The Koch Brothers: Clear & Present Danger!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 12:51 AM GMT
    WASHINGTON -- At a private three-day retreat in California last weekend, conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch and about 250 to 300 other individuals pledged approximately $100 million to defeat President Obama in the 2012 elections. A source who was in the room when the pledges were made told The Huffington Post that, specifically, Charles Koch pledged $40 million and David pledged $20 million.

    The semi-annual, invitation-only meeting attracts wealthy donors, Republican politicians and conservative activists. Last year, hundreds of activists gathered outside the walled-off resort to protest the meeting. This year, however, the conference went off quietly. "Conference organizers and their guests successfully slipped in and out of the Coachella Valley without being detected, by buying out nearly all of the 500-plus rooms at the Renaissance Esmeralda resort in Indian Wells," reported The Desert Sun. "The resort closed its restaurants, locked down the grounds with private security guards and sent many workers home."

    This is the ninth straight year the Kochs have hosted the conference. As Politico reported last year, the meetings often adjourn "after soliciting pledges of support from the donors -- sometimes totaling as much as $50 million -- to nonprofit groups favored by the Kochs." The fact that the wealthy conservative donors pledged $100 million for the 2012 elections shows how intent they are on trying to get Obama out of office -- and previews how intense, and likely nasty, the general election will be.

    There are limits on how much an individual can give to a political candidate. Therefore, much of the money pledged at the recent gathering will likely go to super PACs or nonprofits that can spend and accept unlimited amounts of funds. GOP primary voters have already gotten a glimpse of how the political system looks with super PACs around: record amounts of money spent on a large number of negative ads in the early primary states.

    The source told The Huffington Post that they lamented the direction the conference has taken over the years. They said it used to be about "conservative strategy" and building a movement, but now it was mostly an "alpha male" spectacle focused on fundraising to beat Obama.

    The Koch brothers have been the major donors behind many Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement and efforts to discredit the science around man-made global warming. Democrats frequently highlight the brothers to fundraise, and the first TV ad of the Obama reelection campaign invoked them as "secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama with ads fact checkers say are not tethered to the facts."

    Also at the conference was Ken Griffin, founder and CEO of the Citadel Investment Group ...his company already gave $120,500 to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The Center for Public Integrity also reported that for the first time, Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson attended the conference. Adelson and his family are largely bankrolling Newt Gingrich's presidential run, with Adelson and his wife, Miriam, having given the pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future $10 million just this year.

    By: Amanda Terkel & Ryan Grim
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 12:58 AM GMT
    Its great that the Koch Brothers and their cronies will pump all that money into the the economy - sadly its not going towards helping buy vaccines for children, reduce child poverty, buy textbooks and repair our schools, fund research for medical science or technology, help abused women and children or much less anything else. Their sole aim is to destroy this great country which made them extrememly wealthy dispite their narrow minds.
  • AdAstra

    Posts: 9

    Feb 04, 2012 1:15 AM GMT
    Yes, their notion of liberty is really a self-serving one. They believe that they have a right to do as they please. While the profits are privatize, the costs are externalize and thus borne by society at large. What they really want is the right to pollute unencumbered by any government regulation. And their political agenda seeks not just to kill off the last remaining unions in the public sector but to disenfranchise a vast swath of the poor. All the voting rights laws that aim to restrict who can vote, when they can vote and how they votes that were passed since 2010 were written by ALEC, the Koch funded "public" policy forum that advises on legislation.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 1:15 AM GMT
    I will post the link for this because the OP continues to resist doing so. Why does he do this? Does he not know how to post URLs, or too lazy, or for some reason, believes he needs to hide the source?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/koch-brothers-100-million-obama_n_1250828.html

