we have forgotten our forefather's battles.
artworkz918Aug 23, 2010
Obama's taking us there at record speed huh?
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
idiotic statement of the day.
baldboy7Aug 23, 2010
You do realize you spelled out GOBAMA right?
kebwiAug 23, 2010
Not sure you're being dugg down. I think it's pretty funny actually.
nullcodesAug 23, 2010
"Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products."
Good thing I use Bounty instead of Brawny.
bdigital24Aug 23, 2010
?????
thetxiAug 23, 2010
Power to the paper towel politicians.
You go girl.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Ahh yes Covert operations against the President and his political party. This must truly be one of the symptoms of what you call "Land of the Free" but which I call "Land of The Fat and The Stupid"...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
lolwut?
atomheartmotherAug 23, 2010
As opposed to what? The currently-elected leaders using government funds and public unions to sell their policies.
delphium226Aug 23, 2010
Agreed, we bring back the FEAR! We want FEAR of the brown people to be used to sell us policies. That's more American.
atomheartmotherAug 23, 2010
Bring it back? You're kidding, right? If it weren't for the politics of fear, Democrats wouldn't have a platform.
"We have to act now to avert this crisis."
"If you elect Republicans, black churches will burn."
"Conservatives want to throw old people out of their homes."
mcquittyAug 23, 2010
You mean like the politics of fear the President uses?
delphium226Aug 25, 2010
You two were clearly mentally AWOL during the Bush years. Come to think if it, you're probably mentally AWOL now as well.
shauncorleoneAug 23, 2010
Let's be fair. Obama's recent Democrat fundraiser trip only cost taxpayers what, like $10 million? Such a small amount couldn't feed any children or clothes any homeless anyway.
/sick of all government waste
anomaly100Aug 23, 2010
AHM; Lemme fix that...Democrats AND Republicans wouldn't have a platform if it weren't for the politics of fear. Of course, I think Republicans are more notorious for it, but you already knew I'd say that. IMO, every politician has slime on his hand. You don't get to the highest seat in the land without shaking some dubious hands.
atomheartmotherAug 23, 2010
It's far more extreme (and even Orwellian) for a party which advocates a larger governmental role to use government machinery and tax dollars to perpetuate itself.
jonathan102Aug 23, 2010
FTA: "The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation."
this pretty much sums up the whole article. Rich people wants lower tax, minimal social service, less regulations so they can do whatever they want. Sounds freaking awesome... for THEM.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
So rich people want to keep more of what they earned, but you feel entitled to their earnings?
spinningheadAug 23, 2010
Maybe they can keep all their industrial pollutants too.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
Income tax is progressive, which means everyone is taxed exactly the same. They pay the same tax on earrings over $100k as I do. Well, probably not. They can afford better accountants than I can.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
Everyone is not taxed the same. That would be a flat tax. If you earn more, you pay more.
smemilyAug 23, 2010
If by "earned" you mean "inherited from daddy"....
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
smemily,
That wouldn't be income tax. That would be (1) estate tax (2) capital gains or (3) unearned income. Try harder.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"Everyone is not taxed at the same RATE. "
Yes, they are.
15% Bracket $0 – $70,040 $0 – $35,020
28% Bracket $70,040 – $141,419 $35,020 – $84,872
31% Bracket $141,419 – $215,528 $84,872 – $177,006
36% Bracket $215,528 – $384,860 $177,006 – $384,860
39.6% Bracket Over $384,860 Over $384,860
Everyone, regardless of income pays the exact same rates.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
Right. So a person who earns, say, $1,000,000 has a different EFFECTIVE TAX RATE than someone who earns, say, $50,000. You didn't even take tax refunds into account.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
Yes, the effective tax rate is different, but the actual tax rate is identical. Everyone pays the same amount on the same amount of income, regardless of their total income.
I.E. Everyone is taxed at the exact same rates.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
Yes, the income tax is applied step-wise. No one is arguing it isn't. Thanks for conceding my point.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
Thanks for conceding mine.
rthakidnAug 23, 2010
Keith, it's no use arguing with MW. He clearly doesn't understand the concept of progressive vs flat rate taxes. You can't win an argument when the other person has no knowledge of the material.
Fortunately, he's allowed to vote. /sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
What was my initial point and how was it incorrect? If you earn more, you pay more. Are you denying this?
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"What was my initial point and how was it incorrect?"
I was referring to your point that the rich are taxed at a different rate. Thanks for conceding that that is not the case.
"If you earn more, you pay more."
Yep, at the exact same rate as everyone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
"I was referring to your point that the rich are taxed at a different rate. Thanks for conceding that that is not the case."
I love how you cannot provide a quotation from me on this point because... I never said that. This is what I actually said:
"Everyone is not taxed at the same RATE. That would be a flat tax. Under a progressive tax, if you earn more, you pay more."
Again, do you deny this is true? QED, bitch.
"Yep, at the exact same rates as everyone else."
This is categorically false. The more you earn, the higher the rate of taxes you pay on each portion of income. Again, are you that dense? f**king blowhard Diggeral. Get a clue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"I love how you cannot provide a quotation from me on this point because... I never said that."