    In his second post, he laments the money contributed to Republican causes that could go to worthwhile causes. Shouldn't the same question be asked about the planned $1 Billion for the Obama campaign? OP did you forget to ask that also? It's a pretty blatant omission?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 1:20 AM GMT
    Obama's Enemies List - David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Ted Olson: Obama Attack On Koch Brothers Is Like Nixon's Enemies List
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Theodore-Olson-Koch-brothers/2012/02/02/id/428346
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidObama's Enemies List - David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Ted Olson: Obama Attack On Koch Brothers Is Like Nixon's Enemies List
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Theodore-Olson-Koch-brothers/2012/02/02/id/428346


    John - It's called a counter-attack. These douche bags have been after Obama since he stepped foot in the office. They are the worst kind of vulture capitalists who want to such up all the natural resources, pollute at will, and get people to work for slave wages. It's about time Obama fought back against them.

    Another victory for Occupy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 1:46 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidObama's Enemies List - David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Ted Olson: Obama Attack On Koch Brothers Is Like Nixon's Enemies List
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Theodore-Olson-Koch-brothers/2012/02/02/id/428346


    John - It's called a counter-attack. These douche bags have been after Obama since he stepped foot in the office. They are the worst kind of vulture capitalists who want to such up all the natural resources, pollute at will, and get people to work for slave wages. It's about time Obama fought back against them.

    Another victory for Occupy.

    If you want to consider Occupy continually relevant, that's fine, but it disregards even the opinion from the Harvard University study on the millennial's on their lack of support or interest in the Occupy so-called movement. The fact is, whether you want to agree or not, any discussion about the Koch Brothers applies equally to your good friend George Soros.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 2:37 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidObama's Enemies List - David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Ted Olson: Obama Attack On Koch Brothers Is Like Nixon's Enemies List
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Theodore-Olson-Koch-brothers/2012/02/02/id/428346


    John - It's called a counter-attack. These douche bags have been after Obama since he stepped foot in the office. They are the worst kind of vulture capitalists who want to such up all the natural resources, pollute at will, and get people to work for slave wages. It's about time Obama fought back against them.

    Another victory for Occupy.

    If you want to consider Occupy continually relevant, that's fine, but it disregards even the opinion from the Harvard University study on the millennial's on their lack of support or interest in the Occupy so-called movement. The fact is, whether you want to agree or not, any discussion about the Koch Brothers applies equally to your good friend George Soros.


    One study - Harvard or not - isn't really a game changer. And since when was OWS a "millenial's movement"? I don't recall there being an age distinction.

    Are you really blind to how OWS changed the national dialogue?

    And the George Soros thing is hilarious. He's like a boogey man for the right wingers but like most things you believe in, it's all based on lunatic rantings of talk radio hosts with barely an iota of truth.

    Now, when did Soros convene a bunch of left wing millionaires who pledged $100 million to unseat a Republican?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 2:45 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidOne study - Harvard or not - isn't really a game changer. And since when was OWS a "millenial's movement"? I don't recall there being an age distinction.

    Are you really blind to how OWS changed the national dialogue?

    And the George Soros thing is hilarious. He's like a boogey man for the right wingers but like most things you believe in, it's all based on lunatic rantings of talk radio hosts with barely an iota of truth.

    Now, when did Soros convene a bunch of left wing millionaires who pledged $100 million to unseat a Republican?

    The Harvard study was very scientific and statistically sound. Given the 18-29 crowd has been central to the liberal movement, when they are lost or disaffected, it is quite serious for the liberal movement and the Obama support. Your question about Soros convening a group to donate money is pretty amusing. He did not need to convene a group. He has pockets deep enough to give on his own.

    But we are taking up much space in the thread. Don't you think the OP is anxious to answer the question of the $1 Billion going to Obama which might be served for better causes? He's probably ready to jump in, don't you think? hehe
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 2:50 AM GMT
    AdAstra saidYes, their notion of liberty is really a self-serving one. They believe that they have a right to do as they please. While the profits are privatize, the costs are externalize and thus borne by society at large. What they really want is the right to pollute unencumbered by any government regulation. And their political agenda seeks not just to kill off the last remaining unions in the public sector but to disenfranchise a vast swath of the poor. All the voting rights laws that aim to restrict who can vote, when they can vote and how they votes that were passed since 2010 were written by ALEC, the Koch funded "public" policy forum that advises on legislation.





    You sure got this right. These far righters are using their millions that they'll never miss to buy politicians to promote legislation for the purpose of making even more millions for themselves and thereby shut out even more of the populace from the system, and out of any hopes for success.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 5:20 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOne study - Harvard or not - isn't really a game changer. And since when was OWS a "millenial's movement"? I don't recall there being an age distinction.

    Are you really blind to how OWS changed the national dialogue?

    And the George Soros thing is hilarious. He's like a boogey man for the right wingers but like most things you believe in, it's all based on lunatic rantings of talk radio hosts with barely an iota of truth.

    Now, when did Soros convene a bunch of left wing millionaires who pledged $100 million to unseat a Republican?

    The Harvard study was very scientific and statistically sound. Given the 18-29 crowd has been central to the liberal movement, when they are lost or disaffected, it is quite serious for the liberal movement and the Obama support. Your question about Soros convening a group to donate money is pretty amusing. He did not need to convene a group. He has pockets deep enough to give on his own.

    But we are taking up much space in the thread. Don't you think the OP is anxious to answer the question of the $1 Billion going to Obama which might be served for better causes? He's probably ready to jump in, don't you think? hehe


    What are you talking about "the 18-29 crowd has been central to the liberal movement"? Are you really this out of touch?

    And the Koch Brothers each have more money than Soros and combined have more than double. And a recent study of billionaires giving to SuperPACs showed the 16 of the top 20 were supporting Romney.

    So your "liberal" bogey man is just that.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 04, 2012 11:20 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidObama's Enemies List - David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Ted Olson: Obama Attack On Koch Brothers Is Like Nixon's Enemies List
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Theodore-Olson-Koch-brothers/2012/02/02/id/428346


    Ooooh Vituperation .... I like that
    I haven't seen that word used in a LONG time
    What you fail to see or get from the post is that we are now seeing campaigns and and therefore elections bought and paid for by extremely wealthy people
    No? .... ask the little troll Newt Ginggrich if he would have had a chance if someone named Sheldon Adelson didn't dump a suitcase full of cash into his busy little lap
    Who do we have to thank for this wonderful change in politics ?
    Send your notes in lieu of flowers to the men in black (Roberts et al)
    Now is this flood of cash on both sides?
    Yes it is ... but and this is a BIG but ... it's way more symptomatic on the red side than on the blue side
    and finally ... you want some vituperation? ... turn on Fox anytime and wait til they bring up the name George Soros and see what happens
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 12:42 PM GMT
    i just read "a" Harvard University study. it shows President Obama leading Mr. Romney rather handily (Obama: 37%, Romney: 26%). i think it a healthy indication that ppl hadn't made up their minds at the time of the study. no one should until we know who's actually in the general election.

    http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Research-Publications/Survey/Fall-2011-Survey

    (is there another Harvard study i should look at instead?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 3:13 PM GMT
    tailgater_3 saidi just read "a" Harvard University study. it shows President Obama leading Mr. Romney rather handily (Obama: 37%, Romney: 26%). i think it a healthy indication that ppl hadn't made up their minds at the time of the study. no one should until we know who's actually in the general election.

    http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Research-Publications/Survey/Fall-2011-Survey

    (is there another Harvard study i should look at instead?)