Yes, you did: "Yes, the income tax is applied step-wise. " IE, at each step along the way we all pay the exact same rate. IE, we're all taxed at the same rate,
"Again, do you deny this is true?"
Yes, I deny it is true. So do you.
"The more you earn, the higher the rate of taxes you pay on portions of income. "
Yes, at exactly the same rate as everyone else. We all pay the exact same rate for the equivalent income. IE. Everyone pays the same tax rate. The only thing that changes from person to person is total income.
And thanks for the name calling. It's not my preferred way for my opponent to concede defeat, but I'll take it. Have a nice day :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
"Yes, you did: "Yes, the income tax is applied step-wise. " IE, at each step along the way we all pay the exact same rate. IE, we're all taxed at the same rate."
No we're not. We're taxed at different rates, depending on how much income we earn. That's the point of a progressive tax. No amount of rhetoric from you will change this, sorry. Me: 1, you: 0.
"Yes, I deny it is true. So do you."
Then you don't know the difference between a progressive tax and a flat tax. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
Me: 1, you: 0.
"Yes, at exactly the same rate as everyone else. We all pay the exact same rate for the equivalent income. IE. Everyone pays the same tax rate."
I know. Like I said three times, nobody, including me, is denying this.
"And thanks for the name calling. It's not my preferred way for my opponent to concede defeat, but I'll take it. Have a nice day :)"
I'd concede defeat if I were actually wrong. I accept your apology in advance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"We're taxed at different rates, depending on how much income we earn."
No, the income we earn is taxed at different rates, regardless of our total income. We all pay the exact same taxes, some people just make more and thus a larger portion of their income get taxed at the higher rate, but the rate they pay is exactly the same as everyone else.
Me: 1, You: 0.
"Then you don't know the difference between a progressive tax and a flat tax. Here you go:"
I suspect you're just having some problems with your reading comprehension. because I havven't mentioned anythign remotely like a flat tax.
Me: 2, You: 0.
"know. Like I said three times, nobody, including me, is denying this."
Good, than it's settled. Me: 3, You: 0.
"Id concede defeat if I were actually wrong."
You've repeatedly demonstrated that that is not the case, as you've been wrong multiple times and have not conceded defeat. Me: 4, You: 0
Notice how the score goes up as each new point is scored? By my tally, I win.
Thanks for the pleasant conversation :) Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
"No, the income we earn is taxed at different rates, regardless of our total income. We all pay the exact same taxes, SOME PEOPLE JUST MAKE MORE AND THUS A LARGER PORTION OF THEIR INCOME GET (sic) TAXED AT THE HIGHER RATE, but the rate they pay is exactly the same as everyone else."
Thanks.
Me: 1, you: 0.
"I suspect you're just having some problems with your reading comprehension. because I havven't mentioned anythign remotely like a flat tax."
How is that a reflection of my supposedly poor reading comprehension? I know you haven't mentioned it. Still doesn't change the fact that you're confused about how progressive taxation works.
"Good, than it's settled."
"Than?" Really? Good lord, you're an idiot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"Thanks."
You're welcome. I thought you were just going to dig your heels in, even though I repeatedly proved you wrong. I'm glad we could agree that we all pay the exact same tax rates.
"How is that a reflection of my supposedly poor reading comprehension?"
I'll concede that it could also be because I explained things poorly, however my use the plural "rates" instead of the singular "rate", really should have clued you in.
"Than?" Really? Good lord, you're an idiot. Or are you just that upset that your liberal drivel is being held to account that you can hardly contain yourself?"
Or it was merely a typo that the spell checker changed to the wrong word. You really seem to be worked up about something today. You're really emotional over something. Are you having a bad day at work? If so, I hope the rest of your day is better.
I know my day will be better now that you've conceded that we all pay the same tax rate. I wish you the same satisfaction in your life. Have a great day :)
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
"You're welcome. I thought you were just going to dig your heels in, even though I repeatedly proved you wrong. I'm glad we could agree that we all pay the exact same tax rates."
We only pay the same rates if you're looking at portions of one's income, or two people who pay the exact same income. The fact that the top 100 earners pay as much as the bottom 40,000,000 should show you that the rich carry the lion's share of income taxes in this country. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Sure, Bill Gates and your stupid ass pay the same taxes on the first 10,000 of income, but that's just part of the picture. His overall, or effective, tax rate is MUCH, MUCH higher than yours. You can chose to ignore that fact, but his accountants cannot.
"I'll concede that it could also be because I explained things poorly, however my use the plural "rates" instead of the singular "rate" really should have clued you in."
Thanks. I'm glad we could agree that I'm right and you're wrong.
"Or it was merely a typo that the spell checker changed to the wrong word."
Your spellchecker is really hit-or-miss, huh? Seemed to miss a lot of the other typos you made for some strange reason.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"We only pay the same rates if you're looking at portions of one's income,"
Yes, only if you look at the actual rate that people pay based on their income. I'm glad you still agree that I'm right.
"His overall, or effective, tax rate is MUCH, MUCH higher than yours."
Yes, but his actual tax rates are the exact same as mine. IE: he is taxed at the exact same rate as anyone else.
"Thanks. I'm glad we could agree that I'm right and you're wrong."