    No, not another study. The same study was referring to, titled:

    MORE MILLENNIALS PREDICT OBAMA WILL LOSE BID
    FOR RE-ELECTION THAN WIN, HARVARD POLL FINDS

    Mitt Romney strongest Republican challenger to President Obama;
    less than one-in-four Millennials support the "Occupy" movement

    Plurality of Millennials predict Obama will lose bid for re-election. Among all 18-29 year-olds, more believe that Barack Obama will lose re-election (36%) than win (30%), with almost a third (32%) not sure – the margin is nearly identical among students enrolled in four-year colleges (37%: lose, 31%: win, 31%: not sure). Among survey respondents who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, less than half (48%) believe he will win re-election at this time (19% say Obama will lose, with 33% undecided).

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Any poll can change over time, but I referred to the study for the poll on the support to the occupy "movement". No reason to assume any substantial change in that. What you chose from the study for some reason was likely the most volatile result, the pair ups between Obama and Republicans. That was taken when much of the Republicans were firing at each other as part of the primaries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 3:24 PM GMT
    And the danger is?

    lol
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 04, 2012 3:58 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    tailgater_3 saidi just read "a" Harvard University study. it shows President Obama leading Mr. Romney rather handily (Obama: 37%, Romney: 26%). i think it a healthy indication that ppl hadn't made up their minds at the time of the study. no one should until we know who's actually in the general election.

    http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Research-Publications/Survey/Fall-2011-Survey

    (is there another Harvard study i should look at instead?)

    No, not another study. The same study was referring to, titled:

    MORE MILLENNIALS PREDICT OBAMA WILL LOSE BID
    FOR RE-ELECTION THAN WIN, HARVARD POLL FINDS

    Mitt Romney strongest Republican challenger to President Obama;
    less than one-in-four Millennials support the "Occupy" movement

    Plurality of Millennials predict Obama will lose bid for re-election. Among all 18-29 year-olds, more believe that Barack Obama will lose re-election (36%) than win (30%), with almost a third (32%) not sure – the margin is nearly identical among students enrolled in four-year colleges (37%: lose, 31%: win, 31%: not sure). Among survey respondents who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, less than half (48%) believe he will win re-election at this time (19% say Obama will lose, with 33% undecided).

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Any poll can change over time, but I referred to the study for the poll on the support to the occupy "movement". No reason to assume any substantial change in that. What you chose from the study for some reason was likely the most volatile result, the pair ups between Obama and Republicans. That was taken when much of the Republicans were firing at each other as part of the primaries.


    Any Poll can change over time

    Si Senor .... but given Romney's wonderful gift of gab I bet that the change you're gonna get is not the kinda change you really want icon_wink.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Feb 04, 2012 4:15 PM GMT
    GQjock saidI bet that the change you're gonna get is not the kinda change you really want icon_wink.gif




    Ahhhhhh, yes, if anyone can relate to that statement, those who voted for Obama in 2008 sure can. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 4:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnd the danger is?

    lol







    The danger is that the overwhelming $$$$$$$ infusion from a few very wealthy political donors outweights any hopes of the interests of the common man being heard over the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ influence from those few.

    Those wealthy few buy the policies and legislation that sway government to benefit themselves at the expence of for instance the shrinking middle class.

    A very 'clear and present danger'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 5:06 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd the danger is?

    lol







    The danger is that the overwhelming $$$$$$$ infusion from a few very wealthy political donors outweights any hopes of the interests of the common man being heard over the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ influence from those few.

    Those wealthy few buy the policies and legislation that sway government to benefit themselves at the expence of for instance the shrinking middle class.

    A very 'clear and present danger'.


    But what's the discrepancy between this in particular and the fact that wealthy donors on both sides infuse millions of dollars to help a certain preferred party with an election?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Feb 04, 2012 5:16 PM GMT
    All politicians both democrat and republican are bought and controlled by wealthy donars. So what is the difference who gets electedicon_question.gif They are all corrupt.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 5:19 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    realifedad said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd the danger is?

    lol







    The danger is that the overwhelming $$$$$$$ infusion from a few very wealthy political donors outweights any hopes of the interests of the common man being heard over the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ influence from those few.