There you go with that poor reading comprehension again.
"Your spellchecker is really hit-or-miss, huh? "
Well given three letters to work with, you can't expect it to be right 100% of the time.
"Seemed to miss a lot of the other typos you made for some strange reason."
As does yours. Spell checker is two words, for example.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
"Yes, only if you look at the actual rate that people pay based on their income."
... which is kind of the entire point of this discussion. I win.
"Yes, but his actual tax rates are the exact same as mine. IE: he is taxed at the exact same rate as anyone else."
No it's not. Your income, overall, is taxed much less than Bill Gates'. He has a higher effective rate than you. Again, that's the point of a progressive tax. Still confusing it with a flat tax, are we? I win.
"There you go with that poor reading comprehension again."
Nope. I win.
"Well given three letters to work with (thn in this case), you can't expect it to be right 100% of the time. Sadly they don't take context into account."
What did it say about "havven't" and "anythign?" Or are you even reading anything I write at this point?
I win.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"... which is kind of the entire point of this discussion. I win."
I agree. We're both winners when we can come to an agreement that we all pay the same tax rate. I'm glad you agree.
"No it's not. Your income, overall, is taxed much less than Bill Gates'."
Of course, but at the exact same rates.
"Still confusing it with a flat tax, are we? "
Still confusing the singular "rate" with the plural "rates"? Maybe this will be of assistance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number#Singular_versus_plural
"Nope. I win."
Actually yes. What I said was that it was possible that I explained poorly, but given your repeated confusion of singular and plural forms, I'm now certain that your reading comprehension is indeed the culprit, and not my poor explanation.
I can see how you would be confused, though, seeing as how you confuse singular and plural.
"What did it say about "havven't" and "anythign?" "
I don't recall. I must not have noticed the red underline.
"Or are you even reading anything I write at this point?"
Of course I'm reading what you say. I thoroughly enjoy it when people agree with me the way you have been. Again, I am so happy we could agree that everyone is taxed the same/ I hope someone can brighten your day the way your stimulating conversation has brightened mine.
You're a real peach ;)
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
Arguing for the sake of arguing, are we? Just admit it. You got OWNED.
I win.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
There you go with the insults again. Oh well, I'll take that as yet another concession of defeat.
Thanks for the constant reminders that I've won. You really are out to brighten my day, aren't you?
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
Ahh, can't refute my point, I see.
Looks like I won.
Thanks for playing, peach.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
You're like the gift that keeps on giving. Every time I think we're done here, you come back and embarrass yourself with some idiotic statement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
Thank you for the further affirmations that you have no argument, but really, I think you've already made that abundantly clear. I'm already have a great day, but I really appreciate the effort.
I'm content in the knowledge that I've won, but that even if I hadn't, I'm better than you. Thank you for the feeling of superiority I get every time you make a post. Keep up the good work, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who you make feel superior. Spread that warm feeling around, my friend.
keithlolbermannAug 23, 2010
All I hear is "(bitch) (bitch) (bitch) I lost the argument and I'm trying to save face somehow (bitch bitch bitch)."
mweatherAug 23, 2010
I win, and I'm better than you, and every post you make just proves that.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
QFA:
'The democratically elected federal government of the United States imposes a progressive tax on the taxable income of individuals, partnerships, companies, corporations, trusts, decedents' estates, and certain bankruptcy estates.'
which links to--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
QFA:
'The term is frequently applied in reference to personal income taxes, where people with more income pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income'
http://www.moneybluebook.com/2010-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/
QFA:
'One of the most introductory ways to plan for the effects of income taxes is to recognize how the various marginal rates are applied to the corresponding tax brackets. Because the United States does not yet currently engage in a flat tax system, our taxable incomes are broken down into different taxation ranges with specific taxation percentages assessed depending on where they fall along the tax bracket spectrum.'
The more I make the more I am taxed on a progressive basis, I.E. If I am single and made $30,000 for this year I'd be taxed a total of $4,081.25(first $8,375 of my income at 10% rate for $837.50, and the remainder at a 15% tax rate for a total of $3,243.75) but if I had made $45,000, I would be taxed a total of $5337.50(first $8,375 of my income at 10% for a total of 837.50, then $25,625 taxed at the 15% bracket for a total of $3,843.75, and then the remainder $2,625 would be taxed at the 25% rate which would be $656.25) . There is no flat rate as it progresses upwards in the income brackets based on how much you make and is taxed on a per-dollar-per-bracket basis. Based on the income determines how much of your income is going to be taxed, and the more you make the more tax you're going to have taken out. The arguement that you make about 'we all get taxed the same rate' is that we all go through the same tax brackets based on our earned income, but the higher the income there is the higher you go in the tax brackets thus more tax is tolled.
Closed AccountAug 24, 2010
*correction on tax breakdowns for making $45,000:
it is first $8,375 of my income at 10% for a total of 837.50, then $25,625 taxed at the 15% bracket for a total of $3,843.75, and then the remainder $15,000 would be taxed at the 25% rate which would be $3,500 for a total of $8,181.25
that's more than double being paid in tax for just making $15,000 more. You can only imagine it's gotta be much much more for people earning $100k or more.
lxlqlxlAug 24, 2010
Not to stoke this any more than it has been. It is not about winning or losing its about every one being educated. The name calling serves no one's best interests. One thing I would also like to bring up into this is even under a progressive tax system or even an actual flat tax which i disagree with but w/e. That The rich have ways and loopholes to actually pay 0 to no taxes. Our tax system needs to be overhauled. I am not saying we need to go back to pre reagan era and tax what was i believe to be around 70% for people making 3 million + a year. Tons of corporations pay 0 to no taxes at all. I am not saying tax the hell out of them but some taxes yes. The people running these companies making millions over the average worker needs to stop as well. We need to stop the tax breaks of sending jobs over seas. If a company or person makes money on us soil then it needs to be taxed with out any way of getting out of it. Whatever they make outside of the country have it taxed at whatever rate they tax it at. Make a disincentive for a product that was made here but the job was shipped over seas to be made for less. Lets say the product total cost being brought to the shelf is say 10 dollars each. Make it 12 to 13 dollars each if they shipped the job over seas for cheaper foreign labor. The money brought in to the government in this way should be put into a fund for actually bettering our country either schools or infrastructure. If the job was shipped over seas for other reasons like lax environmental regulations then bump it up to 15 dollars or so each. This will cut into the companies bottom line and make them think hey it will be cheaper and we will make more money if we just keep the damn job here and or produce it here.
There is no reason why a company should get a tax break for shipping a job over seas. None.
Overall when the rich start actually paying the actual tax rate then we can get into a discussion of what is actually fair. As it is most dont actually pay the rates they are in.
The trickle down effect would only work in a utopian society. Where people actually gave a f**k about one another and the environment in which they live. When reagan brought about the mantra greed is good and no longer something to look down upon that in and of itself has done more harm to our society than the trickle theory. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gusterbearAug 23, 2010
It's amazing how many "libertarians" and conservatives don't really see this, even though it's obvious.
FYI Libertarians and Conservatives: They aren't your friend, they want to remove obstacles to legally f**k you in the ass with a barb wired wrapped stick. Both figuratively and literally.
clone206Aug 24, 2010
You had me until "literally", but dugg nonetheless.
richmomzAug 23, 2010
There are plenty of "rich people" that want *more* government control (on *their* terms of course) so they don't even have to bother competing in the free market - they can just lobby to seize profits directly from taxpayers and bury their competition with regulations and legal morass.
govtdoesnotworkAug 23, 2010
See for example the entire sugarcane & corn farming businesses, which reap huge profits from price support subsidies while polluting both the Everglades & our bodies with crap.
richmomzAug 23, 2010
@gov - Yep - the "big agro" corps are arguably the most obvious example of this sort of "mega-corporate socialism" (though MIC contractors are certainly in the running as well).
govtdoesnotworkAug 24, 2010
Wow. That sarcasm got me a LOT of buries. Glad I pissed off so many fiscally-clueless Diggers! :) I wish they'd learn about the environment, even if they refuse to learn about economics, because they probably CLAIM libertarians "don't care" about things like subsidy-driven Everglades pollution, when meanwhile we're the ONLY ones trying to stop it!!
zeratumAug 23, 2010
So what is your solution?
Higher taxes? After federal, state and local taxes the highest taxed Americans (e.g. NYC) will pay 58% marginal rate (40% federal after the Bush tax cuts expire, 3% medicare uncapped medicare post-health reform, then 15% state/local taxes). Remember the highest marginal tax rate in the world (Scandinavia) is only 60%, plus EU countries have much lower corporate tax rates (about 10-15% rather than 30%). I just don't know how much more you can keep raising taxes before you hit drastically diminishing returns. Do you really think 80% tax rates will work in a globalized society where high earners can easily relocate? This is the problem Europe has been facing, and America's kind of shielded from because of its size and relative geographic isolation, but raise taxes high enough and people will move.
More social services? What more should we have? By 2030 more than 75% of federal spending will be non-discretionary: medicare, medical, social security, government pensions, etc. The problem is every time we start a new social spending program the bill is many multiples higher than what anyone predicts. With an aging population and fewer workers to support non-workers how much more can we spend? Sure you can say poor people still aren't getting the help they need, but the problem is in America much more spending goes to the elderly (the wealthiest demographic) than the poor. Why? The 50+ contingent votes a hell of a lot more reliably than the poor.
More regulation? Regulation of what? Manufacturing? It's almost all disappeared to Asia, which has virtually no environmental regulation and where unions are run by corporate management if they exist at all. Banking? Finance is basically America's last major export. We have to trade something to the Chinese to buy that crap from Wal-Mart. And the problem with finance is it's very easily relocatable. It's not like there are any fixed factories. If one country starts giving you a hassle, simply open up an office in a lax rules country like Switzerland, Liechtenstein or the Caymans. And because the private sector pays a hell of a lot more than the regulators banks will always find loopholes. Again the world is simply to globalized, there's too much competition. Push an industry a little to hard and it will move somewhere else. This is the real reason regulation has gotten so weak in the past 30 years, not some evil right-wing conspiracy.