    Those wealthy few buy the policies and legislation that sway government to benefit themselves at the expence of for instance the shrinking middle class.

    A very 'clear and present danger'.


    But what's the discrepancy between this in particular and the fact that wealthy donors on both sides infuse millions of dollars to help a certain preferred party with an election?
    The utter destruction of the 'democratic' principles this country was founded on.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 04, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    GQjock saidI bet that the change you're gonna get is not the kinda change you really want icon_wink.gif




    Ahhhhhh, yes, if anyone can relate to that statement, those who voted for Obama in 2008 sure can. icon_wink.gif


    But again the very thing you point to is what you fear the most
    When people who had voted for Obama gripe
    .... And this is me included
    We complain that he DIDN'T go far enough
    and that he didn't fight the republicans tooth and nail

    But that seems to be changing .... And it's reflected in his poll numbers
    If you notice ..... Every time he's stood up to the right wing those numbers go up not down
    So when people say they are disappointed ....... They are disappointed for the EXACT opposite reason that you wish for
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 6:43 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    realifedad said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd the danger is?

    lol







    The danger is that the overwhelming $$$$$$$ infusion from a few very wealthy political donors outweights any hopes of the interests of the common man being heard over the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ influence from those few.

    Those wealthy few buy the policies and legislation that sway government to benefit themselves at the expence of for instance the shrinking middle class.

    A very 'clear and present danger'.


    But what's the discrepancy between this in particular and the fact that wealthy donors on both sides infuse millions of dollars to help a certain preferred party with an election?
    The utter destruction of the 'democratic' principles this country was founded on.


    I don't like a lot of the big political contributions that happen but how would you propose preventing it? You can't just tell someone that they can't donate because they have a lot of money.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 7:08 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    realifedad said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd the danger is?

    lol







    The danger is that the overwhelming $$$$$$$ infusion from a few very wealthy political donors outweights any hopes of the interests of the common man being heard over the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ influence from those few.

    Those wealthy few buy the policies and legislation that sway government to benefit themselves at the expence of for instance the shrinking middle class.

    A very 'clear and present danger'.


    But what's the discrepancy between this in particular and the fact that wealthy donors on both sides infuse millions of dollars to help a certain preferred party with an election?
    The utter destruction of the 'democratic' principles this country was founded on.


    I don't like a lot of the big political contributions that happen but how would you propose preventing it? You can't just tell someone that they can't donate because they have a lot of money.



    Actually, there have historically been caps on political contributions and still are in terms of direct support to a candidate. Or, we could just publicly fund all elections as many other post-industrial countries do, which would minimize the influence of money and end the perpetual campaign season, so politicians would actually govern.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2012 7:42 PM GMT
    a few political contributions facts that i find interesting:

    1. "President Barack Obama has raised more money for his re-election bid from small-dollar donors than Republican Mitt Romney has collected from all his contributors, according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

    Overall, since he launched his re-election campaign in April, Obama has raised about $125 million. Thus, about 47 percent of his total receipts -- nearly $1 out of every $2 raised -- has come from a donor of $200 or less, the threshold for itemized reporting with the Federal Election Commission.

    Meanwhile, Romney, who has raised about $56.5 million for his presidential campaign, saw only about 9 percent of that -- or $5.2 million -- coming from small-dollar donors, according to the Center's research."

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/02/small-dollar-donors-propel-obama.html

    2. "The super-political action committee backing Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner for the 2012 nomination, raised $30m last year, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission published on Wednesday, with 10 individuals and corporations donating $1m each.

    One conservative campaign group cofounded by Karl Rove, former adviser to George W. Bush, which includes a super-Pac, raised $51m by the end of 2011, raking in $7m in two donations from a single Texas businessman, Harold Simmons.

    By contrast, the super-Pac supporting Mr Obama, cofounded by the president’s former deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, had raised only $4.4m by the end of last year."

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c7529cb8-4cd9-11e1-8b08-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lRXJrjmT