Overall we're in a period of declining state power. Markets, especially capital markets, have gained incredibly power to push national governments around. Look at the way the bond markets have completely shredded up Iceland, and almost destroyed Greece or even the whole EU. Look at the way every emerging economy east of Istanbul (China included) kisses the ass of big business and crushes their own citizens just to slash a couple percent off labor costs. The US may be the sole exception because of its size and power, but this won't last forever, everyday our economy as a percent of the world gets smaller.
damphoudAug 23, 2010
I'm now somewhat depressed.
Thanks
With all jokes aside, there really is no clear cut winner... It seems most if not all options have major, catastrophic issues. While I may be incorrect in my assessment, I believe the general public needs to reevaluate possible political philosophies (for example, I'm sympathetic to libertarian socialism). It seems we are stuck in a rut, arguing against positions which are all possibly moot (hence your post).
dexx4dAug 23, 2010
I don't have a solution, but I wish I did.
vigrocoAug 23, 2010
Social services should be left up to us the people anyway. If we are too selfish to setup properly managed charities, then our society deserves to go down the drain. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nullcodesAug 23, 2010
So, the teabaggers are sponsored by a pair of Kochs?
gusterbearAug 23, 2010
Well, what else supports the scrotum in which to teabag?
uselesstodayAug 23, 2010
More scummy people...Like almost ALL politicians and almost all corporate titans....artists hold back their vomit and smile when they"work" for guys like this...
jtwestsideAug 23, 2010
If he were doing the same thing against Bush, or any other Republican the title of the article would have just read "HERO". I really don't get this hatred of anyone* (Well I don't see any negative Soros articles around here) who uses their personal money to support causes they believe it. Up to and including the direction of the country. If this were the President using tax dollars to have his agenda pushed once again the title would have read "Hero".
Hypocrites! Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
Soros is a hero compared to these goons. Soros stuck his neck out at a time when it was hard with no monetary gain. These Koch losers only look to enrich themselves, who cares what happens to anyone else.
artworkz918Aug 23, 2010
you are f**king high aren't you?
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
artworkz, you can go and reply to all my posts. I appreciate the attention and all but why don't you stand up and make a point or sit down and suck your thumb.
emmeronAug 23, 2010
gouda, I really didn't get that out of the article. I did get that was the spin on the article. Can you tell when you're reading spin?
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
Soros has a hedge fund and has made billions on currencies. Tell me how he has made significant money DIRECTLY from political contributions or funding groups during the Bush presidency. Logic says he didn't. If anything, it likely made him LOSE money by pissing off conservative investors and having them withdraw from his hedge fund.
The Koch brothers fund disinformation about climate change through 'think tanks' which DIRECTLY benefits them by squashing climate legislation right now.
It's as plain as day yet you see Soros as the boogeyman. You are pathetic.
artworkz918Aug 23, 2010
dumbass
smokedgoudaAug 23, 2010
Yep, just as I suspected art. You have the substance of fog.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
kochsucker
DurkadurAug 23, 2010
lolbertarians.
polartxAug 23, 2010
as much as people can hate them for supporting their political beliefs with their wallets, there's no denying that these two have contributed more to this country (by way of taxes) than all of us in this forum will in 20 years combined. Of course they're interested in how that money is spent by the govt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadAug 23, 2010
They've probably created more superfund sites than all of us combined too. Good thing their buddy, Bush, let us pick up the tab for that too.
hblaskAug 23, 2010
Guess again -- the vast majority of Superfund sites were created by the federal government -- in other words, the people the Koch's are trying to minimize.
But that's OK, if you need to blame evil corporations for providing you the resources that you ask for, if that's what you need to sleep at night, then just keep using scapegoats.
spinningheadAug 23, 2010
Dont guess. Do some reading.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,213010,00.html
peppermintpigAug 23, 2010
"Probably". I didn't know you were a conspiracy theorist, SpinningHead. It's not surprising, though.
spinningheadAug 23, 2010
^ Your comment makes no sense.
peppermintpigAug 24, 2010
Of course they're going to lobby for regulation in their favor, otherwise there will be regulation that works against them and extorts money to the benefit of the politically connected. You can't win an honest living under this system without someone wanting to take it from you. It doesn't solve the pollution problem, unless the goal is zero productivity and even then you'll have a pollution problem.
I've been through industrial towns before and know how undesirable they can be on account of the smell in the air. It would be easy to argue a company employing many individuals can cause more pollution than an individual as a matter of statistical likelihood, but consider also the desirability of the products and the mass use relative to the pollution.. if you're a solutions kind of guy, you would be making money solving this problem... or you could just argue for laws... but this is all shifting away from the original accusation of what you believe some people 'probably' did.
spinningheadAug 24, 2010
The whole point was the few such as these, with funds such as they have, are able to pass or suppress laws to the exclusion of the interests of the many.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigAug 24, 2010
The 'interests of the many' do not require such laws. The fact that a few can use the law to legitimize their crimes condemns the system itself as not serving any supposed majority.
spinningheadAug 24, 2010
The system often works without us noticing. Thats how I drank lead free water this morning.
So you're defending their use of lobbying to avoid regulation and then defending that because regulation does not work? It only doesn't work because such people game the system by lobbying. Its a circular argument.
digital0verdoseAug 23, 2010
Did anyone read the article and see why these two are actually a much bigger problem than your typical lobbyist?
They are essentially buying the Republican party, but not for the good of the people. They are doing this so they can buy legislation that ensures they will get taxed less, but not necessarily on income, but rather for the laws their conglomerate breaks.
These are not good people. They are two steps away from being James Bond villains.
I'm sure that this will get Dugg down by conservatives, likely ones that didn't read a word of this article, but supporting people like this and allowing them to control your ideas is not what is good for America.
Conservatism is one thing, but that is not what these two evil men are about.
peppermintpigAug 23, 2010
They're playing the system that the vast majority of people legitimize. The enforcement paradox eludes anyone who thinks they can hand off responsibility through the ballot box.
avengingturnipAug 23, 2010
So, what you are saying is that right-wingers should not be allowed to do what left-wingers do with impunity.
digital0verdoseAug 23, 2010
If you are going to say something tat ridiculous, post some evidence that not only shows so much money coming from one source, but also at the same time is blatantly to help one organization break laws.
If that is your honest response to my post, why are you even here?
avengingturnipAug 23, 2010
There are so many corporate funded left-wing foundations they are hardly worth mentioning but consider the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, et al. The Koch brothers are one of the few that actually have a pro-liberty agenda.
http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Betrayal-Liberal-Undermine-America/dp/0971985111
digital0verdoseAug 23, 2010
I'm not talking about a bunch of groups donating a million here and a million there. Both sides have that and neither are a monopoly on the practice.
I am talking about 1 single source of such a substantial amount of money as seen by these two assh**es.
You actually think the Koch brother are pro-liberty? Really? If that is the case then you are already lost.
thetxiAug 23, 2010
WTF @ "pro-liberty agenda"
Michelle Bachmann, is that you, ya crazy nut you.
doctorfaustAug 23, 2010
This was probably the ideal situation created by granting corporations the same rights as individuals (but none of the responsibilities). All the power and influence of a corporation is designed to be funneled into the agenda of a single person or group. Each social class ends up with exponentially more monetary and political influence than the next.
But, seriously? c**ktopus? It's like a metaphor for the Tea Party being so radical that they can't see themselves for the joke they are. The difference between conscientious and extremist Christians has become as obvious as the one for Muslims. Make no mistake, though. Christian terrorists may opt for financial or social weapons, but they're just as extreme and dangerous as their Muslim counterparts.
richmomzAug 23, 2010
Yeah... two words: George Soros.
mweatherAug 23, 2010
What does whether or not you've heard of them have to do with anything?
peppermintpigAug 23, 2010
Are you suggesting something about the likelihood of your own sanity? Does Soros have some magical power of making people go insane?
mweatherAug 23, 2010
"Are you suggesting something about the likelihood of your own sanity?"
Not at all. I said most. The only reason I've heard of him is because of the insane ranting from the right.
"Does Soros have some magical power of making people go insane?"
No, but yellow journalism does.
inko1nsiderateAug 23, 2010
10 pages too much for you? RTFA
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
That just means you're an idiot, not that they're smalltime. According to Forbes:
Charles Koch net worth: $17b
David Koch net worth: $17.5b
George Soros net worth: $14b
And come on. They want to remain behind the scenes so no one pays attention to where they're pouring their money. Soros may be a d**kh**d, but at least he's not secretive about being a d**kh**d.
richmomzAug 23, 2010
Their net worth is irrelevant - what matters is how much of that they're using to advance their interests. We don't know for sure but I think there's little doubt that Soros wins in that department.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
And the entire 10 page article outlines exactly that. So RTFA and STFU.
delphium226Aug 23, 2010
@richmomz
All the evidence you've presented that Soros is more bigtime than these two has definitely convinced me you're right.
/s
mweatherAug 23, 2010
FTA: Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
Yep, small time.
seltaeb4Aug 23, 2010
And that's just the way they want it.
mrnaturalAug 23, 2010
The anti-Soros. Sauce for the goose dudes...Get over it!
dungeAug 23, 2010
Religious extremist.
th4k1ddAug 23, 2010
You are an idiot!
mweatherAug 23, 2010
Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
Yep, small time.
u2canfailAug 23, 2010
And this is how the rich get richer! We could have no regulations at all. If they win. Then they would sell us "air, suitable for breathing." They fouled the rest of it. We already buy water, as our ground water is tainted in most places. Drinkable, maybe, but no longer good. Can't wait for the corporate takeover of government.
th4k1ddAug 23, 2010
And you think government can do better? WTF!
u2canfailAug 23, 2010
Yes, where tax money is sufficient for enforcement. Some of our environmental and safety regulations work really well. Example kids in sweat shops: gone. Our rivers are cleaner now than 10 years ago. There are all kinds of safety regs for industry, and it has saved sight, limbs and lives. These are government functions, because industry is greedy. And safety proceedures slow things down and cost money. No rules and the public looses. Corporate interests want to fund government candidates, to keep themselves in power, fewer regulations on their industry.
FYI: There is a difference between greed and profit. Workers and slaves are different too.
rspawnAug 23, 2010
This is how it works:
(from the article) "A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”"
So, which other frogs have they hatched?
thetxiAug 23, 2010
I want to know what seeds you can put in the ground that make frogs.
mtmankeithAug 23, 2010
George Soros = trying to raise taxes on himself, use government regulations to clean the air and water (at a cost to his corporations) and raise the level of income of all americans (sans BILLIONAIRES).
These two brothers = Trying to lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires, trying to pass regulations that pollute the air and water and keep self made men like themselves (oh I'm sorry, trust fund babies who's daddies/granddaddies left them hundreds of Millions) up and the rest of us down...
oh ya... good comparison
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
stay in the mountains, man. your attempt at spin is pathetic.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2009/10/george_soros_to_1.html
On Oct. 10, it was billionaire George Soros’ turn to get in on the act. Giving a speech in Denmark, the man who famously ‘broke the Bank of England’ in the early 1990s now plans to invest $1 billion in clean energy technology. Another $100 million — doled out in $10 million increments annually over ten years — will fund the newly-created Climate Policy Initiative, a foundation targeted at environmental policy
Soros, for instance, has invested in clean coal technology, including Portsmouth (NH)-based Powerspan Corp that specializes in carbon capture technology.
yeah soros has nothing to gain.....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dexx4dAug 23, 2010
@dateuf: One of these groups seems to be working to clean up the air my kids will breathe. The other group seems to be working to reduce environmental regulation so they can continue polluting.
I like breathing clean air.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
oh bulls**t.
both sides want to make money.
one side wants to scare you into thinking they are doing good for the planet (big surpsise you fell for it) in order to make money.
the other side wants to continue with business as usual to make money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dexx4dAug 23, 2010
@datuef: I lived downwind of a Koch paper towel plant - that town stank and I had trouble breathing some days when the pollution was so bad the air was brown. We moved out of town when we had a kid. Scared? Maybe, but I want better for my children.
Good for Soros, or anybody else, if they can make a buck as a businessman, as long as they're not lobbying to let their companies keep polluting.
hewhopoopsAug 26, 2010
Investing in and the promotion of clean energy leads to the development of clean energy. That's the goal for which we as a species have to aim.
hblaskAug 23, 2010
Buried for being biased partisan nonsense.
delphium226Aug 23, 2010
= 'Boohoo! It's showing up wingnuts!'
hblaskAug 23, 2010
I agree, the wingnuts on Digg certainly seem to be having a mass ejaculation over this article. That's another good indicator of how flawed the article is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hblaskAug 23, 2010
Lefty Diggers: Billionaires secretly giving to our causes: good. Billionaires giving to other guys: Bad
Nothing like a little intellectual integrity to start your day.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wiseguy1020Aug 23, 2010
You obviously have not RTFA.
anomaly100Aug 23, 2010
That's not a prerequisite for some. If I see something about Rangel, a Democrat, I want those submissions to do well. We don't need people like him, but when right wingers see something blatantly wrong with someone in their party, they defend it without reading it.
hblaskAug 23, 2010
I have read enough of the article and enough of the comments to know that the article was partisan crap, and the comments are just Lefty Diggers having a massive circle jerk that somebody wrote something nasty (no matter how untrue) about someone who disagrees with them.
In other words, typical day at Digg.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dandan111Aug 23, 2010
"Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.”
Right.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all#ixzz0xRkWu01q
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
schwit61Aug 23, 2010
Anyone who thinks these guys have different motives than Soros are deluding themselves. It's about using their money to influence people in power.
That aside, nobody should be allowed to give campaign contributions to any candidate unless they can vote for the candidate. Otherwise the elected official is beholden to people they don't represent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hewhopoopsAug 26, 2010
Yes, but what matters is the sort of policies these guys promote.
chuckdeesAug 23, 2010
You know whats funny about these guys. Their dad Fred Koch was one of the founders of the John Birch Society. Ironically he did a lot of contract work for Stalin and the Soviet Union. Funny that an anti communist capitalist had no problems taking commie money.
Koch turned his focus to foreign markets, including the Soviet Union, where Winkler-Koch built 15 cracking units between 1929 and 1932.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Koch
So the radical views of the JBS has become mainstream right wing thought. Barry Goldwater, Eisenhower and rational conservatives knew these people were freaks. But the GOP of today will accept any one or say anything to win control and power.
bdigital24Aug 23, 2010
But ANY POLITICAL PARTY will accept any one or say anything to win control and power.
jesus people
chuckdeesAug 23, 2010
That is not entirely true. There are people with values and morals.
bdigital24Aug 24, 2010
Yes, it is (unfortunately).
People in our current political climate with values and morals = Bigfoot
nevariusAug 23, 2010
I really dislike these Koch douche bags myself, but to be fair Fred Koch did the work before the Soviet Union turned into the evil empire. According to the article it greatly pained him that he helped the Soviet Union due to the direction the country took after wards.
This I'm guessing is why Fred Koch swung heavily to the opposite side of the spectrum and how it shaped his sons behavior/politics.
Oddly enough by being so opposed to communism or any ideology that even hints aspects of it, their actions mirror behavior that helped communism to obtain power.
Funny how extremists of any ideology can have much in common.
jeemboAug 23, 2010
I'm no right winger, but rich people throwing their money around to support the politicians that best support their ability to throw their money around sounds like it's par for the course to me.
anomaly100Aug 23, 2010
This is a bit extreme IMO, but I get your point. After the SCOTUS decision to allow corporations to stick it to the voters, this will seem par for the course.
(someone else dugg you down. Not me, I'm innocent I tell ya'!)
jeemboAug 23, 2010
Haha, it's all good. If my comment doesn't slant in either direction, I don't expect to get dugg.
peppermintpigAug 23, 2010
This is all besides the issue: The system itself is set up to enable this. No measure of government growth to counter lobbying will escape the accountability issue and the paradox of enforcement which is best known under the phrase "who watches the watchers". The fact that you have little say in the control of your own wallet is evidence enough. Their goal, from politicians to the people who play the system to avoid getting crushed by competitors or politicians, tends to be to milk as much out of the situation as possible and keep this process going so long as they can pull the wool over the eyes of individuals, or foreign financial groups and nations. Sometimes they'll do it for the benefit of the MIC and justify mass murder in the process, but it's all fraud and violence.
bdigital24Aug 23, 2010
"A day on digg is another day to expect disappointment by people following the wrong aspect of an issue with all the insight and attention of a cat chasing a laser pointer."
wow, i hope that is fair use because i just stole the s**t out of that line
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Could be worse I guess. It could be the Chinese paying off a Clinton...... again.
spycatcherAug 23, 2010
Or the Kennedy's using Russia to overthrow the US government.
thetxiAug 23, 2010
Or George W Bush raping the corpse of Abigail Adams.
You know, crazy s**t like that.
caughtthinkingAug 23, 2010
This title should read: Billionaire Polluters Spend Hundreds of Millions to Keep Polluting.
dirty f**ks.
spycatcherAug 23, 2010
How do I sign up?
th4k1ddAug 23, 2010
Sounds like business as usual. The question is, how is this different from the way the democratic platform is ran? You know, the machine that got President Obama elected...
Just sounds like more bulls**t on how things get done in the political world.
As far as I am concerned one party is black and the other white. When it comes time for said elected official to do said job...
Well said official is turns into Two-Face.
I say we just fire them all, setup a national voting system...we get to vote bills up or down based on popular vote. Get rid of congress, get brand new judges, and we, as the American people, have the president on strings.
In my opinion, only idiots allow a couple hundred people control their lives. I became politically aware when Clinton was president...All I have ever notices was political rot, total stupidity, and a 'whose penis is bigger' contest between two parties.
Enough is enough. Stop STEALING our money and stupid f**kING our country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
th4k1ddAug 23, 2010
Stupid => Stop...damn new mouse!
tao52nycAug 23, 2010
Praytell, how is "the madness of crowds" a better solution to policymaking OR protecting the rights of minorities? (I'm not necessarily talking "ethnic" minorities - I mean any group ending up on the short end of a "majority" vote.)
tao52nycAug 23, 2010
This is not news. The "Kochtopus" has been around for decades. They put big $$ into Ed Clark's Libertarian Party Presidential campaign in 1980 - he got 1,000,000 votes - a record that still stands. But the LP decided the price of allegiance wasn't worth it and kept the Koch's at arms length afterward.
homercles337Aug 24, 2010
And if you read the article, you would know that they have significantly changed their methods. They realized just using their money was not enough to further their flawed ideology. So they now have many libertarian "think" thanks, fake institutes, and bogus bulls**t fronts to spread their lies.
nullcodesAug 23, 2010
Folks, these are the Kochs behind the teabaggers.
hyraxAug 23, 2010
The poster makes it sound like waging war against Obama's flawed policies is a bad thing.
novenatorAug 23, 2010
Unprecedented obstruction, fear/hate mongering, and deliberately trying to sabotage the recover IS a bad thing. The cons need to engage in the recover process with an open mind and open heart, not this vindictive partisan war they have unleashed.
davidtromAug 23, 2010
The only thing that the article makes clear is that powerful billionaires engineered the Tea Party movement, after they realized, back in the 80's, that theirs ideas got less that 1% of the voting population.
They said " the problem with our Libertarian movement is too many chiefs and not Indians" so they started pouring 100's of millions of dollar on thinks tanks and organization that would fight, regulations of their industry, and not taxes from an ideological level. Now the got their "Indians" to do their bidding for them in the form of Tea party poeple who advocate the policies that will only benefit ultra rich people to their own detriments.
The difference between them and Soros is that they push and agenda that will ONLY benefit their bottom line.
trythinkingAug 24, 2010
Can someone please tell me why no one is trying to address the "Tea Party"? It's as if no one cares about their disinformation. I am learning to the belief that some of the things they say should be legally actionable.
clone206Aug 24, 2010
Alternative title: "The Dangers of 'Libertarianism' 101"
spycatcherAug 24, 2010
You may be amazed to learn my statement is a documented fact!!
User802795041Sep 3, 2010
Watch out - the anti-christ is rising!
atlanticworldSep 5, 2010
A brave and well-researched piece by Jane Mayer as she follows the money from the Tea Party movement back to its multi-billionaire, climate-change denying funders.